| « Happy Mother's Day 2008 | The Open Net Initiative - Access Denied » |
EFF Requests New Jersey Court To Dismiss Complaint Against Wikimedia Foundation
05/07/08
06:34:36 pm, Categories: News, Freedom of Speech, Wikipedia, xPost_M , Tags: barbara bauer, barbara bauer literary agency, bauer v. glatzer, eff The Electronic Freedom Foundation (EFF) has filed papers with the Superior Court of New Jersey, Mammoth County seeking to extract the Wikimedia Foundation (Wikipedia) from a defamation complaint filed by Barbara Bauer, dba Barbara Bauer Literary Agency (Docket Number: L-1169-07)1.
Periodically a case comes along to remind us that possessing First Amendment Rights is no guarantee that those rights will be responsibly, reasonably, or artfully exercised!
There's a book in here somewhere...
Res: EFF, Bauer v. Glatzer
Web:
UPDATED 07/02/2008Wikinews, Libel case against Wikimedia Foundation dismissed. If Bauer proceeds with her case it will be without Wikimedia Foundation as a defendant—as a general rule internet sites hosting internet content are not and should not be responsible for the content users post to the site.
Most responsible internet hosting sites nevertheless have policies for reporting and removing unlawful or patently shocking and offensive content.
UPDATED 05/17/2008 Wikileaks, Wikinews suppressed article on Barbara Bauer vs. Wikipedia case
-----notes-----
1. In addition to Wikimedia Foundation the complaint names civil defendants Jenna Glatzer, MacAllister Stone, James MacDonald, Patrick Nielsen-Hayden, Teresa Nielsen-Hayden, Brian Hill2, Dee Power2, David Kuzminski, Thomas Tully, Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America Inc., Victoria Strauss, Shweta Narayan, Lesia Valentine, Christina Walden, Stephan Spencer, Kristen Fischer, Gregory Ludwig, and Aimee Amodio.
The complaint alleges that the defendants defamed Barbara Bauer and harmed her business by writing or facilitating the writing in the blogoshpere or wikiosphere statements about Barbara Bauer and her business like: "The Dumbest of the Twenty Worst"; "no documented sales at all"; "[will] vacuum out your savings account [and] lie to you"; "[has] threatened 2/3 of internet at least once"; "[is] inept-but-abusive supposed literary agent"; "[is] a dodgy player"; "[is] a scammer"; [engages in] ...random nuttiness"; "[is] a faux literary agent"; "[is] kooky...that lunatic"; "questioning her Ph.D. degree"; "[is] among a group of questionable agents”; ”she engages in dirty business practices"; posted a photo of [Barbara Bauer] superimposed on it an indecent licking actions over the mouth area"; "caused to be published on You Tube videos about Barbara Bauer entitled "Crouching Snark, Hidden Dragon and Miss Snark's Happy Hooker Crapstravanganza"; "[she] is a crook"; "[she's] a thief";...
2. See comment section for more poster information.
4 comments
Our Internet is very new and we are, together, just beginning to understand and learn how to use it. We are very fortunate, to date, its benefits have overwhelmed its burdens AND its wise users vastly overwhelm its unwise users. The harmful users are truly infinitesimal and they are no challenge to the wise and unwise users of the Internet or our law enforcement.
The Internet age renders a major premise of defamation law invalid—we all have a voice (which is understandably making some uncomfortable) and it's up to each of us to learn to use and evaluate those voices.
Your logic for withholding the Internet from your children escapes me. Our children need their mothers (some of the most patient teachers in the world) to teach them how to artfully and effectively use the Internet—not by restricting access or withholding information, but by adding, explaining and clarifying the information.
After all isn't this exactly what Barbara Bauer is afraid the readers of your sister's blog are unable to do—so she is asking the law to intervene.
Comment feed for this postLeave a comment
