Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> writes:
Gwern Branwen wrote:
> as opposed to Brandt,
> where it isn't unthinkable a judge would decide that the
decision
to keep the
article was bad
No, that really is pretty much unthinkable. There is absolutely
nothing
legally problematic at all in our having a biography
about
Daniel
Brandt. He has been featured in major newspapers on
multiple
occasions
for a variety of different things. His work, and our
article
about him,
is precisely the sort of speech that the 1st Amendment
is
designed to
protect.
If there is libel about Brandt in Wikipedia, I am sure that he
will
point it out. He is unblocked now precisely so that
he CAN
point it out.
--Jimbo
Remember, this is the one-judge-in-the-world. I refuse to believe
that there is any judge who could ever think that Seigenthaler was
not a public figure - but given the number of my peers who have
stated firmly that Brandt is only "border-line notable" or
"non-notable", I have to assume it is possible a judge might agree
with them, as they are equally rational and intelligent beings
(perhaps with more legal knowledge than I).
--
Gwern
Inquiring minds want to know.