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...
I would like to think that the slur wouldn't be taken so literally by any commonsense court. These guys were being called out for being homosexuals. It doesn't seem to be in the same manner as using a slur that normally is interpreted as being homosexual in some fashion. Mostly it's just a random slur.
That would be like me sueing someone for calling someone a bitch... I don't think they mean to insinuate that the other person is a female dog.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
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.
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.
Just check your hair. All OK? Good.
Next time a joke flies that high above someone's head, AC, try attaching a solar panel or two to it. The guys on the ISS could do with a spare.
Resistance is futile. Reactance buggers it 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!"
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.
But when you see the illiterate mongoloids who post this crap, they use "your." That, I think, is the idea to which the OP was pointing.
"Those who believe in telekinetics, raise my hand" - Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
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!
(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.
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!
hope these people never discover encyclopedia dramatica!
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
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.