[WikiEN-l] UK libel law and reusers

[Steve Block]

Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> On 12/13/05, Steve Block <steve.block at myrealbox.com> wrote:

>> You've already ceded that yes,
>> there are reasons for the foundation to worry.
> 
> No I haven't.

I'm sorry, but when you stated that yes, there was concern for reusers 
regarding potential suits, and could I suggest anything to be done, that 
that meant the foundation was likewise concerned. Is it the case that 
the foundation has no worries regarding funding or reputation in the 
light of a potential suit?


> The fact that two British newspapers called Robbie Williams gay is
> true information.  Does British law define this as libel or not?

According to the BBC, http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/A1183394#4

"It is inadvisable to repeat a defamatory rumour unless you are in a 
position to prove it’s true. Even if you are contradicting the rumour 
you should not repeat it. And adding ‘allegedly’ is not enough to get 
you out of libel difficulties."

As far as I can ascertain, only once the trial has ended can the nature 
of the allegation may be reported, when it becomes a matter for the 
public record.  I am unclear on the position whilst the case is ongoing, 
but England and Wales have very strict laws to prevent the prejudicing 
of trials.

> I don't understand.  Is it libel, in the UK, to say "Two newspapers
> alleged that Robbie Williams was gay"?  I agree Wikipedia shouldn't
> say "Robbie Williams is gay", if that's all you're saying.  Can you be
> more specific as to what type of statement you *are* talking about?

See above.  It can be deemed libelous to repeat a rumour, so it can be 
deemed libelous to state "Two newspapers alleged that Robbie Williams 
was gay"? up until the point that it is settled in court.  By repeating 
the allegation you are, if the allegation is false, disseminating false 
information and party to defamation.

> I'll ask again.  What do you propose that we do?

I made that proposal at [[Wikipedia:Libel]].  It doesn't seem to have 
met with community consensus.  The trouble seems to be hinging on whose 
definition of libel is used.  I would add, however, that the foundation 
review either European law or the basing of assets in the European 
Union.  I am not a lawyer, but I glanced at the Council Regulation (EC) 
No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and 
enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters 
http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32001R0044:EN:HTML
and these clauses give cause for concern:

(9) A defendant not domiciled in a Member State is in general subject to 
national rules of jurisdiction applicable in the territory of the Member 
State of the court seised, and a defendant domiciled in a Member State 
not bound by this Regulation must remain subject to the Brussels Convention.

(10) For the purposes of the free movement of judgments, judgments given 
in a Member State bound by this Regulation should be recognised and 
enforced in another Member State bound by this Regulation, even if the 
judgment debtor is domiciled in a third State.

(11) The rules of jurisdiction must be highly predictable and founded on 
the principle that jurisdiction is generally based on the defendant's 
domicile and jurisdiction must always be available on this ground save 
in a few well-defined situations in which the subject-matter of the 
litigation or the autonomy of the parties warrants a different linking 
factor. The domicile of a legal person must be defined autonomously so 
as to make the common rules more transparent and avoid conflicts of 
jurisdiction.

Number (11) would probably allow libel cases to take place in England 
for the English language wikipedia since that is where English is the 
primary language.

However, the McLibel case showed that the European Human Rights 
directive, which guarantees freedom of expression, is in conflict with 
the libel laws of England and Wales.

What I am ultimately asking is that the foundation consider seeking 
advice on the libel laws of England and Wales and those of Europe from a 
resident expert.

> We clearly should
> remove false information from Wikipedia.  I agree with that, and I
> think everyone else does.  We should remove private information which
> has not been published anywhere else.  Our verifiability rule ensures
> that.  So what else should we do?

Clarify the position with regards to libel laws around the world as best 
as possible.  At the moment we have different editors who are either 
based in the US and therefore do not care or have concerns but are 
feeling frustrated because no-one is prepared to stick their head above 
the parapet with even the loosest of risk assesments.

> Even with images we have only gone so far to protect reusers.  Images
> which can only be used by Wikipedia are off limits.  Images which can
> be used by a broad range of reusers, on the other hand, are generally
> kept.  There is somewhat of a balancing act here.

But that's the point at issue here.  Is wikipedia pursuing a policy that 
it is happy to use text which potentially only the online Wikipedia can 
use, or is it going to pursue a policy whereby text which can be used by 
a majority of reusers is the preferred option.  If the latter is the 
case, then I would ask that the foundation sits down and explores how 
various libel laws affect reusers, and then formulate a policy 
appropriately, informing and appraising the community along the way so 
as not to be seen to be handing down dictats.  If the former is the 
case, then I am unsure how wikipedia expects the text to be reused, and 
upon whose shoulders it places the burden of risk to fact check.  If a 
reuser has to check every page for potential libel, why would it do so? 
  When it comes to printing encyclopedias, information will likewise 
have to be vetted dependent upon the territory at which the publications 
are aimed.  It would make sense to have some idea of how these problems 
are to be tackled, wouldn't it?


-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.13/199 - Release Date: 13/12/05