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.'"

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 [wikipedia.org].

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: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?

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:"