Thomas Dalton:
If you said anything that could be libellous then that could be a problem. Whoever did the publishing would be liable. That may be why they want to edit it before publishing - to remove anything potentially libellous, as a TV company would do.
It would be impossible for anything on the audio recording to be taken as libel, as there were no written words. Slanderous? Possibly.
However, I was particularly careful to choose my words. I am a believer in the legal doctrine that "truth" is the best defense against a prosecution for defamation. The broadcaster in this case would be largely immune to prosecution, anyway, as my words were presented as my own, and it would be extremely difficult to present legally that my words reflected the opinion of the broadcaster.
Thomas, weak as your argument may be, it does kind of underscore my point. Slanderous speech "could be a problem" -- but how will we ever know, if no concrete reason has ever been presented for the deliberate suppression of the raw audio file, and refusal to turn it over to any of a number of independent audio technicians who could do the job in 24 hours?
2009/8/25 Gregory Kohs thekohser@gmail.com:
Thomas Dalton:
If you said anything that could be libellous then that could be a problem. Whoever did the publishing would be liable. That may be why they want to edit it before publishing - to remove anything potentially libellous, as a TV company would do.
It would be impossible for anything on the audio recording to be taken as libel, as there were no written words. Slanderous? Possibly.
I'm pretty sure that is incorrect. Any form of publishing is sufficient for it to be libel, it doesn't have to be written.
However, I was particularly careful to choose my words. I am a believer in the legal doctrine that "truth" is the best defense against a prosecution for defamation. The broadcaster in this case would be largely immune to prosecution, anyway, as my words were presented as my own, and it would be extremely difficult to present legally that my words reflected the opinion of the broadcaster.
While you may be confident what you said is true, the publisher might not be, so would want to be cautious. I'm not an expect on libel law, but I think, at least in some jurisdictions, a publisher can be held responsible even for things that clearly aren't their own words. By choosing the publish them, they are in a sense endorsing them.
Thomas, weak as your argument may be, it does kind of underscore my point. Slanderous speech "could be a problem" -- but how will we ever know, if no concrete reason has ever been presented for the deliberate suppression of the raw audio file, and refusal to turn it over to any of a number of independent audio technicians who could do the job in 24 hours?
An independent technician may not know what parts need to be edited out. They may not want to openly say anything that could be interpreted as accusing you of libel, so are keeping quiet (although they could easily tell you what was going on in private, so my explanation isn't perfect).
I don't know if this has anything to do with the real reason, I'm just giving an example of how they could have a legitimate reason.
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
I'm not an expe[r]t on libel law, but I think, at least in some jurisdictions, a publisher can be held responsible even for things that clearly aren't their own words.
Absolutely they can, in traditional publishing media. Over the Internet, in the US, given Section 230 of the CDA... Well, I'm not going to give out legal advice, but I personally would be willing to fight that fight.
So, basically, bad excuse. Give me the audio, and I'll publish it. Or give it to the Internet Review Corporation, and we'll publish it on Akahele. Or if the only potentially slanderous content is that of Kohs, give it to Kohs, and he'll publish it.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org