Slashdot Mirror
Wikipedia Wins Defamation Case
Raul654 writes "Yesterday, a French judge dismissed a lawsuit against the Wikimedia Foundation for defamation. The judge found that 'Web site hosts cannot be liable under civil law because of information stored on them if they do not in fact know of their illicit nature.' According to the inquirer: 'Three plaintiffs were each seeking 69,000 euros ($100,000) in damages for invasion of their privacy after their homosexuality was revealed on the website.'"
A correction has been posted:
'Three plaintiffs were each seeking 69,000,000 euros ($100,000,000) in damages for invasion of their privacy after their homosexuality was revealed on the website.'"
liqbase
Specifically, this part of the Reuters writeup:
"Web site hosts cannot be liable under civil law because of information stored on them if they do not in fact know of their illicit nature," Binoche said in his written ruling released at the Paris civil law court earlier this week.
Moreover, Web site hosts are not legally bound to monitor or investigate the origin of the information they store, he added.
IANAL, but I wonder if this could have ramifications in the file-sharing world..
(As the original submitter of this article) For the applicability in US law, you guys might want to listen to this session recording from Wikimania 2006.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
If it was posted they were homosexuals and they weren't, that'd be defamation. But it states their "homosexuality was revealed on wikipedia". Which leads me to believe they are in fact homosexual.
So how does revealing the truth equate to defamation?
Bet the judge went back to his chamber, looked up what 'defamation' is on wikipedia, and came out and made his ruling...
Hell, if I had a nickel for every time some AC posted "You're a fag!" in response to an edit or post that they didn't like, I'd make Bill Gates look poor. The normal response is "Fuck off, AC!" or "No, YOU'RE a fag!".
These douchebags, however, decided to sue. Who do they think they are? Americans?
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Anyone else find it ironic that they all sued for 69,000 euros?
All your reading ability are belong to me.
I of course didn't RTFA (eye muss knot bee knew hear, looser) so I have to ask: was one of them Ted Turner?
Note that if you don't click the link this coment may seem flamebait or offtopic, and the joke will be on you. Hey, wait a minute, IN SOVIET Ru OW OW stop hitting me!
-mcgrew
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
...who are these three "notable" homosexuals, that the articles about them can survive more than two days.
Why would someone who's European complain about such statements? After all, the Europeans bitch and moan about how ass-backwards and right-leaning the U.S. and Americans are while trying to give the impression that they're all-accepting, liberal, and open...
Does this article imply things aren't as rosy in Europe as I've been led to believe?
Windows 3.1x calc: 3.11 - 3.10 = 0.00
Fortunately this meets the criteria for notability. http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/31/0328239
Virginia is for lovers. EVE is for griefers.
They can't be too concerned with the public declaration of their sexuality on the site if they are willing to come at Wikimedia in court. Might as well shout it from the rooftops. Haven't they ever hear of Barbara Streisand?
"It's amazing what velocity can do when human beings are in season" -Matthew Good
So... some information is missing here. Who was it?
c++;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Angela_Beesley
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Angela_Beesley_(2nd_nomination)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Angela_Beesley_(3rd_nomination)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Angela_Beesley_(4th_nomination)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Angela_Beesley_(5th_nomination)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Angela_Beesley_(6th_nomination)
There are other examples of this throughout WP. Jim Wales' personal intervention to ensure that his bio did not use the term "pornography" when describing what Bomis was is one. I hope to heck that WP never allows the "higher ups" to trump the system, especially if they are being dragged to court for upholding their right to publish information about other people.
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
I'd agree with the GP, anyone arguing at that level is unlikely to get the grammar right.
Shut the fuck up.
This is where a conventional encyclopedia, with experienced editors, outshines wikipedia (one of the many places). An experienced editor will usually reject forced outing of people, or revealing that they're gay when they'd rather keep that private, because it rarely adds to the factual content of the article and can interrupt the parts of their lives that should be private. Shame on wikipedia. Although I agree with the courts, I see this forced outing as a bad call for wikipedia to have made.
technical writing / development
Dumbledore is suing J.K. Rowling for declaring "I always thought of Dumbledore as gay!"
Interesting that this article was tagged "good". In normal cases people around here wines like hell when even the slightest indication that their privacy might be at stake. And then this shows up where it seems that private information about these three guys where posted, without their approval. They tried to get redeemed and failed in court. Good or bad? One thing is certain, out privacy are being threatened.
If someone said I can't tell the difference between the digestive system and the reproductive system.
Anyone here up for a countersuit? I think there has to be some kind of anti-discrimination law that states that you're in the wrong if you call it defamation when someone claims that you're gay.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Ted Turner is most definitly a fag.
