Wouldn't regulating content mean abdicating the role of webhost, which would call Section 230 into question?
________________________________ From: David Gerard <[email protected]> To: [email protected]; Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <[email protected]> Sent: Sun, May 9, 2010 4:21:46 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening On 10 May 2010 00:04, Sue Gardner <[email protected]> wrote: > My view is that Jimmy and others have brought closure to the "scope of > Jimmy's authority" question. In saying that, I don't mean to diminish the > importance of that question -- I realize that many people are angry about > what's happened over the past week, and it will take time for them to be less > angry. Ting's statements on the role of the Board (that it should regulate project content) will also take some digesting. I doubt chapters outside the US put people forward for the Board thinking this would mean the Board supporting content removal to appease Fox News. - d. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
