Well and are we technically "re-publishing" each time someone opens the page in their browser?
I'm not completely clear on what the legal model is in relation to websites as printing presses, perhaps someone can point me in the right direction?
FF
On 12/7/05, Tom Cadden thomcadden@yahoo.ie wrote:
Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote: Steve Block wrote:
. If we archive libellous statements, we are open to
libel suits.
I don't believe that's true. When newspapers have been sued for libel, typically they are required only to stop *re*publishing the statement, i.e. in new editions of the paper; they are not required to excise the offending article from their archives, which for historical archival purposes ought to be an unabridged record.
-Mark There is a difference. The only people who can access a media archives are researchers or people who choose to go in to look at the microfilms, which is a tiny number of people. In addition an apology is required to be entered in the paper. But our archives would be open access, so as long as we had the libel in open archives we could be repeating it by virtue of that access. In addition someone could simply revert back to it and cause legal nightmares.
Thom
Yahoo! Messenger NEW - crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l