Hi all,
I'm forwarding the email below as it affects Wikimedia a bit, due to the following (extracted from Anthony Lester's Guardian article):
"The Bill sets out the circumstances in which an internet service provider or forum host should not be liable for defamatory material and sets time limits on suing."
The details can be found online at: http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2010-11/defamationhl.html
The appropriate section is section 9, "Responsibility for publication".
On the surface, it looks reasonable for Wikimedia (meaning the WMF primarily, but also WMUK if we ever assist with hosting), as we'd fall straight under 9.1a as a facilitator and hence would clearly not be liable. I have to admit to not being familiar with the details of existing law on this, but presumably it's a lot more unclear.
Mike
Begin forwarded message:
From: news@libelreform.org Date: 27 May 2010 15:31:49 GMT+01:00 To: libelreform@mikepeel.net Subject: Big news - Lord Lester has officially tabled a libel reform bill
Dear friends
A Libel Reform Bill has been tabled in the House of Lords
Lord Lester QC has published a Private Members’ Defamation Bill to reform England’s outdated and unjust libel laws. This is the first attempt in over a century to put forward a wholesale redraft of our libel laws to address many of the issues our campaign has highlighted.
Lord Lester’s Bill covers a great deal of the recommendations of the Libel Reform Campaign including a statutory defence for responsible publication on a matter of public interest; clarifying the defences of justification and fair comment, which will be renamed as ‘truth’ and ‘honest opinion’.
The Bill will also:
require claimants to provide evidence their reputation was damaged by an alleged libel before they can bring a case forward (they don’t have to do this at present) and make corporations prove financial damage before they can sue. Address the problems introduced by the rise of the internet and the culture of online publication including the multiple publication rule that makes each download a fresh instance of libel, and alter the responsibility of forum hosts for what is posted on their sites. Encourage the speedy settlement of disputes without parties having to bring in costly lawyers. Promote the speedy settlement of disputes without recourse to the courts. There is a great piece by Lord Lester on why he is doing this now here.
And Simon Singh has written his thoughts on the bill here.
Thanks to your support we’ve made the case that libel law reform is an issue politicians know they have to act on.
There is widespread Parliamentary support for reform … the majority of eligible MPs signed up to an EDM supporting libel law reform in the last Parliament. There were general election manifesto commitments to reform from the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, and Labour. Now, there is a coalition Government promise to reform the libel laws in the Queen’s Speech …
…But we need new libel laws!
In light of Lord Lester’s Bill, the Libel Reform Campaign is asking: will the Government now make clear its plans for reform? Will it support, adopt or develop this Bill?
Help us keep the pressure on. Write to your MP asking them what the Government intends to do.
Best,
Mike and Síle
PS - for more details of the bill and complete coverage see www.libelreform.org
-- If you do not want to receive any more newsletters, this link
To update your preferences and to unsubscribe visit this link Forward a Message to Someone this link
Keep in mind that Private Members bills almost never pass. This will draw attention to the issue, nothing more.
On 27 May 2010 19:48, Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net wrote:
Hi all, I'm forwarding the email below as it affects Wikimedia a bit, due to the following (extracted from Anthony Lester's Guardian article): "The Bill sets out the circumstances in which an internet service provider or forum host should not be liable for defamatory material and sets time limits on suing."
The details can be found online at: http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2010-11/defamationhl.html The appropriate section is section 9, "Responsibility for publication". On the surface, it looks reasonable for Wikimedia (meaning the WMF primarily, but also WMUK if we ever assist with hosting), as we'd fall straight under 9.1a as a facilitator and hence would clearly not be liable. I have to admit to not being familiar with the details of existing law on this, but presumably it's a lot more unclear. Mike Begin forwarded message:
From: news@libelreform.org Date: 27 May 2010 15:31:49 GMT+01:00 To: libelreform@mikepeel.net Subject: Big news - Lord Lester has officially tabled a libel reform bill
Dear friends
A Libel Reform Bill has been tabled in the House of Lords
Lord Lester QC has published a Private Members’ Defamation Bill to reform England’s outdated and unjust libel laws. This is the first attempt in over a century to put forward a wholesale redraft of our libel laws to address many of the issues our campaign has highlighted.
