Wikimmunity: A Brief Tutorial on Section 230 as Applied to Wikipedia Ken S. Myers.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Legal Issues Involved in Blogging Jonathan D. Frieden, Esq. ODIN, FELDMAN & PITTLEMAN, P.C.
Advertisements

Paul Arne Larry Kunin Rob Hassett Bootstrap Law. Agenda u IP/IT basic law u Discuss particularly dangerous business relationship u Specific laws for Web.
WIKIMANIA 2008 Alexandria Free Knowledge & Wikimedia projects: is the Law an ally? Olivier Hugot.
What You’ll Learn How to define negligence (p. 88)
4Chapter SECTION OPENER / CLOSER: INSERT BOOK COVER ART Negligence and Strict Liability Section 4.2.
Prepared by Douglas Peterson, University of Alberta 5-1 Part 2 – The Law of Torts Chapter 5 Negligence and Unintentional Torts.
Legal Liability under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Communications Decency Act Presented by Daliah Saper Saper Law Offices, LLC.
Social Media: Battling the Modern Day Medusa Chad Ray Donnahoo Campbell Shatley, PLLC 674 Merrimon Ave., Suite 210 Asheville, NC 28804
PA201 Introduction to Legal Research Unit 3 – The Parts of a Case
Bakersfield City School District April No. Student exclusion from compulsory school attendance is limited to a student being underage or due to.
ISP Liability for Defamation and Copyright Violation Richard Warner.
Telstra v APRA Implications for Internet Service Providers WASCAL/IPSANZ Joint Seminar Paper Presented by Jeremy Malcolm 21 October 1997.
MEDIA LAW Copenhagen University SESSION 10 Dirk VOORHOOF Ghent University (->contact)
Software and the IP rights of the developer Presented by Stephen Lackey April 14, 2004.
Tort Liability in New Media Steve Baron Nov. 2, 2010.
By: Jamison Stone and Sean Zurbriggen. “e” before “i”  Long before the “I” nomenclature, Apple had invested in the “e”.  The Apple online service eWorld.
BY: Alexis Stern, Mikey Thompson and Hao Pang.  Freedom of Press- Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier. This affects us because it tells us our boundaries on to what.
Brandon Hall CSC 540.  The US Government first attempted to filter the Internet in the early 90’s.  This was an attempt to protect minors against the.
APPLYING THE CHARTER.   What would society be like if we were allowed to do and say anything we like?  Irony– there are mechanisms in place to ensure.
Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, 2013 [Chapter VI of Finance Act, 2013] Amnesty Scheme – Updated with Department Clarification.
Contract Services to Google/Microsoft James L. Turk CAUT Council November 27, 2011.
October 10, 2007 Fenwick & West Conference Center EFF 2007 Bootcamp 2.0 Best Practices for OSPs: Defamation and the Communications Decency Act Jennifer.
January 20, 2007© 2007 The Prinz Law Office.1 HOTTEST TOPICS IN CYBERSPACE: CYBERINSURANCE, BLOGS, AND ON-LINE ADVERTISING By Kristie D. Prinz, Founder.
Lecture The Internet 1 IT Service Management. Learning Aims To explain the law regarding the use of internet; To investigate the basics of the law of.
GS §115C F No Civil Liability shall attach to any chartering entity, to the State Board of Education, or to any of their members. The board of.
Viacom v. YouTube: The Future of the Section 512 Safe Harbors? Mary Rasenberger April 2011.
Bootcamp 2009 Porn, Predators, and the Pressure to Police Jennifer Stisa Granick, Civil Liberties Director.
COM531 Multimedia Technologies Lecture 11 – Legal Issues.
Play Ball!!! --- Risks, Liability and Preventative Measures for Successful Sports Programs CAJPA Fall Conference 2012 Kimberly Smith Cynthia Smith.
Best Practices for Online Service Providers The Communications Decency Act and Accusations of Defamation and Other Bad Behavior Marcia Hofmann, Staff Attorney.
Part 2 – The Law of Torts Chapter 5 – Negligence and Unintentional Torts Prepared by Michael Bozzo, Mohawk College © 2015 McGraw-Hill Ryerson Limited 5-1.
Products Liability “Liability for Defective Products”
Intermediary Liability: to block or not to block? Ashley Hurst.
Editing and the law. First Amendment rights provide that people may speak and write free of censorship from the federal government. “Congress shall make.
1 Decision by the grand panel of the IP High Court (February 1, 2013) re calculation of damages based on infringer’s profits Yasufumi Shiroyama Japan Federation.
Internet Content Liability David S. Bralow CUNY October 15, 2012.
The law on Intermediary Liability in India
A near-invisible niche for the vast majority of its existence, computer culture has only recently stepped into the big leagues and has yet to even learn.
CptS 401 Adam Carter. Quiz Question 7 Obscene speech is protected by the First Amendment. A. True B. False 2.
Rights Of Library Users By Keao White Rationale for this Workshop The purpose of this workshop is to give an in depth presentation covering the rights.
The Bribery Act 2010 An overview of the Act with reference to the Quick Start Guide published by the Ministry of justice.
Comprehensive Volume, 18 th Edition Chapter 27: Warranties and Other Product Liability Theories.
Media Law. Media law You are the online editor of your campus newspaper. A person using a pseudonym has posted a message on your website that could be.
McGraw-Hill/Irwin Copyright © 2011 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Chapter 9 Torts and Product Liability.
Promotion & Enforcement FDA’s Social Media Guidance.
Negligence by Snježana Husinec. Negligence  failure to exercise the care toward others which a reasonable or prudent person would do in the circumstances,
Libel Different types, how to avoid it This is how you keep your job.
Document Number© 2015 GARFUNKEL WILD, P.C. Protecting Online Reputations: Surviving and Prospering in the Online World October 15,
Defamation.  The act of making statements or suggestions that harm someone's reputation in the community. (Cambridge,2010) What is defamation?
Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye A Gift of Fire Third edition Sara Baase Chapter 3: Freedom of Speech.
The First Amendment and Oregon Student Journalists Allison Marks, Adviser THE FOREST Forest Grove High School.
The Internet and freedom of expression law Training workshop on media and freedom of expression law.
INTEL CONFIDENTIAL Intel® Smart Connect Technology Remote Wake with WakeMyPC November 2013 – Revision 1.2 CDI/IBP #:
1. Vagueness and Overbreadth: Laws governing free speech must be clear and specific. > Laws that unnecessarily prohibit too much expression are considered.
Garratt (a women with arthrophlogosis) v. Dailey(an infant)
Agents of Harm or Agents of Grace The Legal and Ethical Aspects of Identifying Harm and Assigning Responsibility in a Networked World By Thomas A. Lipinski,
4Chapter SECTION OPENER / CLOSER: INSERT BOOK COVER ART Negligence and Strict Liability Section 4.2.
Mass Media Law 17 th Edition Don Pember Clay Calvert Chapter 4.
Why bother learning how to do research?
Too Much Speech or Not Enough? Defamation and Anonymity
Personal Injury Lawsuit
Munich Intellectual Property Law Center (MIPLC)
Chapter six Articles of Association
The Courts GOVT Notes 5-1.
The Courts GOVT Notes 5-1.
Resolving Infringements of the Charter
Section Outline Unintentional Torts Negligence Strict Liability
Vocabulary activity: Bell Ringer Supreme Court Strict Interpretation
Subject Matter Eligibility
Crash Course in Section 230
Presentation transcript:

