On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 10:19:13 -0700, "Denny Colt" wikidenny@gmail.com wrote:
Is this the first case specifically targeting WP/WMF along these lines? Trying to hold us liable for reporting what OTHERS said? It could be a slam dunk precendent for us in a good way if the Judge dismisses, right? As in, we aren't responsible for reporting what others said?
It would probably be unnecessary. Previous precedent - Barrett v Rosenthal - says that you can republish even blatantly defamatory material, and with obvious ill intent, and still get away with it.
Guy (JzG)