At 17:32 +0100 17/9/09, Sam Blacketer wrote:
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Thomas Dalton <mailto:thomas.dalton@gmail.comthomas.dalton@gmail.com> wrote:
2009/9/17 Michael Peel <mailto:email@mikepeel.netemail@mikepeel.net>:
Plan to update libel law for web:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8259814.stmhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8259814.stm
Does anyone know what this means?
"Publishers of online archives and blogs might also be given a defence of qualified privilege - that a piece is fair and accurate and published without malice - against an offending article after a year time limit has expired."
If it is fair, accurate and malice-free, then it isn't libellous anyway, and doesn't need correcting.
This is talking about news reports or blog discussions of claims made by third parties, eg "at the public meeting Joe Bloggs said John Doe had accepted bribes and was corrupt". Let's suppose John Doe was not corrupt and Joe Bloggs was just trying to smear him. The report would still be libellous unless it came under the Reynolds qualified privilege defence from case law, but this is rather weak and difficult to qualify for. So the proposal is to have a statutory defence.
-- Sam Blacketer
At 17:36 +0100 17/9/09, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Ah, so the report is accurate, but the thing being reported is not. That makes sense - thanks!
*********
Hunter S. Thompson tried a scam once. He started a rumour, and then reported the rumour. His reporting was 100% valid and correct. But to omit the fact that he started the rumour....
Now read on..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibogaine
<quot>In 1972, journalist Hunter S. Thompson accused democratic candidate Edmund Muskie of being addicted to ibogaine in a satirical piece. Many readers, and even other journalists, did not realize that Thompson was being facetious. The claim, of course, was completely unfounded, and Thompson himself is documented in the movie Gonzo: The Life and Work of Dr. Hunter S. Thompson discussing the self-fabricated joke of Muskie's alleged ibogaine use and his surprise that anyone actually believed the claim.</quot>
Gordo