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

[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".

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?

[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?

[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?

[magarity]

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

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?