Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 12/13/05, Steve Block <steve.block at
myrealbox.com> wrote:
You've
already ceded that yes,
there are reasons for the foundation to worry.
No I haven't.
I'm sorry, but when you stated that yes, there was concern for reusers
regarding potential suits, and could I suggest anything to be done, that
that meant the foundation was likewise concerned. Is it the case that
the foundation has no worries regarding funding or reputation in the
light of a potential suit?
The fact that two British newspapers called Robbie
Williams gay is
true information. Does British law define this as libel or not?
According to the BBC,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/A1183394#4
"It is inadvisable to repeat a defamatory rumour unless you are in a
position to prove it’s true. Even if you are contradicting the rumour
you should not repeat it. And adding ‘allegedly’ is not enough to get
you out of libel difficulties."
As far as I can ascertain, only once the trial has ended can the nature
of the allegation may be reported, when it becomes a matter for the
public record. I am unclear on the position whilst the case is ongoing,
but England and Wales have very strict laws to prevent the prejudicing
of trials.
I don't understand. Is it libel, in the UK, to
say "Two newspapers
alleged that Robbie Williams was gay"? I agree Wikipedia shouldn't
say "Robbie Williams is gay", if that's all you're saying. Can you be
more specific as to what type of statement you *are* talking about?
See above. It can be deemed libelous to repeat a rumour, so it can be
deemed libelous to state "Two newspapers alleged that Robbie Williams
was gay"? up until the point that it is settled in court. By repeating
the allegation you are, if the allegation is false, disseminating false
information and party to defamation.
I'll ask again. What do you propose that we do?
I made that proposal at [[Wikipedia:Libel]]. It doesn't seem to have
met with community consensus. The trouble seems to be hinging on whose
definition of libel is used. I would add, however, that the foundation
review either European law or the basing of assets in the European
Union. I am not a lawyer, but I glanced at the Council Regulation (EC)
No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and
enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters
http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32001R0…
and these clauses give cause for concern:
(9) A defendant not domiciled in a Member State is in general subject to
national rules of jurisdiction applicable in the territory of the Member
State of the court seised, and a defendant domiciled in a Member State
not bound by this Regulation must remain subject to the Brussels Convention.
(10) For the purposes of the free movement of judgments, judgments given
in a Member State bound by this Regulation should be recognised and
enforced in another Member State bound by this Regulation, even if the
judgment debtor is domiciled in a third State.
(11) The rules of jurisdiction must be highly predictable and founded on
the principle that jurisdiction is generally based on the defendant's
domicile and jurisdiction must always be available on this ground save
in a few well-defined situations in which the subject-matter of the
litigation or the autonomy of the parties warrants a different linking
factor. The domicile of a legal person must be defined autonomously so
as to make the common rules more transparent and avoid conflicts of
jurisdiction.
Number (11) would probably allow libel cases to take place in England
for the English language wikipedia since that is where English is the
primary language.
However, the McLibel case showed that the European Human Rights
directive, which guarantees freedom of expression, is in conflict with
the libel laws of England and Wales.
What I am ultimately asking is that the foundation consider seeking
advice on the libel laws of England and Wales and those of Europe from a
resident expert.
We clearly should
remove false information from Wikipedia. I agree with that, and I
think everyone else does. We should remove private information which
has not been published anywhere else. Our verifiability rule ensures
that. So what else should we do?
Clarify the position with regards to libel laws around the world as best
as possible. At the moment we have different editors who are either
based in the US and therefore do not care or have concerns but are
feeling frustrated because no-one is prepared to stick their head above
the parapet with even the loosest of risk assesments.
Even with images we have only gone so far to protect
reusers. Images
which can only be used by Wikipedia are off limits. Images which can
be used by a broad range of reusers, on the other hand, are generally
kept. There is somewhat of a balancing act here.
But that's the point at issue here. Is wikipedia pursuing a policy that
it is happy to use text which potentially only the online Wikipedia can
use, or is it going to pursue a policy whereby text which can be used by
a majority of reusers is the preferred option. If the latter is the
case, then I would ask that the foundation sits down and explores how
various libel laws affect reusers, and then formulate a policy
appropriately, informing and appraising the community along the way so
as not to be seen to be handing down dictats. If the former is the
case, then I am unsure how wikipedia expects the text to be reused, and
upon whose shoulders it places the burden of risk to fact check. If a
reuser has to check every page for potential libel, why would it do so?
When it comes to printing encyclopedias, information will likewise
have to be vetted dependent upon the territory at which the publications
are aimed. It would make sense to have some idea of how these problems
are to be tackled, wouldn't it?
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.13/199 - Release Date: 13/12/05