Golfer Sues Over Vandalized Wikipedia Entry

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?

[Southpaw018 (793465)]

So what's the story...the fact that he's doing the right thing here?

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?

Re:So what's the story?

[squiggleslash (241428)]

The article actually links to answers.com's mirrored copy of the libel [answers.com], which makes for interesting reading. Without wishing to repeat the libelous allegation itself, it essentially comprises of Zoeller supposedly confessing to a large number of relatively unpleasant personality flaws and associated actions.

Given the way its presented, I can understand someone wanting compensation after reading that about themselves.

Re:So what's the story?

[The Bungi (221687)]

Interestingly, it looks like someone at WP deleted much of the page's history. Maybe now they can also be sued for destruction of evidence.

Re:So what's the story?

[kubrick (27291)]

I'd presume that's because people viewing the article can also go back and view historical versions, which would be continuing the publication of defamatory statements. I'm sure whoever did this will have kept an archived copy to be produced on demand.

Re:So what's the story?

[dq5 studios (682179)]

Correct. Wiki Admins can hide historical revisions from non-admins.

Wikipedia never looses anything

[krischik (781389)]

As a Wikibook administratos I can tell you that the WikiMedia software never deletes anything - it is just hidden from the general public. If you have a legitimate reason to look at deleted entries you can ask an Administrator to make the data available to you.

Martin

Re:So what's the story?

[LizardKing (5245)]

Hmm. Someone tells lies about you that might damage your reputation or livelihood. You want them to stop. Do you

a.) send someone to break their kneecaps
b.) smear shit all over their car
c.) call them lies back and sleep with their sister
d.) follow the legal remedy that has been established for centuries and appeal for relief against the harmful action?

Oh that's right. Except in America, the right thing to do is (b).

Depends on how hot their sister is, otherwise it's poo time.

Re:So what's the story?

[drsquare (530038)]

OK, so when the local newspaper puts your picture on the front page saying you're a paedophile, you'll have plenty of time for introspection whilst in hospital.

Nah, the story is actually...

[Moraelin (679338)]

The story is actually that someone's finally doing something to defuse, well, what Penny Arcade called the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory [penny-arcade.com]. (Normal Person + Anonymity + Audience = Total Fuckwad.) There are a lot of people who did just that: took the supposed anonymity of the internet as just an oportunity to harrass, defame, cause grief, etc.

It can be a lot of damage even if you're not an "ImportantPerson(TM)", because we live in an age where bosses google their employees, neighbours google each other, and the village gossip googles the whole freakin' village for some gossip material. We're also in an age where people might glue posters to your door or drive you out of town because they found someone else by the same name rumoured to be a sex offender in some anonymous blog, or as was once the case because they were too stupid to know what "paeditrician" means. (It's a kind of doctor, not a paedophile.) We also live in an age of hypocrisy where someone might hold some rumour against you, not because they believe it, not because they are any better, but because it doesn't fit their bullshit PR corporate image.

So basically carpet bombing the internet, Wikipedia included, with bits of defamation like "JohnTurner admitted in 2007 that he was trying hard to overcome his kiddy porn addiction" or "JohnTurner said he stopped beating his wife nowadays" or "see JohnTurner's guide to surfing for porn undetected at work and using the corporate appserver as a warez site. Excellent reading." can cause a lot of harm even if you're not some celebrity.

E.g., the HR drone for your next job googles you, they don't have the time or the inclination to do a thorough checking. Most of what everyone does at all stages is actually looking for some excuse, any excuse, no matter how lame, to discard as many candidates as possible. It can be just because they didn't like your email provider, or it can be literally by numerology or tarot. (Don't laugh, it's not a joke, there _are_ companies which use numerology or tarot to thin out the candidates pool. Assign a number to each letter in your name, sum them up, sum the digits up until you get a single digit, see if it matches the sum for the company name. If not, your CV goes directly into the garbage bin.) The underlying assumption is that you're just yet another dime-a-dozen peon in a sea of perfectly replaceable and interchangeable peons. PHBs love that assumption. So noone's going to do a thorough checking just for you, see the context, see if such a guide to surfing for porn actually exists anywhere, etc. They'll just google until something bad comes up, then stop.

