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

[David Gerard]

On 15/11/2007, joshua.zelinsky at yale.edu <joshua.zelinsky at yale.edu> wrote:

> 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...)


It's not all bad. The UK libel law is considered likely incompatible
with EU rules on freedom of speech - which are nothing like as good as
the US First Amendment, but certainly better than what we have.
Unfortunately, making this stick will require people spending a lot of
money to take it through the courts first.


- d.




> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>