Full Version: Judge orders ISP to release names of Wikipedia posters who slammed Facconable - Denver Post
<img alt="" height="1" width="1" />Judge orders ISP to release names of [b]Wikipedia posters who slammed Facconable[/b]
Denver Post
In a ruling that could have broader implications for online privacy and free speech, a federal magistrate judge in Denver has ruled that anonymity for Internet commenters goes only so far. Magistrate Judge Boyd Boland late last month ...
and more »
View the article
QUOTE(Newsfeed @ Fri 17th June 2011, 12:03am) 
Judge orders ISP to release names of [b]Wikipedia posters who slammed Facconable
Denver Post
In a ruling that could have broader implications for online privacy and free speech, a federal magistrate judge in Denver has ruled that anonymity for Internet commenters goes only so far. Magistrate Judge Boyd Boland late last month ...
and more »
View the article
I note that WP finally re-created the Façonnable article that JzG had petulantly deleted as "spam" (at least this was the given reason). And has just as petulantly placed the {{looks like spam to me}} tag on the top of it, but there's nothing he can really do at this point.
LOL
When they finally come up with the identities of the Façonnable rep-killers (presuming they do), I think they may find that they are members of the I/P WP Israel-Rescue Squad. Novel, but possible.
WARNING
Mr. Wales!
It's possible that the Reader's Digest POV of WP has begun to be Could somebody post that on Jimbo's talk page, so that he will be warned?
I left the following comment on a Denver Post story that's getting an amazing amount of reader response.
QUOTE
by thekohser on Friday, June 17, 12:30 pm
There are so many ill-formed opinions on this comment board, it is difficult to add anything reasonable to the discussion, but I will say this:
The person who used their paid Internet account had signed a terms of service that consented with the provider that their name could be shared if called upon by the authorities. If the person didn't like that, they should have found a provider with no such terms, or used other means to cloak their identity while tapping away on Wikipedia.
Section 230 protects online services like Wikipedia (or, the Wikimedia Foundation) from damages caused by users of that service, such that Wikipedia cannot be held to the same laws that treat true publishers (print newspapers, magazines, and the like) more rigorously than forums like message boards and Facebook. That means that the accountability and responsibility for content resides with the author of that content.
If we remove the accountability and responsibility even from authors, what are we left with then? Zero ability of those who are libeled -- or even perceive that they were libeled -- to have any course of action whatsoever. Is that what all of you here who support Paul Levy's side want? Do you want a society where there is zero responsibility for anything written on the Internet, but 100% responsibility for anything written on paper and sold by a publisher?
I suggest you stop your crying, hope that this case is allowed through -- with the identity revealed of the "opinion holder" who felt so moved to publish an opinion on Wikipedia -- then let the courts decide if (a) the opinion was false, and (b) if the opinion caused damage to the plaintiff. It's really not that difficult to see this, if you take your meds and quit this ridiculous notion that a shirt manufacturer is out to get your First Amendment revoked.
There are so many ill-formed opinions on this comment board, it is difficult to add anything reasonable to the discussion, but I will say this:
The person who used their paid Internet account had signed a terms of service that consented with the provider that their name could be shared if called upon by the authorities. If the person didn't like that, they should have found a provider with no such terms, or used other means to cloak their identity while tapping away on Wikipedia.
Section 230 protects online services like Wikipedia (or, the Wikimedia Foundation) from damages caused by users of that service, such that Wikipedia cannot be held to the same laws that treat true publishers (print newspapers, magazines, and the like) more rigorously than forums like message boards and Facebook. That means that the accountability and responsibility for content resides with the author of that content.
If we remove the accountability and responsibility even from authors, what are we left with then? Zero ability of those who are libeled -- or even perceive that they were libeled -- to have any course of action whatsoever. Is that what all of you here who support Paul Levy's side want? Do you want a society where there is zero responsibility for anything written on the Internet, but 100% responsibility for anything written on paper and sold by a publisher?
I suggest you stop your crying, hope that this case is allowed through -- with the identity revealed of the "opinion holder" who felt so moved to publish an opinion on Wikipedia -- then let the courts decide if (a) the opinion was false, and (b) if the opinion caused damage to the plaintiff. It's really not that difficult to see this, if you take your meds and quit this ridiculous notion that a shirt manufacturer is out to get your First Amendment revoked.
Oh, and Guy Chapman is an idiot. How is that "spam"? It's a freakin' stubby description of a company.
JzG just making Wikipedia worse than it needs to be, as usual.
Thanks to User:Ohconfucius, at least now we have a record of the IP addresses that were involved in this mess, and we can see that Maher Mikati (executive director of M1 Group) was likely trying to roll back the damage.
There was also a Comcast IP involved in the Philadelphia area.
JzG just making Wikipedia worse than it needs to be, as usual.
Thanks to User:Ohconfucius, at least now we have a record of the IP addresses that were involved in this mess, and we can see that Maher Mikati (executive director of M1 Group) was likely trying to roll back the damage.
There was also a Comcast IP involved in the Philadelphia area.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.