In January 2008, Barbara Bauer and her group Barbara Bauer Literary Agency, Inc. recorded a claim in New Jersey State court naming twenty-two defendants in the action. The claims against the defendants incorporated defamation, tortious interference with prospective business advantage, and conspiracy. Consistent with court records, the controversy centered on declarations made on an impressive number of websites portraying Bauer as being in the company of the "20 Worst Literary Agents" and asserting that she had "no . . . significant track record of sales to commercial (advance paying) publishers." The claims, in addition, asserted that different litigants posted modified photos of Bauer on the Internet and made YouTube films, namely "Crouching Snark, Hidden Draggon" and "Miss Snark's Happy Hooker Crapstravaganza," that purportedly slandered and disparaged her. Concerning Wikimedia, the complaint asserts that Wikipedia printed false information that claimed that Bauer was "The Dumbest of the Twenty Worst" literary agents and that she has "no documented sales at all." It further asserts that Bauer advised Wikimedia regarding the supposedly false articulations, and that the organization "refused to remove the statements from Wikipedia." Finally, it charged that Wikimedia plotted with the other defendants to stigmatize and meddle with her prospective business, without giving any specific details. On May 1, 2008, Wikimedia moved to release the grievance, contending that section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA 230), the federal law that shields providers and users of "interactive computer service[s]" from liability for defamation and other torts for publishing the statements of third parties, bars Bauer's claims as a matter of law. Wikimedia's brief in backing of its motion moreover contended that, regardless of the possibility that CDA 230 did not bar Bauer's case, the underlying explanations are ensured as protected speech under the New Jersey Constitution and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. On July 1, 2008 the Court rejected the body of evidence opposite Wikimedia Foundation, deciding that section 230 of the Communications Decency Act barred liability for publishing the statements of others. The court left open the probability that Bauer might correct her grievance to state a case opposite Wikimedia. Bauer vs. Glatzer, Case Number: L 001169 07, is still pending further discovery per anonymous sources. Judge Paul Kapalko and Judge Jamie S. Perri have allowed Bauer and her agency to go forward without prejudice. While this case was heralded as a "victory" for free speech, it was only dismissed as baseless of defamation claims against the operator of Wikipedia only. Federal law inoculated the Wikimedia Foundation from risk for proclamations made by its users. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, covers security of destinations such as Wikipedia, and the like only, it does not indicate that affirmed defamation on the Internet can't be confronted in court. Rather, the law states that a plaintiff directs their actions straight at the speakers themselves (i.e. the remaining defendants) and not the discussions where proclamations were made. Wikipedia may have been vindicated, on a legal interpretation (i.e. technicality), from these actions . . . but . . . are the other defendants? How do humans really treat other humans? From a moral, ethical and professional perspective . . . you decide