Whether he's homosexual, I don't know.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Too lazy to RTFA, but from the summary, a thought occurs:
If you're gay, and you're trying to hide it, and someone online says "OFMG U R TEH GAYZ", do you
A, say "Haha, you're stupid. No I'm not.", or do you
B, sue them for revealing your secret?
Someone should see if this works on the government. "OFMG U R TEH WIRETAPPING US D:"
Don't let the few jingoistic jackasses (on either continent) fool you - things are just as benighted and ugly parts of in Europe, and in roughly the same proportions, as they are in parts of North America.
No nation has a monopoly on idiocy.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_France
^..^
Same thing that makes yours flamebait. >:(
I don't know the term in English, but this was a "référé" lawsuit, which means that the plaintiff claimed there was an emergency. The court was not deciding on the basic merits of the case, but rather deciding whether the alleged libellous statements were so bad that something had to be done ASAP. In any case, I don't believe the court would have awarded them any money (that would be for a normal lawsuit to decide), but they could have ordered WP to do delete the stuff from their DB (could luck with all the mirrors laying around) or face contempt.
BTW 100k is just outrageous, even celebrities don't get that much when suing repeat-offender tabloids. At best they'd get a few hundred bucks and attorney's fees.
I guess the case would have had a different turn if it was in US? I guess according to US laws, the host is responsible for what is posted through it. I am trying to guess, what would have happened if some users had used Wikipedia to share information to co-ordinate Al-Qaeda attacks in US?? Who would be held responsible if something like that happened?
When a thief sees a saint, all he sees are his pockets!
WikiMedia Foundation chairwoman Florence Devouard says at http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-November/034529.html "An injunction was sought against WMF to force it to remove content from
:-)
the french wikipedia, that the plaintiffs deemed defamatory and
infringing on their privacy. The plaintiffs also sought 63,000 Euros in
damages, and requested from the WMF to provide contact information of
the anonymous editor responsible for the edit.
The court stated that the Foundation is a hosting provider in the sense
of article 6 of the LCEN ("Loi pour la confiance dans l'économie
numérique") and as such has no obligation to keep watch on the content
that it hosts and can not be held accountable for the content added by
contributors to the encyclopedia.
The same law states that hosting providers must remove illegal content
when notified it exists. In this case, the dispute centred largely
around when the Foundation was notified. The plaintiffs believed they
had notified the Foundation via e-mail, although the Foundation has no
record of the e-mails having been received. The court did not consider
e-mails sufficient notification.
Also, the court stated that when a hosting provider is notified about
libelous content, it only has to remove content that is obviously libelous.
In this case, the lawsuit was filed before the Foundation was officially
alerted. As soon as the Foundation received official notification, it
immediately removed the content in question.
The court also stated that once the Foundation was notified of the
problem, it acted swiftly and removed the content. As a result, WMF won
the lawsuit and will not have to pay for any damages. The request to
provide the contact information of the editor responsible for the edit
was also dismissed.
--------
This is very good news for the Foundation. We maintain that WMF is not
the publisher, owner or monitor on any of the Wikipedia projects (and
obviously not the WP FR). We are pleased to have our position upheld and
supported in a court of law.
In general, it is extremely important that we get used to quickly remove
any defamatory content, or privacy-invasive content, as soon as it is
brought to our attention. "We", in this case, mean "all of us". Editors
of Wikipedia, volunteers on OTRS, staff members. The more we care about
people requests of this type, the more we will be recognized as a
community caring about the truth and caring about the individual. Whilst
we must not fall into easy censorship and let ourselves be pressured to
remove information which should be available to humanship just because
it does not please a couple of people, it is also important to remember
that we are a top 10 website, widely read everywhere and that any
erroneous information on people may have huge consequences in their
private and professional lives.
Being available to answer readers concerns *is* important. There is no
gain for anyone to get in a court to solve such issues (except for
lawyers in fact). Most conflicts of that sort could be solved through
communication.
Whilst the current case was not strictly speaking a biography page, it
involved living people. So, my email is also a reminder that policies
such as the "biographies of living people" in the english wikipedia are
very helpful to both protect our projects and help making sure our
content is as reliable as possible.
Let us seek to avoid violence when violence can be avoided
I suggest that every project get a look at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons
And consider building such policies in the near future.
A few links for more information
*
(Wikipedia)
How can it be defamation if it's true?
Truth is a defense to a defamation claim in the U.S. so if they are actually homosexual then there would be no defamation claim because the statements were true.
Human society could not function without homosexuals/bisexuals (or at least without hetrosexuals willing to be affectionate with the same sex). Homosexuality has evolved in all social animal for a reason.
