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

[Ray Saintonge]

William Pietri wrote:
> David Gerard wrote:
>   
>> On 15/11/2007, William Pietri <william at scissor.com> wrote:
>>     
>>> But for controversial edits, we individual editors are the ones with
>>> primary legal responsibility. So I think we editors have to discuss
>>> these things. And the open nature of our project means we must discuss
>>> them in the open.    
>>>       
>> Depends. For a UK based editor writing about litigous people in the
>> UK, my advice (as a somewhat knowledgeable non-lawyer) is: avoid.
>> Leave the hell alone. Let the Americans deal with it, we have many
>> good BLP editors in the US. Don't even TOUCH the article lest you get
>> some liability stuck to you. It sucks, but it's reality under the UK's
>> horrible horrible libel laws
>>     
> Oh, I agree. Your paragraph above is a great example of exactly the kind 
> of discussion I think we should be having.
>
> Of course, the reach of British libel law may extend even to the US:
>
> http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10110971
>
> US editors can be sued in Britain, and defending a suit would be an 
> expensive and painful proposition. And even if you win a lawsuit like 
> that, legal victories are frequently Pyrrhic ones.
The case was only scheduled to be heard to-day.  We'll need to wait for 
the judgement.  The UK decision on this one was for an undefended case.  
US courts have usually been very reluctant to enforce this kind of 
decision. 

I agree, however, about the safety of leaving these UK controversies to 
Americans and others where the risk is lower.

Ec