On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 6:42 PM, Marie Earley <eiryel@hotmail.com> wrote:
Yes, no action from ArbCom or however, followed by a criminal conviction. Quotes from the judge in the criminal trial appearing in the media alongside quotes from those on-wiki who just said, "Closing this... no action... trivial... this isn't a matter for administrators..." etc.

Perhaps even a judge who expresses surprise and/or disappointment at a lack of action from Wikipedia, a headline along the lines of: "Judge accuses Wikipedia for failing to support victim of hate speech."

There is also the crime of defamation which is also a more serious offence under UK law than it is under US law.
US - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law#Criminal_defamation
UK - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation_Act_2013

Marie
 
With reference to
​Marie and Daniel's emails​
​​, an
​d​
to Maia's email under a different subject line – where she 
​discusses​
the US cyber-stalking and cyber-harassment laws – one difficulty for Wikipedians is whether they would be blocked from editing
​ if they were to invoke the law in their defence. (This assumes the editor causing the problem hasn't been banned, in which case I can't imagine that NLT would ever be applied.)

Wikipedia:No legal threats
​(NLT) ​
says: "If you make legal threats or take legal action over a Wikipedia dispute, you may be blocked from editing so that the matter is not exacerbated through other channels."

This is arguably more likely to have an impact on women. People aren't blocked from Twitter or Facebook for using the law to defend themselves, and women are generally encouraged to seek legal help rather than deal with bad online situations alone. NLT should be updated to distinguish between invoking the law merely to intimidate and invoking it as a legitimate defence, though it would need careful wording.

Sarah