|
List Info Thread: Our first defamation case?
[1-4]
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
about | contact Other archives ( Real Estate discussion Medical topics ) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Our first defamation case? |
|
List Info Thread: Our first defamation case?
[1-4]
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
about | contact Other archives ( Real Estate discussion Medical topics ) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
- d.
EFF and Sheppard Mullin Defend Wikipedia in Defamation Case
Federal Law Protects Popular User-Created Encyclopedia From
Liability
San Francisco - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and
the law
firm of Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton Thursday filed
a motion to
dismiss a lawsuit brought against the operator of the
popular online
encyclopedia Wikipedia, arguing that federal law immunizes
it against
suits over statements made by its users.
Literary agent Barbara Bauer filed a complaint in New Jersey
Superior
Court in January against Wikipedia posters as well as the
site itself,
claiming in part that the Wikimedia Foundation was liable
for
statements identifying her as one the "dumbest of the
twenty worst"
agents and that she had "no documented sales at
all." In court papers
filed Thursday, Wikimedia argues that under Section 230 of
the
Communications Decency Act, operators of "interactive
computer
services" such as Wikipedia cannot be held liable for
users' comments.
In addition, Wikimedia argues that the statements are
protected speech
under the First Amendment and New Jersey law.
The ability to utilize the collaborative input of its users
without
fear of costly lawsuits is essential to Wikipedia's ongoing
success,
said Wikimedia Foundation General Counsel Mike Godwin.
"We provide a platform through Wikipedia for smart
citizens to give
their knowledge back to a larger culture," Godwin said.
"Our ability
to offer citizens that platform is what's at stake in this
case."
Since it was signed into law over a decade ago, courts
across the
country have consistently applied the protections of Section
230
broadly, fulfilling Congress' intent "to preserve the
vibrant and
competitive free market that presently exists for the
Internet and
other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal
or State
regulation."
"Congress passed Section 230 of the Communications
Decency Act in
order to protect websites' operators like Wikipedia from
suits like
this one," said James Chadwick of Sheppard Mullin.
"It's simple but
it's fundamental: Congress has decided that Internet
censorship isn't
the answer, so websites aren't liable for statements posted
by their
users."
Section 230's blanket protection of sites like Wikipedia
does not mean
that alleged defamation on the Internet cannot be challenged
in court.
Instead, the law requires that litigants direct their
efforts at the
speakers themselves and not the forums where statements were
made.
"Wikipedia continues to be a tremendous resource for
people around the
globe," added EFF Senior Staff Attorney Matt Zimmerman.
"Without
strong liability protection, it would be difficult for
Wikipedia to
continue to provide a platform for user-created encyclopedia
content."
For the full motion to dismiss:
eff.org
Mike Godwin
General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
mgodwin