[WikiEN-l] Two Comments on the Siegenthaler Situation

Thu Dec 8 01:50:13 UTC 2005

Well and are we technically "re-publishing" each time someone opens
the page in their browser?

I'm not completely clear on what the legal model is in relation to
websites as printing presses, perhaps someone can point me in the
right direction?

FF

On 12/7/05, Tom Cadden <thomcadden at yahoo.ie> wrote:
>
>
> Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote: Steve Block wrote:
>
> .  If we archive libellous statements, we are open to
> > libel suits.
> >
> I don't believe that's true.  When newspapers have been sued for libel,
> typically they are required only to stop *re*publishing the statement,
> i.e. in new editions of the paper; they are not required to excise the
> offending article from their archives, which for historical archival
> purposes ought to be an unabridged record.
>
> -Mark
> There is a difference. The only people who can access a media archives are researchers or people who choose to go in to look at the microfilms, which is a tiny number of people. In addition an apology is required to be entered in the paper. But our archives would be open access, so as long as we had the libel in open archives we could be repeating it by virtue of that access. In addition someone could simply revert back to it and cause legal nightmares.
>
>  Thom
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Messenger  NEW - crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>