User: Password:
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Wikitravel and Wikimedia on a collision course

Wikitravel and Wikimedia on a collision course

Posted Oct 20, 2012 3:09 UTC (Sat) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954)
Parent article: Wikitravel and Wikimedia on a collision course

The anti-SLAPP motion seems strange.

Contrary to how the article makes it sound, a SLAPP specifically has to intimidate someone from participating in the political process. It's usually a suit for defamation, e.g. for something a person said in a legislative or judicial proceeding or in connection with an election.

I skimmed IB's filing and did not see any claim that could be construed as connected with public participation by the defendants.

Incidentally, the California anti-SLAPP statute under which the motion was filed does not change whether something is compensable defamation or not; it just shifts the burden of proof in favor of the alleged defamer. The usual rule is that a defendant can have a case thrown out before trial if he shows that the plaintiff has no chance of winning even if everything he says is true. But where the lawsuit is one of these that could chill public participation, the defendant only has to show that the plaintiff probably would lose (again, assuming the facts are all as the plaintiff says).

(Log in to post comments)


Posted Oct 25, 2012 8:41 UTC (Thu) by Duncan (guest, #6647) [Link]

I was wondering about the anti-SLAPP as well, but put it off to some lawyer seeing an angle I as a layman hadn't read about. I imagine it may well be a novel angle, but it could still be a viable one, no way to know until it goes thru the process. Meanwhile, glad I'm not the only one for whom that triggered question-marks.

Meanwhile, it wasn't /that/ long ago that everybody said the GPLv2 had never been proven in court, but it has been now, and came thru with flying colors. AFAIK it's generally accepted, now.

I guess it's the turn of the relatively free subset of the CC-*s, now. Hopefully it comes thru too. However, it's my impression that the "without this licence you don't have the right to distribute at all, so you can't challenge the license or you lose your right to distribute all together" aspect isn't as strong with the CCs, which might leave them in a bit weaker position. Regardless, it'll be interesting to see how this legal experiment in the public commons turns out, for sure.


Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds