Fred Bauder writes:
I think you might start with an inquiry regarding what makes Gregory Lauder-Frost notable. Is it is political views and activities or is it his personal life?
This issue has actually been raised on the talk page. It is generally accepted that it is Gregory Lauder-Frost's political activities prior to 1992 which make him notable. Some argue that his activities as a genealogist are also sufficient to make him notable. A small group believes he may also be notable for the child custody dispute in which he was involved (which was contended by his counsel to be connected to his conviction).
However, that question surely does not help resolve the issue of whether it is reasonable to mention his conviction. In my view the principle is clear: if a person meets notability for a biographical article, then the whole of their life is notable even if on its own it would not qualify them. For example, Bill Clinton is not a notable saxophone player - he would not qualify for an article based on having played the saxophone - but it is reasonable to mention this fact in his article because it is a significant part of how he was perceived.
To take another example, how about politicians whose careers have been terminated by external scandals? One could not plausibly argue in the case of [[Peter Baker (UK politician)]] that because the financial scandal that caused his expulsion from the House of Commons was unrelated to his political career, it ought not to be mentioned.
The legal issues relating to Gregory Lauder-Frost have all been considered and there is nothing which would prevent a suitable, balanced, neutral, sourced and factual article being written. In order to be fully comprehensive, it would have to mention, in its proper context, the fact of his 1992 conviction.
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 20:05:53 +0100, David Boothroyd david@election.demon.co.uk wrote:
The legal issues relating to Gregory Lauder-Frost have all been considered and there is nothing which would prevent a suitable, balanced, neutral, sourced and factual article being written. In order to be fully comprehensive, it would have to mention, in its proper context, the fact of his 1992 conviction.
According to his fan-club, that would violate the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. That is the entire basis of their legal threats, that the disclosure of the conviction is motivated by malice and is therefore proscribed. This is, of course, complete bollocks in as much as I would not know Lauder-Frost from a hole in the ground, and the editor who did most of the work on the conviction, including paying for a Lexis-Nexis search, is not even British.
Guy (JzG)
On 7/13/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 20:05:53 +0100, David Boothroyd david@election.demon.co.uk wrote:
The legal issues relating to Gregory Lauder-Frost have all been considered and there is nothing which would prevent a suitable, balanced, neutral, sourced and factual article being written. In order to be fully comprehensive, it would have to mention, in its proper context, the fact of his 1992 conviction.
According to his fan-club, that would violate the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. That is the entire basis of their legal threats, that the disclosure of the conviction is motivated by malice and is therefore proscribed. This is, of course, complete bollocks in as much as I would not know Lauder-Frost from a hole in the ground, and the editor who did most of the work on the conviction, including paying for a Lexis-Nexis search, is not even British.
It may be in English wikipedians best interests to not contribute to the article if there's any doubt about the legal implications. I am sure we can find non-British editors willing to deal with it.
On 14/07/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
According to his fan-club, that would violate the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. That is the entire basis of their legal threats, that the disclosure of the conviction is motivated by malice and is therefore proscribed. This is, of course, complete bollocks in as much as I would not know Lauder-Frost from a hole in the ground, and the editor who did most of the work on the conviction, including paying for a Lexis-Nexis search, is not even British.
It may be in English wikipedians best interests to not contribute to the article if there's any doubt about the legal implications. I am sure we can find non-British editors willing to deal with it.
British courts have shown an unfortunate willingness to ignore the nationality of defendants in Internet defamation cases, incidentally. I wouldn't be so quick to prescribe this.
On 7/14/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
It may be in English wikipedians best interests to not contribute to the article if there's any doubt about the legal implications. I am sure we can find non-British editors willing to deal with it.
British courts have shown an unfortunate willingness to ignore the nationality of defendants in Internet defamation cases, incidentally. I wouldn't be so quick to prescribe this.
I am not an attorney, however...
US courts have held that items covered under US Free Speech doctorine here, said here by US citizens, are not areas where they will enforce either foreign court actions nor extradition requests.
Were it to come to that, and that would be a ridiculously unlikely outcome anyways, someone residing here in the US is almost certainly perfectly safe if they avoid committing anything that meets the definitions of libel or slander here in the US. We have no equivalent to the criminal history privacy law at issue here; people's long ago criminal convictions are a matter of open public record. Factual discussion of them is not actionable or a tort.
It might conceivably interfere with future travel abroad, but the odds are so low as to be vanishingly negligible.
As far as I can tell, anything which one could write which would be outside clearly protected free speech in the US would not be suitable for Wikipedia anyways, and someone else would no doubt revert it out.
