Thomas Dalton wrote:
You are allowed to assume that your sources are correct, as long as they appear reliable (something published in a law journal counts as reliable). That's why we cite sources, so in the event that the source is wrong it is clear who is at fault, and we can't be charged with libel, or whatever else the consequences of false information may be.
But "reliable" is a statement of opinion. One can cite the source, and leave the reader to determine whether it is reliable.
A source may be wrong, but this should not necessarily imply a finding of fault.
"Libel" takes us even further afield. Very little of the information, whether sourced or unsourced, will be libelous. The primary consequence of false information would be a loss of credibility. It clouds the issue when we dramatically try to make more of that than is warranted.
Ec