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.'"

Comments

Correction

[LiquidCoooled]

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.'"

Re:Correction

[WrongMonkey]

A correction has been posted (to correct for currency devaluation):

'Three plaintiffs were each seeking 69,000 euros ($100,000,000) in damages for invasion of their privacy after their homosexuality was revealed on the website.'

Re:Correction

[bidule]

But why 69 thousands? Does it have some special meaning we should be aware of?

I wonder how far this could be applied

[Huntr]

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..

Re:I wonder how far this could be applied

[ddrichardson]

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.

Re:I wonder how far this could be applied

[frp001]

From what I read, there are 2 things:
- The judge ruled that, despite its aspect, Wikipedia, is more like service provider than a newspaper or editor work (i.e. internet users publish their stuff on it, not the Wikimedia foundation)
- The French law requires that illegal material must be formally notified to the provider by register letter.

Apparently the plaintiffs did notify Wikimedia but not in the correct form.

So, for what I understand both are true Wikimedia cannot be held responsible for what others publish. The can be if they have been informed published work is illegal and have not taken actions to remove it. It would then be the plaintiff's work to:
- prove to material is illegal in some way (this where the making a better case of comes in)
- prove that Wikimedia knew the work was illegal.

Re:I wonder how far this could be applied

[Hemogoblin]

I don't know about the rest of your argument, but this court case was in France where they use the Civil Law system. There is no judge-made law and there is no "precedent".

Re:I wonder how far this could be applied

[Keith_Beef]

If you can read French, then here is a much better article than the badly summarized version that Reuters published.

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-651865,36-973824@51-974025,0.html

Or ask the Babel Fish for help.

In essence, the three sued Wikimedia for invasion of privacy and defamation.

The judge ruled that Wikimedia administrators cannot be held responsible for opinions published, until the disputed content is brought to the administrators' attention by a letter sent by registered post with proof of delivery and the letter must cite the articles of law according to which the offending material should be removed.

Beef.

Applicability to the US

[Raul654]

(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.

When "defamation" include the truth?

[PortHaven]

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?

Re:When "defamation" include the truth?

[Raul654]

Truth is an absolute defense against libel/slander/defemation in some - but not all - jurisdictions. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation#Truth

Re:When "defamation" include the truth?

[Diss Champ]

IANAL, but while in the USA the truth is an absolute defense against charges of libel and such, that is not true everywhere. Indeed there are plenty of places in the world where the truth will get you in a heck of a lot more trouble than pretty much anything you can make up.

Re:When "defamation" include the truth?

[CheshireCatCO]

Better yet, since these homosexual men felt the revelation of their orientation was defamatory, what does that say about how they feel about their own sexuality? Probably not much. What it most likely tells you about is how their society perceives their sexuality. (Or, even more pedantically, how they think that society perceives it.) A gay person in the US military may be quite happy and well-adjusted about his or her orientation, but also realize that word of that getting out would have serious negative consequences.

Re:When "defamation" include the truth?

[king-manic]

So how does revealing the truth equate to defamation? This isn't a universal defence. In many countries (for example Canada), you can be successfully sued for defamation even if your accusations/statements are true. Defamation is classified as statements lowering the "esteem" of a person. True of false. Defamation must consider Context and must meet reasonable standards. So a single story on how Paris Hilton is a slut may be okay, two dozen of them may allow a successful defamation law suit.

Re:When "defamation" include the truth?

[WaltBusterkeys]

"Defamation" does not include the truth, but "invasion of privacy" and "public disclosure of private information" both do. Let's say that you had HIV, but it was under control with medication. You'd hope that you would have a cause of action against your doctor if he revealed that information to the world, right? Or if you kept it a secret that you were a victim of child abuse and somebody published a full-page advertisement in the local newspaper calling you out on it. It's not necessarily something to be "ashamed of" but it might not be something you want the world to know.

Unless you're a public figure, the law in most states recognizes that there is true information that people have a right to keep to themselves. See, ironically, Wikipedia on invasion of privacy.

Re:When "defamation" include the truth?

[kabocox]

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?

Revealing something that a person considers private information and putting it in wikipedia or another format for the entire world to see should be legally wrong. If it isn't illegal today, it will be.

For example, my favorite color is green. That's a fact. I don't want some one to look me up in wikipedia and find out my sexual preferences or my favorite color or anything else that I consider private information. If "defamation" is the nearest existing law that they can use to slap them with, so be it. Wikipedia and those that actually did add/edit those articles should be held accountable for releasing private information. It doesn't matter if the information is true or not; it is the fact that the information was released to the world wide public and could be used in a negative manner against the person.

I have lots of fetishess that I like. The only person that is privy to that information is my wife. If my fetishes ever show up listed in wikipedia, then I'd have to sue them as well. It doesn't matter if the information is correct or not. What matters is that I didn't give my permission for the information to be released and is shouldn't be published.