Lord Lester’s Bill covers a great deal of the recommendations of the Libel Reform Campaign including a statutory defence for responsible publication on a matter of public interest; clarifying the defences of justification and fair comment, which will be renamed as ‘truth’ and ‘honest opinion’.
The Bill will also:
require claimants to provide evidence their reputation was damaged by an alleged libel before they can bring a case forward (they don’t have to do this at present) and make corporations prove financial damage before they can sue. Address the problems introduced by the rise of the internet and the culture of online publication including the multiple publication rule that makes each download a fresh instance of libel, and alter the responsibility of forum hosts for what is posted on their sites. Encourage the speedy settlement of disputes without parties having to bring in costly lawyers. Promote the speedy settlement of disputes without recourse to the courts.
There is a great piece by Lord Lester on why he is doing this now here.
And Simon Singh has written his thoughts on the bill here.
Thanks to your support we’ve made the case that libel law reform is an issue politicians know they have to act on.
There is widespread Parliamentary support for reform … the majority of eligible MPs signed up to an EDM supporting libel law reform in the last Parliament.
There were general election manifesto commitments to reform from the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, and Labour.
Now, there is a coalition Government promise to reform the libel laws in the Queen’s Speech …
…But we need new libel laws!
In light of Lord Lester’s Bill, the Libel Reform Campaign is asking: will the Government now make clear its plans for reform? Will it support, adopt or develop this Bill?
Help us keep the pressure on. Write to your MP asking them what the Government intends to do.
Best,
Mike and Síle
PS - for more details of the bill and complete coverage see www.libelreform.org
-- If you do not want to receive any more newsletters, this link
To update your preferences and to unsubscribe visit this link Forward a Message to Someone this link
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On 27/05/2010 20:18, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Keep in mind that Private Members bills almost never pass. This will draw attention to the issue, nothing more.
Well, the government has said it's going to reform libel law. It's just a question of when and how far....
KTC
On 27 May 2010 19:48, Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net wrote:
On the surface, it looks reasonable for Wikimedia (meaning the WMF primarily, but also WMUK if we ever assist with hosting), as we'd fall straight under 9.1a as a facilitator and hence would clearly not be liable. I have to admit to not being familiar with the details of existing law on this, but presumably it's a lot more unclear.
The probability that this specific bill will go anywhere past a second reading is quite small. But IIRC the new government intends this term to review defamation law in England (I presume separately from Lord Lester's efforts), so this is far from a lost cause—and with the ferocity of the libelreform.org campaign, I can't see it ever becoming so.
Today is certainly a good time to be part of the free culture movement.
AGK
On Fri, 2010-05-28 at 00:38 +0100, AGK wrote:
On 27 May 2010 19:48, Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net wrote:
On the surface, it looks reasonable for Wikimedia (meaning the WMF primarily, but also WMUK if we ever assist with hosting), as we'd fall straight under 9.1a as a facilitator and hence would clearly not be liable. I have to admit to not being familiar with the details of existing law on this, but presumably it's a lot more unclear.
The probability that this specific bill will go anywhere past a second reading is quite small. But IIRC the new government intends this term to review defamation law in England (I presume separately from Lord Lester's efforts), so this is far from a lost cause—and with the ferocity of the libelreform.org campaign, I can't see it ever becoming so.
Today is certainly a good time to be part of the free culture movement.
Yes. I read with delight Private Eye's reporting on a couple of cases thrown out recently; think chiropractors, and those who might from-afar attempt to conceal their 'shady dealings' elsewhere from the British press by muzzling such.
The combination would, based on my cynical observation, lead in America to a massive campaign to criticise Lords and Judges for "legislating from the bench".
It remains to be seen where 'hospitality' and such might influence the debate on the issue; were I scripting for those speaking on the issue,...
