Indeed. There is an outside chance of an attempt to claim jurisdiction over the entire Internet, like civil courts have done, but I am informed such is highly unlikely and would be very difficult to achieve if they went for it. In short, there are softer targets south of the border - thousands of them.

But, I do feel obliged to point out a tiny risk does remain.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Info: Press interest in Wikipedia articles
for 'super-injunction celebrities'
From: Brian McNeil <brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org>;
Date: Wed, May 25, 2011 10:39 pm
To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org

On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 22:11 +0100, David Gerard wrote:
> On 25 May 2011 09:46, Gordon Joly <gordon.joly@pobox.com>; wrote:
>
> > I think that the Wikimepdia community should be glad that the Twitter
> > exposure and the question in Parliament (under parliamentary privilege)
> > deflected interest away from the Wikipedia entry.

>
> Although the original Telegraph journalist/editor didn't quote it, I
> did say in talking to the journalist that UK editors would be liable
> personally for edits they made :-)

For future reference:

_Wiki editors in England and Wales_ - provided the super-injunction
holder has not been granted corresponding restraint by the Scottish
Courts.

Legal advice provided to Wikinewsies indicates they'd have a great deal
of trouble getting that from the courts here - or prosecuting because
someone broke some silly English judge's ruling.


--
Brian McNeil.
--
brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org | Wikinews Accredited Reporter.
http://en.wikinews.org | http://www.wikinewsie.org
"Facts don't cease to be facts, but news ceases to be news".


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org