3,209
edits
Changes
MyWikiBiz, Author Your Legacy — Tuesday April 30, 2024
Jump to navigationJump to search→Section 230 and Wikipedia: more information
'''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:
'''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:
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:
==Section 230 and Wikipedia ==
==Section 230 and Wikipedia ==
Wikipedia is a project whose goal is to “create and distribute a free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language.” The contributors to this project are hundreds of thousands of volunteers scattered across the world. Anyone may edit or contribute to Wikipedia. This means that any blatantly false or slanderous information may be carried in the encyclopedia for days, weeks or months. (For example, for several months, Wikipedia carried a blatantly false biographical article on John Seigenthaler, Sr., implicating him in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. An anonymous user had made the edit to the Seigenthaler article as a joke). No defendant has yet sued Wikipedia for carrying such false information, but if that were to happen, its defence would be the immunity provided by 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1), that “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.”
It has already been suggested that Wikipedia would be able to escape liability for defamatory content pursuant to § 230(c)(1)’s immunity. However, no one has yet given a detailed justifcation of that conclusion, and courts interpreting § 230(c)(1) have not been precise with respect to their choice of the several alternative approaches to the statutory text.
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>
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:
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.''
:''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.
== References ==
* Myers, Ken, ''Harvard Journal of Law & Technology'', Volume 20, Number 1 Autumn 2006
== Notes ==
{{Reflist}}
