Class action suit: Difference between revisions
(de-rant) |
(revert attempt to trivialize: the GFDL contributors do not "feel" they are deprived, they can PROVE this, and there are MANY cases of alleged and collective identity and libel re: WM) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
*The claim that [[pollution]] released upstream does harm to people downstream could be advanced by a group of people seeking compensation for health harms. | *The claim that [[pollution]] released upstream does harm to people downstream could be advanced by a group of people seeking compensation for health harms. | ||
*The claim that [[Wikipedia violates GFDL]] could be advanced by a large group of [[GFDL contributor]]s | *The claim that [[Wikipedia violates GFDL]] could be advanced by a large group of [[GFDL contributor]]s cheated of [[attribution]], [[access to improvement]]s (as required by [[GFDL]] or indeed any [[sharealike]] license), or otherwise by an unaccountable group of people who have seized effective control of the [[GFDL corpus]] and chosen to deliberately censor materially they dislike on political grounds - which have no status and are no excuse under the [[GFDL]]. | ||
*The claim that [[libel]] is propagated in the forums of [[Wikimedia]], | *The claim that [[libel]] is propagated in the forums of [[Wikimedia]], which has taken no steps at all to prevent use of names of uninvolved or involutarily named parties ("[[outing]]") in connection with [[false and unsubstantiated claims]] regarding [[alleged and collective identity]] or [[spun death threat|death threat]]s or [[conspiracy]] or other claims published on its [[vile mailing list]]. | ||
Rules for filing such suits vary by jurisdiction. In general the [[United States]] makes it relatively easy to file such suits. However, even where they are harder to file, such as in [[India]] or [[Ontario]], there are sometimes rules favourable to [[plaintiff]]s: In [[Ontario]], plaintiffs can sell shares in the eventual judgement damages, to finance the case itself; In a famous case against broker [[w:Nesbitt Burns]], there were literally people lined up around the block to buy shares in the lawsuit against this infamous company which sold shares in [[w:Bre-X]]. Ontario also has quite lax [[libel]] and [[slander]] laws under which one can sue even when true things are being said - if they are out of context to the discussion or discourse and not relevant to the decisions being made. Which is the case for [[Wikipedia mailing list]] in most or all cases, it is simply a hate forum for the [[sysop power structure]]. | Rules for filing such suits vary by jurisdiction. In general the [[United States]] makes it relatively easy to file such suits. However, even where they are harder to file, such as in [[India]] or [[Ontario]], there are sometimes rules favourable to [[plaintiff]]s: In [[Ontario]], plaintiffs can sell shares in the eventual judgement damages, to finance the case itself; In a famous case against broker [[w:Nesbitt Burns]], there were literally people lined up around the block to buy shares in the lawsuit against this infamous company which sold shares in [[w:Bre-X]]. Ontario also has quite lax [[libel]] and [[slander]] laws under which one can sue even when true things are being said - if they are out of context to the discussion or discourse and not relevant to the decisions being made. Which is the case for [[Wikipedia mailing list]] in most or all cases, it is simply a hate forum for the [[sysop power structure]]. | ||
Latest revision as of 17:43, 9 September 2004
A class action suit is a lawsuit in which an entire group or class of people claims a similar harm has been done to them by the same party or parties. For example:
- The claim that pollution released upstream does harm to people downstream could be advanced by a group of people seeking compensation for health harms.
- The claim that Wikipedia violates GFDL could be advanced by a large group of GFDL contributors cheated of attribution, access to improvements (as required by GFDL or indeed any sharealike license), or otherwise by an unaccountable group of people who have seized effective control of the GFDL corpus and chosen to deliberately censor materially they dislike on political grounds - which have no status and are no excuse under the GFDL.
- The claim that libel is propagated in the forums of Wikimedia, which has taken no steps at all to prevent use of names of uninvolved or involutarily named parties ("outing") in connection with false and unsubstantiated claims regarding alleged and collective identity or death threats or conspiracy or other claims published on its vile mailing list.
Rules for filing such suits vary by jurisdiction. In general the United States makes it relatively easy to file such suits. However, even where they are harder to file, such as in India or Ontario, there are sometimes rules favourable to plaintiffs: In Ontario, plaintiffs can sell shares in the eventual judgement damages, to finance the case itself; In a famous case against broker w:Nesbitt Burns, there were literally people lined up around the block to buy shares in the lawsuit against this infamous company which sold shares in w:Bre-X. Ontario also has quite lax libel and slander laws under which one can sue even when true things are being said - if they are out of context to the discussion or discourse and not relevant to the decisions being made. Which is the case for Wikipedia mailing list in most or all cases, it is simply a hate forum for the sysop power structure.