Slashdot Mirror
Golfer Sues Over Vandalized Wikipedia Entry
coondoggie writes "Pro golfer Fuzzy Zoeller is suing to track down the author of what Zoeller says is a defamatory paragraph about him on the Wikipedia site. In an Associated Press story Zoeller's attorney, Scott Sheftall, said he filed a lawsuit against a Miami firm last week because the law won't allow him to sue Wikipedia."
So what's the story...the fact that he's doing the right thing here?
He's suing the correct person for (if the accusations are true - and you've seen Wikipedia troll edits, they probably are) a legitimate reason. So the story is that he's not an idiot suing Wikipedia like the rest of the idiots would?
ACs are modded -6. I don't read you, I don't mod you, I don't see you. Don't like it? Don't be a coward.
He didn't sue the law firm because he can't sue Wikipedia so much as he sued the origin of the IP address from which the edits came (which happened to be a law firm) rather than Wikipedia , because he was unlikely to win against Wikipedia. Strictly speaking, there are very few cases (none that I can think of) where you just can't sue (whether the suit survives a 12(b) motion to dismiss -- especially 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6) -- is another issue entirely).
Technically, yes. And you can't be criminally prosecuted for something of that nature, nor can it be restrained in advance. There is probably an exception for conspiracy to commit an actual crime. However, if you say something untrue that damages someone, you can be held liable for those damages. If the speech is printed, it's called libel; if spoken it is called slander.
Floating face-down in a river of regret...and thoughts of you...
You mean "libel, not slander." Slander and libel are both forms of defamation.
He did say the stuff about Tiger Woods, and he did apologize and withdraw from the US Open that year as a result. The rest was apparently made up by the vandal - some pretty vicious stuff about wife-beating, based on the copy that was linked. I don't blame him for suing.
BTW I remember his open apology to Woods which he read aloud at a press conference, and it was actually was very nicely done. 100 percent different from the half-hearted, ghostwritten-by-my-agent "apologies" we're accustomed to hearing from the likes of Tim Hardaway, Nick Saban, etc.
In case someone is wondering what makes Fuzzy notorious, here's the goods. Pretty stupid, but he apologized later (and I think very well).
If I remember my libel law properly, just because it's false doesn't make it libel (at least in the states). For something to be libelous:
1) It must be false
2) It must have been uttered in *full knowledge of its falsehood*, or in reckless disregard for the truth.
3) It must have been uttered with "actual malace"
To collect damages one must also prove:
a) A reasonable party might have believed the statement
b) A reasonable party, upon hearing/reading it, would have through less of the victim
So in defending a libel case you've got three bright line defenses:
It was true. Prove this and you go home.
It was *reaonsably believed to be true* at the time of utterance. Prove this and you go home.
It was uttered without malice. Prove this and you go home.
Then you've got some wiggle room on the defamation half:
Sure it was malicious and libelous, but nobody would believe it
Sure it was malicious and libelous, and everyone believed it, but the plaintif had a crappy reputation to start with and the statements didn't make it materially worse.
Short version is that defending a libel case in the states is usually easy unless the case in truly eggregious.
I would think it highly optimistic to think that Wikipedia can't be sued.
No. As I mentioned elsewhere under this story, Wikipedia can't be sued for libelous information put there by users, by virtue of the only good part of the CDA, 47 USC 230. No need to be skeptical about it; it's been applied numerous times in the decade or so it's been around, and it is very protective of people and service providers online who aren't the original sources of the information at issue. Look it up.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
You gotta admit: if that paragraph isn't true, it is definitely libel by its defaming nature. Most people would be angry if this were in their own wikipedia entry. I know the Slashdot title is sensationalist, but in all honesty, I can see why he'd want to sue.
As a Wikibook administratos I can tell you that the WikiMedia software never deletes anything - it is just hidden from the general public. If you have a legitimate reason to look at deleted entries you can ask an Administrator to make the data available to you.
Martin