How does Wikipedia and especially the foundation square up to the following:
In the Loutchansky v. The Times Newspapers Limited case, it was
established that a suit may be brought many years after the information
was added, since the viewing of the material within a browser counts in
law as a dissemination, and an action must be launched within a year of
such dissemination. This means that if the material is viewable within
the page history of an article or talk page it will allow a suit to be
brought at any point.
In the Polanski vs. Vanity Fair suit it has established that the
claimant need not appear in person.
In the Godfrey v. Demon Internet case has established that a host of the
libellous claim has a duty to remove libellous comments and is deemed to
be the publisher for the purposes of libel law.
In the Lennox Lewis & Ors. v. Don King case has established that the
courts of England and Wales are suitable forums to hear libel cases as
long as defamation has occurred within their jurisdiction, since
internet pages are published where they are downloaded.
My questions are, has the wikipedia foundation received advice on how it
is affected by libel law in England and Wales?
If so, is it possible to see a copy of that advice?
Should libellous statements be completely removed from the edit history
like copyright violations are?
Should Wikipedia have a policy on libel?
I'd also ask for opinions on whether each editor who edits and yet fails
to remove a libellous statement could be open to being named in a suit
under England and Wales law, since it can be argued that by editing and
saving the page one has in turn republished the libel.
Note also, that in England and Wales libel law, the burden of proof is
on the defendant, i.e. Wikipedia, to prove the statement is true. The
claimant only has to show defamation, not falsehood.
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.12/192 - Release Date: 05/12/05