Section 230 - Revision history

Ockham: /* Section 230 and Wikipedia */ more information

2008-10-13T10:48:16Z

Section 230 and Wikipedia: more information

Ockham: /* Section 230 and Wikipedia */

2008-10-13T10:39:45Z

Section 230 and Wikipedia

MyWikiBiz: wikilink "publishing"

2008-10-11T15:29:57Z

wikilink "publishing"

MyWikiBiz: /* Section 230 and Wikipedia */ Legal theory before wiki drama

2008-10-11T15:22:30Z

Section 230 and Wikipedia: Legal theory before wiki drama

MyWikiBiz: /* Section 230 and Wikipedia */ More balanced observation of Section 230.

2008-10-11T15:21:19Z

Section 230 and Wikipedia: More balanced observation of Section 230.

MyWikiBiz: /* Section 230 and Wikipedia */ perplexing and tenuous

2008-10-11T13:29:39Z

Section 230 and Wikipedia: perplexing and tenuous

Ockham at 10:21, 11 October 2008

2008-10-11T10:21:27Z

Ockham at 10:37, 20 July 2008

2008-07-20T10:37:10Z

Ockham: New page: '''Section 230'' is - what? ==Section 230 and Wikipedia ==

2008-07-20T10:36:24Z

New page: '''Section 230'' is - what? ==Section 230 and Wikipedia ==

New page

'''Section 230'' is - what?

==Section 230 and Wikipedia ==

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 ==Section 230 and Wikipedia ==
 Anthony Dipierro [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=13897&view=findpost&p=60070 has commented] before, that "It should be pointed out that Section 230 does not say that an interactive computer service '''is not''' a publisher, it says that an interactive computer service '''shall not be treated as''' a publisher.  It doesn't matter one bit whether or not the Wikimedia Foundation actually is a publisher."  But, [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=13897&view=findpost&p=60026 another observer] goes on to state:
 :''The more Wikipedia becomes involved in editorial processes that shape the content, the less it can rely on immunity. The chink in Wikipedia's armor appears to be the involvement of admins in article formation. <nowiki>[Ken]</nowiki> Myers [http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/sec230.pdf acknowledges this] even though he is optimistic about Wikipedia's immunity.''<ref>Myers 2006</ref>

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 ==Section 230 and Wikipedia ==
 Anthony Dipierro [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=13897&view=findpost&p=60070 has commented] before, that "It should be pointed out that Section 230 does not say that an interactive computer service '''is not''' a publisher, it says that an interactive computer service '''shall not be treated as''' a publisher.  It doesn't matter one bit whether or not the Wikimedia Foundation actually is a publisher."  But, [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=13897&view=findpost&p=60026 another observer] goes on to state:
-:''The more Wikipedia becomes involved in editorial processes that shape the content, the less it can rely on immunity. The chink in Wikipedia's armor appears to be the involvement of admins in article formation. <nowiki>[Ken]</nowiki> Myers [http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/sec230.pdf acknowledges this] even though he is optimistic about Wikipedia's immunity.''
+:''The more Wikipedia becomes involved in editorial processes that shape the content, the less it can rely on immunity. The chink in Wikipedia's armor appears to be the involvement of admins in article formation. <nowiki>[Ken]</nowiki> Myers [http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/sec230.pdf acknowledges this] even though he is optimistic about Wikipedia's immunity.''<ref>Myers 2006</ref>
 One editor of Wikipedia attempted to change policy-related instances of the words "published" and "publisher" to "interactively served", to help clarify Wikipedia's non-role as a publisher.  However, this editor was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3ASection_230_Expert blocked] from ever again editing Wikipedia, and the words "published" and "publisher" were restored.  When this block was challenged, the response was:
 :''Substituting forms of the word "publish" with other words doesn't change Wikipedia's legal status. "Publish" means different things in different contexts. If an organization satisfies the CDA definition of "publisher", then the organization is a publisher, no matter which word we use to describe it. These form-over-substance edits of yours are disruptive and inappropriate. The block is appropriate.''
 However, that explanation was later [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Section_230_Expert&oldid=170908647 erased from public view], three and a half months after the explanation was issued.  Clearly, Wikipedia's Section 230 immunity is a perplexing, tenuous status.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 '''Section 230''' of the [[Communications Decency Act]] of 1996 (a common name for Title V of the [[Telecommunications Act of 1996]]) is a landmark piece of [[Internet]] legislation in the United States.  Section 230(c)(1) provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an "interactive computer service" who publish information provided by others:
-<blockquote>No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. </blockquote>
+<blockquote>No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the [[publishing|publisher]] or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. </blockquote>
 In analyzing the availability of the immunity offered by this provision, courts generally apply a three-prong test. A defendant must satisfy each of the three prongs to gain the benefit of the immunity:

