[WikiEN-l] Saucy Sources, reliable and re : libel.

[joshua.zelinsky at yale.edu]

Quoting Fred Bauder <fredbaud at fairpoint.net>:

>> Quoting Fred Bauder <fredbaud at fairpoint.net>:
>>
>>>
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_Pietri/Legaldispute
>>>
>>> which contains the language:
>>>
>>> "Content has been removed from this article because of a dispute over
>>> the legality of its inclusion, and so the article may not meet normal
>>> Wikipedia standards.
>>> Please see the discussion on the talk page."
>>>
>>> Raises some interesting questions. "Normal Wikipedia standards" permit
>>> violations of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons? Do not take
>>> malice into account? I don't think so.
>>>
>>> Focus on that word "malice"; that is the legal black hole which will
>>> produce serious liability.
>>>
>>> Fred
>>
>> Um, Fred, I'm confused by this statement. The actual malice standard is
>> a standard which is only relevant in the United States and only the
>> standard for public figures. William Pietri's proposed template doesn't
>> address what  country
>> or standard is precisely in use. And Pietri's template doesn't even
>> address that
>> the issue is libel. So what precisely are you saying?
>
>> From our article on the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act of 1974:
>
> Rehabilitation Act and actions for libel under British law
>
> According to Law and the Media, a reference work relating to British media
> law, if a person can prove that the details of a spent conviction were
> published with malice, then the publisher may be subject to libel damages
> regardless of whether the details were true or not. This applies where the
> publisher is relying on a defence of qualified privilege or justification.
>
> As a result, although British media remain free to publish the details of
> spent convictions, provided they are not motivated by malice, they
> generally avoid mention of such convictions after rehabilitation.[1]
>
> To apply this to the case at issue, the sentence, if there was one, may
> have been for over 30 months, and the conviction may have been overturned
> on appeal. So this particular law may not apply at all. However, notice
> the English use of the concept of malice.
>
> Fred

Ok, so there is a malice standard in Britain (I think that's really 
interesting
that the standard in the US is that you need to prove malice if the claim is
false and the person is a public figure whereas malice is sufficient reason in
Britain even if the claim is true. Ah well, at some point either the British
subjects or surrounding countries are going to tell the British 
government that
they won't put up with their standards of libel. But that's not today 
so moving
on...)
Ok, so unless any Wikipedian or the many newspapers published the results with
malice we don't have much of an issue. I doubt that di Stefano is going to be
able to prove that by any stretch of the imagination. What we need to be
concerned about is the possibility of a lawsuit, far more than whether or not
he can win it.