RSS
Twitter
Before Suing Wikipedia, Maybe Do A Wikipedia Search On Section 230 Of The CDA
from the you-don't-get-to-edit-the-law dept
A literary agent named Barbara Bauer has sued Wikipedia for defamation after someone put a page up on Wikipedia that was quite negative about her -- with statements saying that she was the "dumbest of the twenty worst" agents, who has "no documented sales at all." There's no denying that the page on her was quite questionable, but that's also why Wikipedians quickly deleted it. While it was brought back a few times, each time, it was quickly deleted as being a rather obvious "attack page." As one Wikipedian wrote, the page was a bloody disgrace.
That said, it seems doubly wrongheaded to sue Wikipedia for this. First, as we've discussed many, many times, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) protects sites from the actions of their users. She has every right to go after whoever put up the page in the first place. But she shouldn't be blaming Wikipedia for it -- and any lawyer who would file this lawsuit should have known that and made it clear to her as well. Furthermore, this is a pure Streisand Effect situation. Before this, chances are that almost no one had seen the Wikipedia page. It was not up very long before it was deleted, and there probably just weren't that many people searching for her. Yet now, thanks to this, her name will forever be associated both with the claims she's trying to hide from the various news stories about this case, but those searching on her name will also see that she's filing lawsuits like this one. Again, this is something that her lawyer should have known. Of course, there are Wikipedia pages on both Section 230 and The Streisand Effect. A quick look around Wikipedia may have helped to avoid this unnecessary lawsuit against Wikipedia.
Reader Comments
(Flattened / Threaded)
A nuiscance settlement pursuit
Ms. Bauer, and every attorney she's spoken with, undoubtedly knows such litigation is w/o basis. Nonetheless, there are probably a dozen lawyers (no offense to the industry intended) who'll roll the dice on a contingency percentage. (Sigh) Just a disappointing reminder.. The Team http://wirelessspeech.blogspot.com
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
It would appear that Ms/Mrs Bauer is trying to live up to the image of being the "dumbest".
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
DMCA abuse
Aren't the fines for DMCA abuse if they countersue pretty hefty? Couldn't wikipedia actually make a pretty big sum if they go that route, IIRC?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
huh? dmca?
what part of this looks like it has anything to do with the dmca?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: huh? dmca?
The part where I was a moron and didn't read properly. please delete this and my last post, mike.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: huh? dmca?
Just in case even this little bit is tl;dr for you, here's a simple breakdown to answer your question: Section 230 of the DMCA states that they're not liable for what other people post using their service.
If you'd bothered to read the "Section 230" Wiki page above, you might have found the answer to your question.
"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."
Wikipedia satisfies the three-prong test they discuss.
1) They provide an interactive computer service.
2) The plaintiff is suing them as the publisher or speaker of the defamatory information.
3) The information was posted by another information content provider -- whoever added the page.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: huh? dmca?
Er... except it's Section 230 of the CDA, not DMCA...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Diva Galore!
Sound like she is drumming up some business for herself.
Publicity is publicity even when it is negative!
The more noise she makes the more attention she gets.
Makes one wonder if she was not the one who made the negative page about herself by herself! ;-)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Who is she anyways?
Wait! I know. I'll look her up at Wikipedia... :-)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
A question
Wikipedia does change and edit content and occasionally take down articles on their own volition, does that not s qualify them as a publisher under CDA?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Uh, a known scammer
Barbara Bauer has been busy suing every writer or agent or well, gee, anybody who dares to suggest there may be something fishy about her. This should come as no surprise to anyone who writes. Look through the archives at misssnark.blogspot.com if you want to know about Barabara Bauer.
It's really not fair to suggest that this is in any way a rational series of actions.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Here's a great thread from 2006 about the infamous Barbara Bauer and her spot on Writer Beware's 20 worst agents list. If you want the lowdown on the showdown, this is it. Key point: nothing has changed.
http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/007440.html
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment