On 15/11/2007, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net> wrote:
Here's the note I left on the talk page of the
article. If you live in the
UK, take this warning very seriously.
"Attribution
It is recommended that all additions to the article itself of a
controversial nature be specifically attributed to their source, for
example, "in an article in The Guardian dated July 3, 2001 blah blah
blah". Editors based in the UK are strongly discouraged from editing this
article. Familiarity with the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 is
recommended, especially the provisions which permit libel liability.
That would only apply if there was a sentence of less than 2 and a half years.
The
main problem with the use of references is that while the sources
themselves have probably avoided liability by cleverly implying, rather
than stating false or misleading information, our editors have not been so
clever.
Cleverly implying is not a defence I've run across under UK law. I
know of cases that were lost because the article implied things. If
you want to bring that kind of complication up I suspect you would be
better off arguing about qualified privilege. The press have it to an
extent I suspect we don't.
Nor would we want them to be. If you think a
practicing attorney
I think we can be pretty sure he isn't a practicing attorney.
Certainly no recent reports place him in the US.
--
geni