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 ==Section 230 and Wikipedia ==
 One editor of Wikipedia attempted to change policy-related instances of the words "published" and "publisher" to "interactively served", to help clarify Wikipedia's non-role as a publisher.  However, this editor was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3ASection_230_Expert blocked] from ever again editing Wikipedia, and the words "published" and "publisher" were restored.  When this block was challenged, the response was:
 :''Substituting forms of the word "publish" with other words doesn't change Wikipedia's legal status. "Publish" means different things in different contexts. If an organization satisfies the CDA definition of "publisher", then the organization is a publisher, no matter which word we use to describe it. These form-over-substance edits of yours are disruptive and inappropriate. The block is appropriate.''
 However, that explanation was later [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Section_230_Expert&oldid=170908647 erased from public view], three and a half months after the explanation was issued.  Clearly, Wikipedia's Section 230 immunity is a perplexing, tenuous status.

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:21, 11 October 2008
Line 19:		Line 19:
	:''Substituting forms of the word "publish" with other words doesn't change Wikipedia's legal status. "Publish" means different things in different contexts. If an organization satisfies the CDA definition of "publisher", then the organization is a publisher, no matter which word we use to describe it. These form-over-substance edits of yours are disruptive and inappropriate. The block is appropriate.''		:''Substituting forms of the word "publish" with other words doesn't change Wikipedia's legal status. "Publish" means different things in different contexts. If an organization satisfies the CDA definition of "publisher", then the organization is a publisher, no matter which word we use to describe it. These form-over-substance edits of yours are disruptive and inappropriate. The block is appropriate.''
	However, that explanation was later [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Section_230_Expert&oldid=170908647 erased from public view], three and a half months after the explanation was issued. Clearly, Wikipedia's Section 230 immunity is a perplexing, tenuous status.		However, that explanation was later [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Section_230_Expert&oldid=170908647 erased from public view], three and a half months after the explanation was issued. Clearly, Wikipedia's Section 230 immunity is a perplexing, tenuous status.
		+
		+	Anthony Dipierro [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=13897&view=findpost&p=60070 has commented] before, that "It should be pointed out that Section 230 does not say that an interactive computer service '''is not''' a publisher, it says that an interactive computer service '''shall not be treated as''' a publisher. It doesn't matter one bit whether or not the Wikimedia Foundation actually is a publisher." But, [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=13897&view=findpost&p=60026 another observer] goes on to state:
		+	:''The more Wikipedia becomes involved in editorial processes that shape the content, the less it can rely on immunity. The chink in Wikipedia's armor appears to be the involvement of admins in article formation. <nowiki>[Ken]</nowiki> Myers [http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/sec230.pdf acknowledges this] even though he is optimistic about Wikipedia's immunity.''

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:29, 11 October 2008
Line 16:		Line 16:

	==Section 230 and Wikipedia ==		==Section 230 and Wikipedia ==
		+	One editor of Wikipedia attempted to change policy-related instances of the words "published" and "publisher" to "interactively served", to help clarify Wikipedia's non-role as a publisher. However, this editor was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3ASection_230_Expert blocked] from ever again editing Wikipedia, and the words "published" and "publisher" were restored. When this block was challenged, the response was:
		+	:''Substituting forms of the word "publish" with other words doesn't change Wikipedia's legal status. "Publish" means different things in different contexts. If an organization satisfies the CDA definition of "publisher", then the organization is a publisher, no matter which word we use to describe it. These form-over-substance edits of yours are disruptive and inappropriate. The block is appropriate.''
		+	However, that explanation was later [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Section_230_Expert&oldid=170908647 erased from public view], three and a half months after the explanation was issued. Clearly, Wikipedia's Section 230 immunity is a perplexing, tenuous status.

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 # The cause of action asserted by the plaintiff must "treat" the defendant "as the publisher or speaker" of the harmful information at issue.
 # The information must be "provided by another information content provider," i.e., the defendant must not be the "information content provider" of the harmful information at issue.
 ==Section 230 and Wikipedia ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:37, 20 July 2008
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	'''Section 230'' is - ~~what?~~	+	'''Section 230''' of the [[Communications Decency Act]] of 1996 (a common name for Title V of the [[Telecommunications Act of 1996]]) is a landmark piece of [[Internet]] legislation in the United States. Section 230(c)(1) provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an "interactive computer service" who publish information provided by others:
		+	<blockquote>No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. </blockquote>
		+
		+	In analyzing the availability of the immunity offered by this provision, courts generally apply a three-prong test. A defendant must satisfy each of the three prongs to gain the benefit of the immunity:
		+	# The defendant must be a "provider or user" of an "interactive computer service."
		+	# The cause of action asserted by the plaintiff must "treat" the defendant "as the publisher or speaker" of the harmful information at issue.
		+	# The information must be "provided by another information content provider," i.e., the defendant must not be the "information content provider" of the harmful information at issue.

	==Section 230 and Wikipedia ==		==Section 230 and Wikipedia ==