And it's maybe not a bad thing that someone is suing such a fuckwad and proving once again that anonymity isn't as granted as people think. Sure, noone will bother getting your name out of the ISP if you just posted on Slashdot during work hours, but if you take the step to actively harrass and defame someone, or break any other law, all that anonymity may well be harder to maintain than just being behind a modem. For a lot of people it might just take the essential component out of that greater internet fuckwad recipe. It may even be a good thing.

So did he actually say that stuff

[CrazyJim1 (809850)]

Did he legitamately say that stuff, or is it just made up stuff about him? If he really said it, why should it not go on his permanent record?

Re:So did he actually say that stuff

[by Anonymous Coward]

He did say the stuff about Tiger Woods, and he did apologize and withdraw from the US Open that year as a result. The rest was apparently made up by the vandal - some pretty vicious stuff about wife-beating, based on the copy that was linked. I don't blame him for suing.

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

[Anne_Nonymous (313852)]

So has he stopped beating his wife?

hmm?

[User 956 (568564)]

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.

Is that the one that says the number of lawsuits he's filing against Wikipedia has tripled in the last six months?

Re:hmm?

[quanticle (843097)]

To repeat another poster: This guy isn't suing Wikipedia. He's suing someone who edited his Wikipedia page to include information that was allegedly defamatory.

As I see it, he's doing the right thing here. Mr. Zoeller's quarrel isn't with Wikipedia, its with the guy who edited his entry. That's the way that Mr. Zoeller is pursuing it. He's filing a "John Doe" lawsuit (the kind made famous by the RIAA) against the person associated with the IP address source of the edit.

Clarification

[torstenvl (769732)]

He didn't sue the law firm because he can't sue Wikipedia so much as he sued the origin of the IP address from which the edits came (which happened to be a law firm) rather than Wikipedia , because he was unlikely to win against Wikipedia. Strictly speaking, there are very few cases (none that I can think of) where you just can't sue (whether the suit survives a 12(b) motion to dismiss -- especially 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6) -- is another issue entirely).

hard to believe...

[straponego (521991)]

...that Zoeller has the time for this, what with all the baby-eating. And all the times he spends selling dope to school children disguised as a nun.

/me eyes "Post Anonymously" button thoughtfully.

Re:hard to believe...

[maxume (22995)]

It's worse than that...he's a professional golfer.

Fuzzy

[The Bungi (221687)]

With a name like that, I'd be suing the hell out of everybody just to get on TV.

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).

Fuzzy

[EnsilZah (575600)]

He can't sue Wikipedia, so he's suing the next closest target.
Sounds like Fuzzy Logic to me.

the text that he's mad about

[moochfish (822730)]

Later Zoeller went public with his alcoholism and prescription drug addiction, explaining that at the time he made those statements, he was "in the process of polishing off a fifth of Jack (Daniels) after popping a handful of vicodin pills". He further detailed the violent nature of his disease, recalling how he'd viciously beat his wife Dianne and their four children while under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol. He also admitted feigning a ruptured spinal disc in 1985 so as to be prescribed a multitude of prescription medication. [4]

He sought professional help and mended his fractured familial relationships. In May 2006, Zoeller said in an interview with Golf Digest magazine that he hadn't beaten his wife in nearly five years.

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:Forgive me for stating the obvious

[johndiii (229824)]

Technically, yes. And you can't be criminally prosecuted for something of that nature, nor can it be restrained in advance. There is probably an exception for conspiracy to commit an actual crime. However, if you say something untrue that damages someone, you can be held liable for those damages. If the speech is printed, it's called libel; if spoken it is called slander.

Re:Forgive me for stating the obvious

[torstenvl (769732)]

You mean "libel, not slander." Slander and libel are both forms of defamation.

Re:Forgive me for stating the obvious

[by Anonymous Coward]

If I remember my libel law properly, just because it's false doesn't make it libel (at least in the states). For something to be libelous:

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:Fuzzy History

[dreddnott (555950)]

Exactly who is talking now?

Mel Gibson, from the sound of it...

Re:Could Have Seen This Coming

[cpt kangarooski (3773)]

I would think it highly optimistic to think that Wikipedia can't be sued.

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.