On 4/20/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)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.