Golfer Sues Over Vandalized Wikipedia Entry 267
coondoggie writes "Pro golfer Fuzzy Zoeller is suing to track down the author of what Zoeller says is a defamatory paragraph about him on the Wikipedia site. In an Associated Press story Zoeller's attorney, Scott Sheftall, said he filed a lawsuit against a Miami firm last week because the law won't allow him to sue Wikipedia."
So what's the story? (Score:5, Informative)
He's suing the correct person for (if the accusations are true - and you've seen Wikipedia troll edits, they probably are) a legitimate reason. So the story is that he's not an idiot suing Wikipedia like the rest of the idiots would?
Clarification (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Forgive me for stating the obvious (Score:3, Informative)
First if it is something written it's libel, not defamation. Secondly, you're only allowed to do it if what you claim is actually true. If you're just making stuff up about someone then you're probably going to have to cough up.
Re:So what's the story? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Forgive me for stating the obvious (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Forgive me for stating the obvious (Score:5, Informative)
Re:So did he actually say that stuff (Score:5, Informative)
BTW I remember his open apology to Woods which he read aloud at a press conference, and it was actually was very nicely done. 100 percent different from the half-hearted, ghostwritten-by-my-agent "apologies" we're accustomed to hearing from the likes of Tim Hardaway, Nick Saban, etc.
Re:So did he actually say that stuff (Score:1, Informative)
Fuzzy (Score:5, Informative)
In case someone is wondering what makes Fuzzy notorious, here's the goods [youtube.com]. Pretty stupid, but he apologized later (and I think very well).
Re:hard to believe... (Score:3, Informative)
Ironically, though, if you "post anonymously" on the Wikipedia, your IP address becomes public, so you're easier to track down.
It's much better to post using a user account, because while then your edits are tracked across IPs, the only people who can track you down are admins with what I think's called the "checkuser" privilege. Whatever it's called, it's the privilege to check a user's IP.
So remember, when trolling people on the Wikipedia, don't do it AC-style. Create a sockpuppet instead.
Re:Forgive me for stating the obvious (Score:5, Informative)
1) It must be false
2) It must have been uttered in *full knowledge of its falsehood*, or in reckless disregard for the truth.
3) It must have been uttered with "actual malace"
To collect damages one must also prove:
a) A reasonable party might have believed the statement
b) A reasonable party, upon hearing/reading it, would have through less of the victim
So in defending a libel case you've got three bright line defenses:
It was true. Prove this and you go home.
It was *reaonsably believed to be true* at the time of utterance. Prove this and you go home.
It was uttered without malice. Prove this and you go home.
Then you've got some wiggle room on the defamation half:
Sure it was malicious and libelous, but nobody would believe it
Sure it was malicious and libelous, and everyone believed it, but the plaintif had a crappy reputation to start with and the statements didn't make it materially worse.
Short version is that defending a libel case in the states is usually easy unless the case in truly eggregious.
Re:Could Have Seen This Coming (Score:5, Informative)
No. As I mentioned elsewhere under this story, Wikipedia can't be sued for libelous information put there by users, by virtue of the only good part of the CDA, 47 USC 230. No need to be skeptical about it; it's been applied numerous times in the decade or so it's been around, and it is very protective of people and service providers online who aren't the original sources of the information at issue. Look it up.
Re:Forgive me for stating the obvious (Score:4, Informative)
In a nutshell, you can tell deliberate lies that hurt people's feelings, but you can't tell deliberate lies that cause them some kind of economic damage (in a rather wide sense,to be sure).
So, you can tell your friends that your roommate is a pathological liar, knowing it is false and will hurt his feelings. But you can't call up the company that he's interviewing with and say that without risking his coming after you for damages for slander. You can't tell your neighbor's wife that her husband is secretly HIV positive, becuase the law puts a value on things like conjugal relations.
There's all kinds of nuances and gray areas in defamation, but a starting point is that when you do deliberate harm to somebody, and it is harm of a nature that the law thinks can be reasonably balanced by moving a sum of money from your bank account to his, you are in trouble. The rest is just elaboration.
Another aspect of free speech is that while some forms of speech are punishable, in general there is a very strong bias under free speech against preventive measures. You can't sue somebody becuase they might defame you in the future (as far as I know). The government can't shut down your newspaper because you are just the sort of pinko who might publish state secrets. One way of thinking about this is that freedom doesn't necessarily mean freedom from consequences. This is why civil disobedience is important. If you want to punish somebody because he is going to break the law, you can simply disappear him. In a free society, you have wait until he is actually doing a crime, then you arrest him and as you try him publicly in a court of law, you are tried yourself in the court of public opinion. So the freedom to commit civil disobedience is an important freedom, one which is meaningless unless it results in a punishment.
the text that he's mad about (Score:5, Informative)
You gotta admit: if that paragraph isn't true, it is definitely libel by its defaming nature. Most people would be angry if this were in their own wikipedia entry. I know the Slashdot title is sensationalist, but in all honesty, I can see why he'd want to sue.
Re:So what's the story? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:At least they have adequate legal representatio (Score:3, Informative)
You do know he is not suing Wikipedia [networkworld.com], right? He tracked the IP of the person who posted the allegedly libelous comments in Wikipedia to Josef Silny & Associates, a Miami law firm. He is suing them, probably hoping they will tell him which of their employees he should be suing instead.
Wikipedia never looses anything (Score:5, Informative)
Martin
Re:So what's the story? (Score:2, Informative)