I wish a judge would heavily fine Wikipedia for this. Wikipedia is not an ISP. An ISP has no idea what data is going through there bandwith. Wikipedia has editors and actually edits and removes lots of user generated content. It's a totally different thing! Wikipedia is trying to use an ISP get out of jail free card. The said thing is that it'll work.

Re:When "defamation" include the truth?

[magarity]

what does that say about how they feel about their own sexuality?
 
They think its totally gay.

Re:When "defamation" include the truth?

[protolith]

Wikipedia should be viewed as a men's room wall, people write stuff on the wall, some is useful, some isn't, the editors should be viewed as the janitors that mostly clean off the piss stains, I wouldn't hold account the owner of the men's room, or the janitors for not cleaning something embarrassing or plain wrong, unless it has been pointed out to be removed or fixed and they refused to correct the info.

The individual that used wiki as a place to air somebody else's laundry should be the one held accountable.
If the accounts to edit can be registered anonymously, then that should probably be changed. It might cut down on the vandalism if everything posted could be linked to an actual person.

Re:When "defamation" include the truth?

[kabocox]

Wikipedia should be viewed as a men's room wall, people write stuff on the wall, some is useful, some isn't, the editors should be viewed as the janitors that mostly clean off the piss stains, I wouldn't hold account the owner of the men's room, or the janitors for not cleaning something embarrassing or plain wrong, unless it has been pointed out to be removed or fixed and they refused to correct the info.

The individual that used wiki as a place to air somebody else's laundry should be the one held accountable.
If the accounts to edit can be registered anonymously, then that should probably be changed. It might cut down on the vandalism if everything posted could be linked to an actual person.

That's what wikipedia is. What wikipedia pretends to be is an encyclopedia though. An encyclopedia should have standards of what personal/private information that they will not publish about people. I view both wikipedia and the submitter of the information at fault. Wikipedia is claiming to be an ISP which isn't true. It is claiming to be factual information with many sources before the information is allowed. What makes wikipedia dangerous is that it's a search able men's room wall of many, many men's room walls. I wouldn't care if you saw kabocox is a "deeming term goes here" on any given men's room wall. I wouldn't want to be able to search kabocox through google and find every deeming term or comment that's been applied though.

I'm safe because I'm not notable enough to be in wikipedia. Are you safe enough to be not notable enough for wikipedia?

Re:When "defamation" include the truth?

[Darby]

Nah, I'm safe because this is slashdot, and few use slashdot for actual factual information

Yeah, whatever, Green liker.

Re:When "defamation" include the truth?

[guruevi]

In the case of your doctor or shrink you most likely have an agreement with or the doctor has an agreement with his boss/union/whatever to not publish those facts or your records with your personal information still attached or recoverable from it. In case of them, it still wouldn't be defamation but a breach of privacy/contract or even government compliance (HIPAA in the US) and you can call them on that.

I know from experience because I do work in a research imaging environment and if a case is published with imaging (which is with or without the permission of the subject), special filter programs have to be ran on the imaging (although the imaging is exported without any possible ties to the subjects' information) as to remove the skull bone or other information (implants, injuries...) in the picture that could be used to recover your facial image or identify you.

Now if somebody were to get a hold on your private information from your doctor/shrink and publish it, you can call them out on theft or something else that has to do with illegally obtaining your information and your doctor on negligence. You still can't use defamation if it's true. Now if you tell your friend something in private and he has decided to publish that information or tell it further I doubt you can take any steps against that (IANAL) since you told him and you trusted him not to tell anyone, but he broke your trust. Since there is no contract (unless you get a contract between your friends) then all he knows and says further is hearsay.

The tricky part about hearsay is that he (the publisher) can't verify if what he heard is true upon publishing so he might be defaming you. If you only told him, then you can say in court you didn't and what he says isn't true since nobody else knows, it would be his word against yours in favor of you => defamation. However if he has proof of what you told him is true, then it isn't defamation. If the information is publicly available from a reliable source, then it's not defamation but a repetition of facts and thus free speech or the source is defaming you which you can start a suit against said source.

Deh-fah-may-schon

[Anonymous Coward]

Bet the judge went back to his chamber, looked up what 'defamation' is on wikipedia, and came out and made his ruling...

Irony

[Nairanvac]

Anyone else find it ironic that they all sued for 69,000 euros?

YOUR RIGHT!

[Per Abrahamsen]

I'd agree with the GP, anyone arguing at that level is unlikely to get the grammar right.

Re:Strange

[Epsillon]

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.

Forced outing

[athloi]

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.

Wait what?

[Damocles the Elder]

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:"

Re:I bet US courts would give a differnt verdict!!

[DustyShadow]

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.