[WikiEN-l] BADSITES ArbCom case in progress

[Armed Blowfish]

On 20/09/2007, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 20/09/2007, William Pietri <william at scissor.com> wrote:
>>> It is relevant. Defamation under UK law happens where the content is
>>> read, not where it is hosted.
>>
>> Why exactly would we worry about this?
>
> "Wikipedia" doesn't need to concern itself with it. Its editors, on a
> personal level, might find it appropriate to.

If Wikipaedia wants to ensure that it has a defence under British
law, in case anyone should try to sue it there, it needs to meet
the criteria of innocent dissemination in the United Kingdom.

The relevant part of Defamation Act 1996:

(1) In defamation proceedings a person has a defence if he shows that—
  (a) he was not the author, editor or publisher of the statement complained of,
  (b) he took reasonable care in relation to its publication, and
  (c) he did not know, and had no reason to believe, that what he did caused or
       contributed to the publication of a defamatory statement.

The full Act:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1996/1996031.htm

In the case of Laurence Godfrey v. Demon Internet Limited,
Godfrey asked Demon Internet Limited to take down a
defamatory statement, and they refused.  As such, it was
ruled Demon Internet Limited failed Sections 1(1)(b) and
1(1)(c) and was responsible for publishing the material to
each customer who downloaded the material after the
take-down request.
http://www.cyber-rights.org/reports/demon.htm