On 4/20/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Suppose I get an email saying that such-and-such an article contains a false and defamatory statement about Emily Freeflow, the British tea magnate. I say "sorry I can't be bothered. Go away." Emily Freeflow sues me and takes my reply to the court in the UK. What do I tell the court?
That you didn't make the defamatory statement, nor did you publish it, so you have nothing to do with it.
Not good enough, I'm afraid. In UK law the holder of a sysop account on a Mediwiki installation would have a difficult time of it convincing a court that, having the ability to control the distribution of material on the internet he nevertheless was not a editor within the meaning of clause 1(2) of the Defamation Act, 1996. Clause 1(3) provides some exceptions, a to e, but are of limited applicability. The correct, equitable and prudent thing to do here is to apologise and remove the defamatory material or take steps to ensure that someone else does so promptly.