"The truth should be the ultimate defence. The cost of defending such should not be prohibitive, nor should the influence available through wealth and power allow the concealment of facts pertinent to the welfare of the citizens of this country."
There's utter hypocrisy in Fergie being splattered all over the tabloids for hinting that a half-million bribe would be nice. Far, far, less mention of imaginative tax-dodging wheezes like Tesco's online store selling CDs - at the same price as their physical stores. And, invoicing you from the Channel Islands, charging no VAT, and putting in the small print that you're liable if the tax man asks any questions.
Then again, ... Wikinews doesn't rely on Tesco's advertising for their loss-leader alcohol. :P
Brian McNeil.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Is anyone interested in my doing a Facebook event page for the London meetup on July 4?
I've done this for San Francisco with some success, and have recently created pages for the DC and Montréal meetups coming up this weekend.
When I set these up, I do so under the Wikipedia facebook group, which advertises it to, basically, everyone who is a fan, but I keep the invitation list hidden to administrators only. I also make other attendees administrators of the event page, and would do so for this one as well.
Cary Bass
On 22 June 2010 17:25, Cary Bass cary@wikimedia.org wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Is anyone interested in my doing a Facebook event page for the London meetup on July 4?
I've done this for San Francisco with some success, and have recently created pages for the DC and Montréal meetups coming up this weekend.
When I set these up, I do so under the Wikipedia facebook group, which advertises it to, basically, everyone who is a fan, but I keep the invitation list hidden to administrators only. I also make other attendees administrators of the event page, and would do so for this one as well.
Cary,
This sounds like a good idea. Always worth trying something sensible once. :-)
J.
On 22 June 2010 17:25, Cary Bass cary@wikimedia.org wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Is anyone interested in my doing a Facebook event page for the London meetup on July 4?
I would suggest leaving it until the August meetup. The July one is unusual because, as you know, it's also a meeting place for people taking the Wikitrain to Wikimania. If we're going to try and attract people to meetups that don't usually go, we should probably try and attract them to normal meetups so they can get a genuine feel for what meetups are like. Other than that, I think it's an excellent idea.
On 22/06/2010 17:39, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 22 June 2010 17:25, Cary Basscary@wikimedia.org wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Is anyone interested in my doing a Facebook event page for the London meetup on July 4?
I would suggest leaving it until the August meetup. The July one is unusual because, as you know, it's also a meeting place for people taking the Wikitrain to Wikimania. If we're going to try and attract people to meetups that don't usually go, we should probably try and attract them to normal meetups so they can get a genuine feel for what meetups are like. Other than that, I think it's an excellent idea.
Normal?
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meetup/London/35
Looking good!
Gordo
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 06/30/2010 12:54 PM, Gordon Joly wrote:
Normal?
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meetup/London/35
Looking good!
Gordo
So far I have one yes, one no, and one that kind of looks like a yes, but not. I can still do an event page, no problem, even only a few days in advance.
- --
Cary Bass Volunteer Coordinator, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
On 01/07/2010 19:48, Cary Bass wrote:
So far I have one yes, one no, and one that kind of looks like a yes, but not. I can still do an event page, no problem, even only a few days in advance.
Less than 24 hours to go.....
Gordo
On 3 July 2010 22:20, Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
On 01/07/2010 19:48, Cary Bass wrote:
So far I have one yes, one no, and one that kind of looks like a yes, but not. I can still do an event page, no problem, even only a few days in advance.
Less than 24 hours to go.....
Well, I'll be there. If Cary is, then good!
- d.
On 04/07/2010 01:25, David Gerard wrote:
On 3 July 2010 22:20, Gordon Jolygordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
On 01/07/2010 19:48, Cary Bass wrote:
So far I have one yes, one no, and one that kind of looks like a yes, but not. I can still do an event page, no problem, even only a few days in advance.
Less than 24 hours to go.....
Well, I'll be there. If Cary is, then good!
- d.
I will be late.......
Always good to spread the word - even via Fakebook!
Gordo
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org