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 20:05:53 +0100, David Boothroyd david@election.demon.co.uk wrote:
The legal issues relating to Gregory Lauder-Frost have all been considered and there is nothing which would prevent a suitable, balanced, neutral, sourced and factual article being written. In order to be fully comprehensive, it would have to mention, in its proper context, the fact of his 1992 conviction.
According to his fan-club, that would violate the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. That is the entire basis of their legal threats, that the disclosure of the conviction is motivated by malice and is therefore proscribed. This is, of course, complete bollocks in as much as I would not know Lauder-Frost from a hole in the ground, and the editor who did most of the work on the conviction, including paying for a Lexis-Nexis search, is not even British.
re "motivated by malice": One can hardly make this argument successfully if Wikipedia consistently includes this kind of detail about everyone to whom it verifiably applies.
Ec
On 7/14/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 20:05:53 +0100, David Boothroyd david@election.demon.co.uk wrote: According to his fan-club, that would violate the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. That is the entire basis of their legal threats, that the disclosure of the conviction is motivated by malice and is therefore proscribed. This is, of course, complete bollocks in as much as I would not know Lauder-Frost from a hole in the ground, and the editor who did most of the work on the conviction, including paying for a Lexis-Nexis search, is not even British.
I must admit I did wonder who had done the digging around on GLF, and why. The article about the incident under discussion is, as I recall, from 16 years ago or thereabouts.
Sarah
On Jul 14, 2006, at 12:39 PM, Sarah wrote:
On 7/14/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 20:05:53 +0100, David Boothroyd david@election.demon.co.uk wrote: According to his fan-club, that would violate the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. That is the entire basis of their legal threats, that the disclosure of the conviction is motivated by malice and is therefore proscribed. This is, of course, complete bollocks in as much as I would not know Lauder-Frost from a hole in the ground, and the editor who did most of the work on the conviction, including paying for a Lexis-Nexis search, is not even British.
I must admit I did wonder who had done the digging around on GLF, and why. The article about the incident under discussion is, as I recall, from 16 years ago or thereabouts.
Sarah
I think there is some motivation to discredit his political viewpoint.
Fred
On 7/14/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
I think there is some motivation to discredit his political viewpoint.
Fred
Pointless. The monday club has been pretty much insignifcant in british politics since the Conservative Party seathered links with it. He doesn't really have any links with the more recently sucessful parts of the um hard right (say UKIP). As a target he makes no sense.
On 7/14/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/14/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
I think there is some motivation to discredit his political viewpoint.
Pointless. The monday club has been pretty much insignifcant in british politics since the Conservative Party seathered links with it. He doesn't really have any links with the more recently sucessful parts of the um hard right (say UKIP). As a target he makes no sense.
I do have to agree with Geni here; he's a fairly insignificant figure nowadays, and frankly his political views manage to discredit themselves quite well enough without help. Ed Chilvers and a few other contributors appear to be politically opposed to him, but Ed at least appears to be motivated by a desire to not let the hard-right of the past rewrite their own histories, rather than wishing for a hatchet job.
I think a bigger motivation has been the behaviour of his supporters (some or all of whom may be GLF himself; it's hard to tell) who wrote the articles up originally into such pieces of puff-journalism and have a habit of viciously laying in to anyone who dares disagree with them, with such virulence in fact that they have made enemies of quite a few normally unbiased contributors.
This is human nature; if someone treats you as an enemy and accuses you of malice and hatred towards them, you will begin to oppose them, especially after you try and clear up the misunderstanding and get slapped for your trouble.
The irrationally nasty tend to get articles biased against them - there are other examples, e.g. Daniel Brandt. Nobody would have cared a whit for Brandt had he not behaved as badly as he did.
Legal threats also tend to get Wikipedians worked up; GLF's supporters took the attitude that they could make legal threats with impunity as long as the threats were of GLF suing, not the supporters. In fact, given that User:Sussexman at least claimed to be a solicitor, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if the nasty lawyers' letters were drafted and sent by the same people contributing to Wikipedia on GLF's behalf.
-Matt
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 13:39:44 -0500, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
I must admit I did wonder who had done the digging around on GLF, and why. The article about the incident under discussion is, as I recall, from 16 years ago or thereabouts.
As I recall a political opponent pointed out that the statement he had been cleared on appeal was a lie; William Pietri (an editor for whom I have the greatest respect and from whom I have never heard anything remotely resembling an unkind word) did the digging. The para on the conviction was as neutral as it could have been.
Guy (JzG)
On Jul 14, 2006, at 12:22 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
re "motivated by malice": One can hardly make this argument successfully if Wikipedia consistently includes this kind of detail about everyone to whom it verifiably applies.
Ec
Malice towards all, charity towards none?
Fred