[WikiEN-l] Analysis of the politics of "Brandt unblocked by

[Gwern Branwen]

Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> writes:

> Gwern Branwen wrote:
>> as opposed to Brandt, 
>> where it isn't unthinkable a judge would decide that the 
   decision 
>> to keep the article was bad 
>
> No, that really is pretty much unthinkable.  There is absolutely 
nothing 
>   legally problematic at all in our having a biography about 
    Daniel 
> Brandt.  He has been featured in major newspapers on multiple 
occasions 
> for a variety of different things.  His work, and our article 
about him, 
> is precisely the sort of speech that the 1st Amendment is 
  designed to 
> protect.
>
> If there is libel about Brandt in Wikipedia, I am sure that he 
  will 
> point it out.  He is unblocked now precisely so that he CAN 
point it out.
>
> --Jimbo

Remember, this is the one-judge-in-the-world. I refuse to believe 
that there is any judge who could ever think that Seigenthaler was 
not a public figure - but given the number of my peers who have 
stated firmly that Brandt is only "border-line notable" or 
"non-notable", I have to assume it is possible a judge might agree 
with them, as they are equally rational and intelligent beings 
(perhaps with more legal knowledge than I).

-- 
Gwern
Inquiring minds want to know.