That reason was to prevent too much competition amongst the same-sex, and to reduce the gap between male and female. Can you imagine the human race as being totally polarised? Women would be a feeable segregated underclass. That we have a broad spectrum of sexuality, helps us, rather than hinders us.
At least you didn't say "mauve" or "taupe" or "chartreuse", then you'd have people running for Wikipedia. Being metro does not make one homosexual.
Three plaintiffs were each seeking 69,000 euros ($100,000) in damages for invasion of their privacy after their homosexuality was revealed
So, I haven't RTFA'd yet, but at first glance, it seems like they may have had their three-way homosexual relationship revealed.
Wouldn't that be hilarious?
You should try to ask nicely first. (i.e., an admin or something)
Three plantifs?!? Wha?!
Help Me! I'm trapped in the tubes! Oh noes! Here comes a internet!
In other news in the US, 69.000 homosexuals joined in a defamation class action suit against 3 Frenchmen engaged in a suit claiming being identified as a homosexual was defamatory. The American gays claim damages of 1 US dollar for each homosexual in the United States and that the Frenchmen submit themselves as models to replace the goatse.cx guy after the plaintiffs finish gang-banging them. The judge ruled that the modeling requirement would be an illegal display of punishment.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
a nigger fag muslim
hope these people never discover encyclopedia dramatica!
That sounds like if you are sick, and go to doctor to get doctor's affirmation letter that you are sick, and therefore should be excused from a day out of sickness from your work. Then once you're well again and come to work with this doctor's affirmation letter, your boss tells you: "Since you were able to go to see the doctor, you were able to come to work, you SOB!"
Spider Robinson wrote once about rape cases. He had an interesting point. Since proving that a sexual act was in fact a rape and not a consent act of sex is very difficult, and telling everyone about you being raped brings a stigma on you, it would be much better for you, as the victim, to sue the rapist of indecent exposure in the public. That way if the rapist tries to defend.
"had used Wikipedia to share information to co-ordinate Al-Qaeda attacks in US?? Who would be held responsible"
Al Qaeda, of course. They would have performed the attacks.
what the fuck ever. go and be a fag you dumb bitch. fags need to be fed into the ovens.
Wikipedia picks your lock and kicks you out of your own closet.
One aspect of US law that, I think, European democracy could benefit from.
"Linux is for noobs"-The new MS fud strategy
"The U.S.-based Wikipedia Foundation, which is behind the popular compendium, was sued by three French nationals over a Wikipedia article that said they were gay activists."
Notice there is an error - it is the Wikimedia Foundation. It's a shame there isn't an "edit this page" link on Reuters' article so I can correct this!
Of course, I'm sure in the past Reuters has been only too happy to publish/distribute articles about Wikipedia's lack of accuracy..
- Chuq
There is no judge-made law and there is no "precedent".
Don't know what country you're talking about, but here in the States judges don't make laws, either. They interpret laws. And everybody goes "oh, that's what that means" and life goes on.
DATABASE WOW WOW
...so precedent dun work like in UKUSA. Thus all the posts about this establishing anything are fail.
Also the judgement is fair, mainly because no sane person trusts a word on Wikipedia and you'd be an idiot to get butthurt over what's said on it.
If the law requires Wiki to change the article after proper notification, etc., wouldn't if be a lot easier and faster just to edit it themselves?
Oh, that's right. They wanted money, not restoration of honor.
No sig today...
There is, at least in Europe, a span between something being a secret, and something being public. We could call it "private". There are several homosexual members of the parliament whose sexual orientation is not really a secret. They live together with their lovers, the press know it, and for the more prominent members (such as possibly our prime minister[*]) the man on the street knows it as well.
But the press generally doesn't write about it, until they appear as a couple at an official event, in which case the more gossip oriented part of the press will cover it like any other famous or semi-famous couple. It is not really different from how heterosexual couples are treated, who your partner is is considered a private matter, until you choose to make it part of your public image.
[*] The press don't write about it, but the rappers rap about it, and one guy made a (state-sponsored) mockumentary about it.
I'm going to stick my neck out (as usual) and say that these particular gays are homophobic!
:P
Seriously, what's the big deal ? So you like members of the same sex, ok! Be happy!
I know it's not as clean-cut as that, because a lot of people still have retarded knee-jerk reactions to homosexuality, but hiding it isn't going to help people accept it.
Now if only someone would post a Wikipedia article about my heterosexuality, maybe I can sue them! After all these years, trying to convince the world I'm still a virgin
-Billco, Fnarg.com
This was in France, and laws regarding speech are very different, starting with the absence of a "first amendment."
I'm not 100% clear on the legal definition of "defamation" on one hand, and "diffamation" on the other, but they need not mean the exact same thing; they probably don't.