Hi all,
The following might be of interest:
Defamation on the internet: Ministry of Justice seeks your views: http://www.justice.gov.uk/news/newsrelease160909a.htm
Plan to update libel law for web: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8259814.stm
Summary: "A debate on aspects of defamation law, and how it works in the internet age, was launched today by the Ministry of Justice."
(found by @jackofkent on Twitter)
Mike
Indeed - I think this is definitely something we should craft a carefully-worded reply to - could be very useful in the long run? It says we have until 16 December to reply...
James
Hi all,
The following might be of interest:
Defamation on the internet: Ministry of Justice seeks your views: http://www.justice.gov.uk/news/newsrelease160909a.htm
Plan to update libel law for web: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8259814.stm
Summary: "A debate on aspects of defamation law, and how it works in the internet age, was launched today by the Ministry of Justice."
(found by @jackofkent on Twitter)
Mike
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
2009/9/17 Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net:
Plan to update libel law for web: http://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.
They would face action only if they refused to publish the correction on the offending web page."
If it is fair, accurate and malice-free, then it isn't libellous anyway, and doesn't need correcting.
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
2009/9/17 Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net:
Plan to update libel law for web: http://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.
2009/9/17 Sam Blacketer sam.blacketer@googlemail.com:
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
2009/9/17 Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net:
Plan to update libel law for web: http://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.
Ah, so the report is accurate, but the thing being reported is not. That makes sense - thanks!
I'm more concerned about what happens when something is posted to our site that is unfair, inaccurate and full of malice. Presumably Wikimedia in the US is the publisher, But what happens if you mark an article as patrolled or an edit as flagged without checking that an earlier revision elsewhere in the article has excess bile?
Can we lobby to make sure that we as volunteers are protected in those circumstances providing we are editing in good faith?
WereSpielChequers
2009/9/17 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
2009/9/17 Sam Blacketer sam.blacketer@googlemail.com:
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
2009/9/17 Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net:
Plan to update libel law for web: http://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.
2009/9/17 WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@googlemail.com:
I'm more concerned about what happens when something is posted to our site that is unfair, inaccurate and full of malice. Presumably Wikimedia in the US is the publisher, But what happens if you mark an article as patrolled or an edit as flagged without checking that an earlier revision elsewhere in the article has excess bile? Can we lobby to make sure that we as volunteers are protected in those circumstances providing we are editing in good faith?
Possibly. That said, I'm afraid I sometimes specifically avoid editing certain biographies of UK-based living people known for fiercely defending their reputations in court.
(FWIW, when someone calls up saying "lawsuit", what they almost always mean in practice is "I want someone to give a hoot." The fact that we do in fact give a hoot - and take living bios seriously - does a lot in practice to make people happier.)
- d.
----- "WereSpielChequers" werespielchequers@googlemail.com wrote:
I'm more concerned about what happens when something is posted to our site that is unfair, inaccurate and full of malice. Presumably Wikimedia in the US is the publisher
I understand that the Foundation claim that they are not the publisher of Wikipedia, just the "operator". So if an editor posts something on Wikipedia the foundation has the same legal liability as, for instance, an ISP which hosts a website containing problematic content.
I don't know if this has ever been tested in court.
Andrew
2009/9/21 Andrew Turvey andrewrturvey@googlemail.com:
----- "WereSpielChequers" werespielchequers@googlemail.com wrote:
I'm more concerned about what happens when something is posted to our site that is unfair, inaccurate and full of malice. Presumably Wikimedia in the US is the publisher
I understand that the Foundation claim that they are not the publisher of Wikipedia, just the "operator". So if an editor posts something on Wikipedia the foundation has the same legal liability as, for instance, an ISP which hosts a website containing problematic content. I don't know if this has ever been tested in court.
Yes in the US. WMF said they weren't suable over the content because of CDA section 230 and the case was immediately thrown out on that basis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act
I suppose another country could deem WMF the publisher under their own laws. (They could deem a piece of cheese the publisher.)
- d.
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
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org