Steve Bennett wrote:
And how would the subject feel from the time the article reads "X is alleged to have molested children [1]" with a footnote to the newspaper article until the time sometime after the retraction in the paper that the entry is amended to read as above?
In any case, we need some very clear definitions of libel and defamation, with reference to jurisdictions etc, to know exactly what we can and can't say and in what circumstances. I suspect our assumptions of good faith and commonsense being sufficient are unfounded.
That may be the only thing we can rely on. How we react when something is brought to our attention is important; having a fact checking mechanism of some sort in place will be important. It's impossible to please all the jurisdictions. Do we take the risk of being charged with insulting the Turkish state for talking about the Armenian genocide of the 1910s?
Ec