Hi, Having been sued for libel several times (they never won), I am afraid that as absurd as Ray Saintonge may think it is, my understanding of the law is that Steve Block is correct:
- Newspaper editors are often named in suits, at least within the UK.
- The reason they are named is that they authorise content which is published.
- By saving a page, I am creating an edition which is published.
- I am called an editor.
And as long as the page history text is accessible, all prior versions of the page are "published" even if the current edit has deleted the potentially defamatory material. And so not only are the people legally responsible for Wikipedia potentially laible for damages, but so is every Wiki editor who hit the save button on a page that contained the defamatory text, even if it no longer on the current page.
:-(
I, too, would like to see an actual legal opinion on this.
________________________________
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org on behalf of Ray Saintonge Sent: Wed 12/7/2005 5:05 PM To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Libel law
Steve Block wrote:
geni wrote:
On 12/7/05, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
Is there any thoughts on private individuals? Are we open to libel suits if we edit a page containing a libellous statement and fail to remove it completely from the edit history?
I don't think there are any legal presidents in that area.
No, but it would be nice to hear people's opinions, and also nice to hear if any legal opinion had been given to Wikipedia regarding this. Look at it this way:
- Newspaper editors are often named in suits, at least within the UK.
- The reason they are named is that they authorise content which is
published.
- By saving a page, I am creating an edition which is published.
- I am called an editor.
Also note the [[McLibel case]].
Those sued did not make the statements, they simply distributed them.
I would think a lawyer will make a good argument that it is possible we can be named in a suit if we have edited a page containing a libellous statement and failed to remove it.
Your hypotheseis leads to an absurd result. If I edit this page containing an alleged libel for matters unrelated to that statement how am I supposed to know what is libellous in that article? By your line of reasoning, if I want to be safe I might as well delete the entire article. Your reading would make busibodies of us all.
Ec
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Hello,
- Newspaper editors are often named in suits, at least
within the UK.
- The reason they are named is that they authorise content which is published.
- By saving a page, I am creating an edition which is published.
- I am called an editor.
And as long as the page history text is accessible, all prior versions of the page are "published" even if the current edit has deleted the potentially defamatory material. And so not only are the people legally responsible for Wikipedia potentially laible for damages, but so is every Wiki editor who hit the save button on a page that contained the defamatory text, even if it no longer on the current page.
I don't think anywhere you have said that you authorise content on a page by saving it. You haven't signed a contract to that effect, and you're not paid. You might as well argue that reading a page without changing counts as "authorising" it.
I would be interested to know whether it would be legally acceptable to keep the old libellous material in the history, but labelled with some {{libel}} tag, that screamed at the user "THIS INFORMATION IS FALSE AND DEFAMATORY. It is only kept here for reference for those doing research on this libel case. A statement from the injured party is here...". Would that hold up in court?
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
Hello,
- Newspaper editors are often named in suits, at least
within the UK.
- The reason they are named is that they authorise content which is published.
- By saving a page, I am creating an edition which is published.
- I am called an editor.
And as long as the page history text is accessible, all prior versions of the page are "published" even if the current edit has deleted the potentially defamatory material. And so not only are the people legally responsible for Wikipedia potentially laible for damages, but so is every Wiki editor who hit the save button on a page that contained the defamatory text, even if it no longer on the current page.
I don't think anywhere you have said that you authorise content on a page by saving it. You haven't signed a contract to that effect, and you're not paid. You might as well argue that reading a page without changing counts as "authorising" it.
I would be interested to know whether it would be legally acceptable to keep the old libellous material in the history, but labelled with some {{libel}} tag, that screamed at the user "THIS INFORMATION IS FALSE AND DEFAMATORY. It is only kept here for reference for those doing research on this libel case. A statement from the injured party is here...". Would that hold up in court?
I think if the libel is actually being acted upon in a court case, one can report the nature of the defamation since it forms part of the court proceedings. Consider the very recent Robbie Williams trial, in which the nature of the libel, that two papers called Williams gay, was widely reported. Otherwise, I think it would be very unwise to repeat a libellous comment, and even more so to call attention to it with a big tag. However, as ever, IANAL