[WikiEN-l] Getting hammered in a tv interview is not fun

[Ray Saintonge]

Slim Virgin wrote:

>On 3/30/07, gjzilla at gmail.com wrote:
>  
>
>>Safe harbor, as long as we take it down. ~~~~
>>    
>>
>I don't know whether taking something down as soon as we see it would
>be enough if it's been up for ages and it's already done damage. But
>anyway, I know of situations where we *didn't* take problematic things
>down when we were made aware of them. It's all very hit and miss.
>
You can't take something down if you don't know it's there.  With 1.7 
million articles it's very easy to not know that something is there.  
This is why notice to the ISP is so important.  It's not a notification 
if some person who is not directly affected expresses the belief that 
something is problematic.  That is merely one person's opinion, and 
who's to say that that person's opinion is any more valid than an 
exactly opposite opinion honestly held by another reader.  As for 
damages the plaintiff has the burden of proving the damages that 
resulted directly from our actions.  In some countries truth is an 
absolute defence to libel. 

The biggest hurdles for a successful suit lie with the plaintiffs.  It 
is much easier to defend when the plaintiffs have defined the suit, and 
cannot introduce new issues or theories.  An effective plaintiff needs 
to forsee ALL the possible arguments that the defence could raise, and 
I'm afraid that most lawyers are not that smart.

This isn't meant as justification to doing the wrong things.  In almost 
all instances we will have the opportunity to mitigate the problems long 
before there's a court battle.  Being unduly alarmist about such things 
only hurts us.

Ec