William Pietri wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
On 15/11/2007, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
But for controversial edits, we individual editors are the ones with primary legal responsibility. So I think we editors have to discuss these things. And the open nature of our project means we must discuss them in the open.
Depends. For a UK based editor writing about litigous people in the UK, my advice (as a somewhat knowledgeable non-lawyer) is: avoid. Leave the hell alone. Let the Americans deal with it, we have many good BLP editors in the US. Don't even TOUCH the article lest you get some liability stuck to you. It sucks, but it's reality under the UK's horrible horrible libel laws
Oh, I agree. Your paragraph above is a great example of exactly the kind of discussion I think we should be having.
Of course, the reach of British libel law may extend even to the US:
http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10110...
US editors can be sued in Britain, and defending a suit would be an expensive and painful proposition. And even if you win a lawsuit like that, legal victories are frequently Pyrrhic ones.
The case was only scheduled to be heard to-day. We'll need to wait for the judgement. The UK decision on this one was for an undefended case. US courts have usually been very reluctant to enforce this kind of decision.
I agree, however, about the safety of leaving these UK controversies to Americans and others where the risk is lower.
Ec