Re: [Wikimedia-l] Court decision in Jones v. Dirty World Recording Entertainment LLC

2014-06-17 Thread rupert THURNER 
What does this decision mean in simple English?

Rupert
Am 17.06.2014 09:08 schrieb "Martijn Hoekstra" :

> On Jun 17, 2014 3:55 AM, "Kevin Godfrey" 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > On 17 Jun 2014, at 4:17 am, edward  wrote:
> > >
> > >> On 16/06/2014 21:07, Newyorkbrad wrote:
> > >> In its decision, the Sixth Circuit takes a broad view of Section 230
> and
> > >> holds that Section 230 protection is not lost even where the website
> > >> operator solicited contributors to post unsourced and uncorroborated
> "dirt"
> > >> about anyone they pleased, and even where the website operator
> selected
> > >> which contributions would be published.
> > > Isn't that rather a bad thing? What was the rationale behind its view?
> > >
> >
> > Would this allow the WMF to exercise a degree of editorial control over
> the projects without jeopardizing their S230 immunity? I'm specifically
> thinking of BLPs.
> >
> > Kevin
>
> Don't they already do that? I see office actions on rare occasions.
>
> --Martijn
>
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Court decision in Jones v. Dirty World Recording Entertainment LLC

2014-06-17 Thread Martijn Hoekstra 
On Jun 17, 2014 3:55 AM, "Kevin Godfrey"  wrote:
>
>
> > On 17 Jun 2014, at 4:17 am, edward  wrote:
> >
> >> On 16/06/2014 21:07, Newyorkbrad wrote:
> >> In its decision, the Sixth Circuit takes a broad view of Section 230
and
> >> holds that Section 230 protection is not lost even where the website
> >> operator solicited contributors to post unsourced and uncorroborated
"dirt"
> >> about anyone they pleased, and even where the website operator selected
> >> which contributions would be published.
> > Isn't that rather a bad thing? What was the rationale behind its view?
> >
>
> Would this allow the WMF to exercise a degree of editorial control over
the projects without jeopardizing their S230 immunity? I'm specifically
thinking of BLPs.
>
> Kevin

Don't they already do that? I see office actions on rare occasions.

--Martijn

> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Court decision in Jones v. Dirty World Recording Entertainment LLC

2014-06-16 Thread Kevin Godfrey 

> On 17 Jun 2014, at 4:17 am, edward  wrote:
> 
>> On 16/06/2014 21:07, Newyorkbrad wrote:
>> In its decision, the Sixth Circuit takes a broad view of Section 230 and
>> holds that Section 230 protection is not lost even where the website
>> operator solicited contributors to post unsourced and uncorroborated "dirt"
>> about anyone they pleased, and even where the website operator selected
>> which contributions would be published.
> Isn't that rather a bad thing? What was the rationale behind its view?
> 

Would this allow the WMF to exercise a degree of editorial control over the 
projects without jeopardizing their S230 immunity? I'm specifically thinking of 
BLPs.

Kevin
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Court decision in Jones v. Dirty World Recording Entertainment LLC

2014-06-16 Thread Newyorkbrad 
It's certainly a very troubling outcome given the facts of the case, which
I was reporting rather than endorsing.  The appeals court relied partly on
the breadth of the statute enacted by Congress, and partly on the
difficulty of drawing lines reflecting which types of conduct by a
site-owner would or would not be protected if the statute were construed
more narrowly.

The court's decision, and particularly the key portions of it quoted on the
Volokh blog, are reasonably accessible to non-lawyers, so everyone
interested can certainly review them rather than rely on my summary.

Incidentally, another appeals court decision issued today may also be of
interest.  Here is Judge Posner writing for the Seventh Circuit on the
copyright status of Sherlock Holmes pastiches:
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2014/D06-16/C:14-1128:J:Posner:aut:T:fnOp:N:1363624:S:0

Newyorkbrad




On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 4:17 PM, edward  wrote:

> On 16/06/2014 21:07, Newyorkbrad wrote:
>
>> In its decision, the Sixth Circuit takes a broad view of Section 230 and
>> holds that Section 230 protection is not lost even where the website
>> operator solicited contributors to post unsourced and uncorroborated
>> "dirt"
>> about anyone they pleased, and even where the website operator selected
>> which contributions would be published.
>>
> Isn't that rather a bad thing? What was the rationale behind its view?
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Court decision in Jones v. Dirty World Recording Entertainment LLC

2014-06-16 Thread edward 

On 16/06/2014 21:07, Newyorkbrad wrote:

In its decision, the Sixth Circuit takes a broad view of Section 230 and
holds that Section 230 protection is not lost even where the website
operator solicited contributors to post unsourced and uncorroborated "dirt"
about anyone they pleased, and even where the website operator selected
which contributions would be published.

Isn't that rather a bad thing? What was the rationale behind its view?

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

[Wikimedia-l] Court decision in Jones v. Dirty World Recording Entertainment LLC

2014-06-16 Thread Newyorkbrad 
(Cross-posted from my En-wiki talkpage)

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

has issued its decision today in *Jones v. Dirty World Entertainment
Recordings LLC*.  This is a well-known dispute involving application of Section
230 of the Communications Decency Act

in the context of a website ("www.TheDirty.com") whose goals and contents
are deplorable.  The court's decision can be found here
.  A blog post
(Eugene Volokh) summarizing the decision can be found here

.

In its decision, the Sixth Circuit takes a broad view of Section 230 and
holds that Section 230 protection is not lost even where the website
operator solicited contributors to post unsourced and uncorroborated "dirt"
about anyone they pleased, and even where the website operator selected
which contributions would be published.

The protection of Section 230 enables websites such as Wikipedia to operate
without fear that the Foundation will be subject to suit anytime someone,
such as a BLP subject, disagrees with the content of an article. It is a
truism that Freedom of Speech under the First Amendment and statues like
Section 230 protects speech we do not care for as well as speech whose
value we appreciate.

That being said, the decision is a reminder that those of us who care about
how Wikipedia treats the subject of BLP articles must remain vigilant in
keeping such articles free of defamatory, unsourced negative, unduly
weighted, and privacy-invading content, as well as in using good judgment
regarding which living persons should be the subject of articles at all. At
least in the United States, for better or worse, the law will do little to
protect the people we write about in our encyclopedia. Treating them fairly
and responsible is therefore, all the more clearly, our collective,
non-delegable editorial responsibility.

Newyorkbrad
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,