On 9/11/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Indeed, I'd be very curious about this too. Mistake of fact is not always a defense to libel, but I'm unaware of any jurisdiction where truth is not a defense of libel accusations.
Indeed. I remember the phrase "reckless disregard for the truth" from somewhere - possibly the legal definition of defamation, which is pretty similar to libel. You don't have to know it's false, but if you didn't take reasonable steps to verify that it was true, you are still liable (under UK law, anyway). If it's actually true, though, then you're fine.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Hmm, interesting - I'll offer this ref http://www.cippic.ca/index.php?page=defamation-and-slapps/#faq_defences-to-d... Which notes that Canadians (sans Quebeckers, as is always the case) enjoy something being "substantially true" as a complete defense to libel, and defamation requires *either* slander or libel in Canada (possibly sans Quebec). There are a stack of other defenses, though none would apply here. Of course, the real damage for telling someone they're blocked indef, especially if you just note what they did in a non-derogitory way is likely to be very small - I could see nominal damages of $1 or less ...
That said, if someone wanted to sue me in Guatamala or other places with unusual defamation laws, I suppose my only defense would be that you can't get blood from a stone. I'm also unclear on the enforcability of such judgements. Anyone know?
WilyD