by Mike Masnick
Wed, Aug 13th 2008 4:11pm
Back in May, when literary agent Barbara Bauer sued the Wikimedia Foundation, claiming that it was liable for various critical comments on the site (such as the ones calling her the "dumbest of the twenty worst" agents, who has "no documented sales at all"), we suggested she probably would have saved a lot of time, effort and heartbreak using Wikipedia to look up Section 230 of the CDA that says that service providers are not liable for the content of their users. Instead, she went forward with the lawsuit and had the court teach her the lesson that Wikipedia could have: the court tossed out the case, noting that the Wikimedia Foundation is not liable under section 230. The end result for Barbara Bauer? She doesn't get to sue Wikipedia, and her actions brought a lot more attention to the fact that she has a lot of critics. I have no idea how "smart" she is as a literary agent, but this didn't seem very "smart" concerning how to respond to criticism of her reputation.
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- German Court Says YouTube Isn't Liable For Infringement, But Wants A Notice-And-Staydown Process
- What's Behind The Attack On EU's Outdoor Photography? The Usual Copyright Maximalism And Anti-Americanism
- Huge Loss For Free Speech In Europe: Human Rights Court Says Sites Liable For User Comments
- Once Again, Just Because Someone Used Backpage.com For Trafficking, Doesn't Mean Backpage Is Liable
- Facebook, Google's Supposed Love Of Net Neutrality Notably Absent In India