Talk:Jones v. Dirty World Entertainment Recordings LLC

United States: Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

Law

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

A lot of the language in the "Issues" section looks like it was pulled straight from the case. Try to digest the material and summarize it for the readers. The value of an encyclopedia is in distilling the important facts and presenting them in an easy to comprehend fashion. Igmcdowell (talk) 01:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Brian's Checklist. Specifically, I recommend paying close attention to points 2 (concise summary), 3 (avoid jargon), 8 (clarity), and 11 (focus on notable information; the jurisdiction point seems minor but takes up a lot of your article).Igmcdowell (talk) 01:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale for removing "Subsequent Developments"

The title of this article is "Jones v. Dirty World", not "Sarah Jones". Unless the criminal charges made against the plaintiff are cited by the civil court as part of a rationale for deciding the civil case, the criminal charges against the plaintiff - which were issued after the post appeared on thedirty.com and after Ms. Jones filed suit - are outside the scope of an article on the civil case Jones v. Dirty World Entertainment Recordings LLC.

Furthermore, there is probable cause to classify the "Subsequent Developments" section's original contributor, user:DS Cable, as a WP:SPA. This user's sole contributions are to Nik Richie-related articles (this one, Shayne Lamas, Mission Viejo High School - Nik's alma mater, creating the Nik Richie page) and to Ripoff Report. The common thread between Nik Richie/thedirty.com and Ripoff Report is that both are or own online message boards that have been defendants in civil libel cases and have claimed immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. user:DS Cable's contributions have generally been favorable to or supportive of the defendants, such as including criticism of anti-Dirty World court decisions in Nik Richie and removing criticism of Ripoff Report, or (as is the case here and in Nik Richie) including information detrimental to or discrediting the plaintiffs when that information is outside the scope of the article's subject. This pattern of contributions would suggest WP:Advocacy.

If the criminal case against Ms. Jones is cited by the civil court in its decision(s), then by all means reinsert it into this article. Until or unless that happens, however, it should be excluded.

Concession re: my former CDA section contribution

As for my own since-undone contribution to the Communications Decency Act section of this article, while courts have both accepted (S.C. v. Dirty World) and rejected (Jones v. Dirty World) CDA Sec. 230 immunity for Dirty World on various occasions, I concede that my contribution as stated did not accurately reflect Dirty World's unsettled-by-consensus-court-decision Sec. 230 CDA immunity status. I will refrain from attempting to reinsert my original contribution or equivalent in that section going forward. Damon Killian (talk) 04:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Name of article

Should this article not be renamed/moved to Jones v. Dirty World LLC? As the article's body and sources state, the complainant originally sued the wrong/unintended entity Dirty World Entertainment Recordings, LLC. She has since served suit to the correct/intended entity, Dirty World LLC, operator of thedirty.com, which hosted the material her complaint considers libelous and for which she seeks compensatory damages. Damon Killian (talk) 18:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The case name was never amended.--Tznkai (talk) 17:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oral arguments

For later use --Tznkai (talk) 19:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oral argument in the appeal took place on May 1, 2014. An audio recording of the argument is available on the Sixth Circuit's website.

Issue on appeal

Does a website have immunity under section 230 of the CDA, even when published material is edited and editorial notes are attached?

I removed this today if someone wants to discuss the question above, we can do it here.31jetjet (talk)31jetjet

"Dirty World Entertainment Recordings LLC" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect "Dirty World Entertainment Recordings LLC". Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of California, Berkeley supported by WikiProject United States Public Policy and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Spring term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:36, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]