Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Wikipedia Wins Defamation Case

Posted by Zonk on from the wiki-this dept.

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.'"

5 of 153 comments (clear)

  1. I wonder how far this could be applied by Huntr · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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..

    1. Re:I wonder how far this could be applied by ddrichardson · · Score: 3, Interesting

      IANAL either, but this line intrigued me:

      But a judge rejected their demands in a ruling reached on Monday, arguing that "the Wikimedia Foundation's responsibility ... has not been clearly established," a decision welcomed by the foundation.

      This suggests to me that that plaintiff simply didn't provide a good enough case against Wikimedia, rather than a decision that could become precedent. I'm sure someone with a better grasp of law can correct me.

      --
      A thistle is a fat salad for an ass's mouth...
  2. Applicability to the US by Raul654 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    (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
  3. When "defamation" include the truth? by PortHaven · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

  4. Forced outing by athloi · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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