Wikimmunity: A Brief Tutorial on Section 230 as Applied to Wikipedia Ken S. Myers

Overview What does § 230 do? Will § 230 do it for Wikipedia? Not in presentation, but in paper: Where § 230 came from / legislative history Section 230 as more than “merely definitional” For my esteemed co-panelists: Is § 230 too broad, or not broad enough? –i.e., does it place the optimal level of responsibility on the intermediaries?

What does Section 230 do? Section 230(c)(1): –“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.” An Internet intermediary is not liable for harmful speech that it does not itself create or develop –Procedure: affirmative defense –3-pronged test

Prong 2: Section 230(c)(1) only shields against certain claims Covered: defamation, negligent failure to remove defamatory content Not covered: IP infringement claims (right of publicity unclear) “publisher” vs. “distributor” liability - Barrett v. Rosenthal in CA Supreme Court 1 “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.” Does Wikipedia meet the test? 2 3 Prong 1: “interactive computer service” = broad provider OR user = everyone

1.“information” = anything 2.“provided” = –“furnished … under circumstances in which a reasonable person … would conclude that the information was provided for publication on the Internet” 3.“by another information content provider” –ICP = “any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information” (230(f)(3)) –What constitutes the Wikipedia / Foundation “entity”? –What level of generality should be applied to the term “information” in 230(f)(3)? “information provided by another information content provider”

1.“information” = anything 2.“provided” = –“furnished … under circumstances in which a reasonable person … would conclude that the information was provided for publication on the Internet” 3.“by another information content provider” –ICP = “any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information” (230(f)(3)) –What constitutes the Wikipedia / Foundation “entity”? –What level of generality should be applied to the term “information” in 230(f)(3)? –What constitutes “development”? No: facilitation, inspection / review, re-publication / selection, window dressing, minor edits Yes: specific direction / encouragement