[WikiEN-l] Libel law

[Steve Block]

Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Steve Block wrote:
> 
>> geni wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/7/05, Steve Block <steve.block at myrealbox.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Is there any thoughts on private individuals?  Are we open to libel
>>>> suits if we edit a page containing a libellous statement and fail to
>>>> remove it completely from the edit history?
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't think there are any legal presidents in that area.
>>
>>
>> No, but it would be nice to hear people's opinions, and also nice to 
>> hear if any legal opinion had been given to Wikipedia regarding this. 
>> Look at it this way:
>>
>> * Newspaper editors are often named in suits, at least within the UK.
>> * The reason they are named is that they authorise content which is 
>> published.
>> * By saving a page, I am creating an edition which is published.
>> * I am called an editor.
>>
>> Also note the [[McLibel case]].
>>
>> Those sued did not make the statements, they simply distributed them.
>>
>> I would think a lawyer will make a good argument that it is possible 
>> we can be named in a suit if we have edited a page containing a 
>> libellous statement and failed to remove it.
> 
> 
> Your hypotheseis leads to an absurd result.  If I edit this page 
> containing an alleged libel for matters unrelated to that statement how 
> am I supposed to know what is libellous in that article?  By your line 
> of reasoning, if I want to be safe I might as well delete the entire 
> article.  Your reading would make busibodies of us all.

Exactly my point.  Why do you think I asked it?  Does someone with the 
neccessary understanding have a better answer than "I don't like the 
result, therefoe I will ignore the hypothesis."


-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.12/194 - Release Date: 07/12/05