On 14/07/06, George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com> wrote:
According to
his fan-club, that would violate the Rehabilitation of
Offenders Act. That is the entire basis of their legal threats, that
the disclosure of the conviction is motivated by malice and is
therefore proscribed. This is, of course, complete bollocks in as
much as I would not know Lauder-Frost from a hole in the ground, and
the editor who did most of the work on the conviction, including
paying for a Lexis-Nexis search, is not even British.
It may be in English wikipedians best interests to not contribute to
the article if there's any doubt about the legal implications. I am
sure we can find non-British editors willing to deal with it.
British courts have shown an unfortunate willingness to ignore the
nationality of defendants in Internet defamation cases, incidentally.
I wouldn't be so quick to prescribe this.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk