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:32001R00... 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?