On 26/09/2007, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
How is using the username someone gave us when
describing things they
done wrong defamation? We don't say "Joe Bloggs of Number 7, Vandal
Road, Vandalton, is indefinitely blocked for disruptive behaviour.",
we're not naming and shaming anyone, we're just using the name we're
given. If that name happens to be the name of an innocent bystander,
that doesn't make what we've said defamation. It makes it unfortunate,
and we should try and avoid/fix it where possible, but that's because
we're nice people, it's not because it's illegal not to.
And if Joe Bloggs complains, 'Hey, that wasn't me! Leave my good
name alone!' and Wikipaedia refuses to take it down and drags Joe
Bloggs's name through the dirt even more while talking about it?
Then Wikipaedia could probably get sued in the UK for failing to be
an innocent disseminater. (See Defamation Act 1996, Laurence Godfrey
v. Demon Internet Limited) Now, if Wikipaedia does take it down
immediately (I don't trust it to, but if it did), Wikipaedia would proably be
immune under the innocent dissemination clause, although whoever put
the notice up might not be (but then again, who wants to sue Jane Admin
anyway?). Of course, the entire incident could be avoided if everyone
used pseudonyms that were obviously pseudonyms. Not that shaming a
pseudonym is a good thing to do, but at least people are less likely to
lose jobs over that.