Quoting Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net>et>:
which contains the language:
"Content has been removed from this article because of a dispute over
the legality of its inclusion, and so the article may not meet normal
Wikipedia standards.
Please see the discussion on the talk page."
Raises some interesting questions. "Normal Wikipedia standards" permit
violations of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons? Do not take
malice into account? I don't think so.
Focus on that word "malice"; that is the legal black hole which will
produce serious liability.
Fred
Um, Fred, I'm confused by this statement. The actual malice standard is
a standard which is only relevant in the United States and only the
standard for public figures. William Pietri's proposed template doesn't
address what country
or standard is precisely in use. And Pietri's template doesn't even
address that
the issue is libel. So what precisely are you saying?
From our article on the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act
of 1974:
Rehabilitation Act and actions for libel under British law
According to Law and the Media, a reference work relating to British media
law, if a person can prove that the details of a spent conviction were
published with malice, then the publisher may be subject to libel damages
regardless of whether the details were true or not. This applies where the
publisher is relying on a defence of qualified privilege or justification.
As a result, although British media remain free to publish the details of
spent convictions, provided they are not motivated by malice, they
generally avoid mention of such convictions after rehabilitation.[1]
To apply this to the case at issue, the sentence, if there was one, may
have been for over 30 months, and the conviction may have been overturned
on appeal. So this particular law may not apply at all. However, notice
the English use of the concept of malice.
Fred