On 4/23/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/23/06, Anthony DiPierro
<wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote:
So someone goes to a community corkboard in an apartment building and
writes "John Heybobarebob is gay" on a corkboard message. Then the
owner of the apartment building sees the defamatory statement, takes
down the message, and stores it in a closet with a bunch of other
removed messages. Then a janitor goes into to the closet, takes the
message, and creates photocopies which she proceeds to hand out to
people.
You think the building owner can be sued?
Yes, I think that the owner of the apartment building might well be
liable for the defamation conducted by the janitor. It would be, as
I've said, something that a court would decide. Arguably by not
disposing of the defamatory material in an appropriate manner he
facilitated the subsequent actions of the janitor.
Frankly, I think that's ridiculous.
Now if it was found that one of his janitors had done
this *once*, it
might not be a big deal and there wouldn't be much of a case. But
once this happens, the owner of the apartment building becomes aware
that his janitors are not all reliable, it would be reasonable to
expect him to take steps to keep sensitive material out of their
reach.
I fail to see how defamatory material = sensitive material. We're not
talking about secrets here, we're talking about false statements. If
the paper contained the person's social security number, I could see
you calling it sensitive. The fact that the janitor sees a piece of
paper which says "[whoever] is gay" does not in fact affect her
ability to defame [whoever] in any way.
I mean, what if the statement was: "The following statement is false:
Joe Heybobarebob is gay". And then the janitor copied the statement
removing the preface?
What if Wikipedia adds "the following article is false" to the top of
the history?
So the second time it happens there would be a
stronger case,
and each time the owner of the apartment building permits potentially
defamatory material to be published by not taking such steps, the case
becomes stronger.
I'm sorry, I just don't see it. But I guess your position has been
made clear to the point where there's nothing more I can say other
than that I disagree.
I'm not sure whether to call this defamation paranoia or the chilling
effects of defamation law. But either way, it lends credence to my
belief that Wikipedia needs to shed its centralized control and
reorganize as a peer-to-peer system, and soon.
Anthony