Hi, Having been sued for libel several times (they never won), I am afraid that as absurd
as Ray Saintonge may think it is, my understanding of the law is that Steve Block is
correct:
* Newspaper editors are often named in suits, at least
within the UK.
* The reason they are named is that they authorise content which is
published.
* By saving a page, I am creating an edition which is published.
* I am called an editor.
And as long as the page history text is accessible, all prior versions of the page are
"published" even if the current edit has deleted the potentially defamatory
material. And so not only are the people legally responsible for Wikipedia potentially
laible for damages, but so is every Wiki editor who hit the save button on a page that
contained the defamatory text, even if it no longer on the current page.
:-(
I, too, would like to see an actual legal opinion on this.
________________________________
From: wikien-l-bounces(a)Wikipedia.org on behalf of Ray Saintonge
Sent: Wed 12/7/2005 5:05 PM
To: English Wikipedia
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Libel law
Steve Block wrote:
geni wrote:
On 12/7/05, Steve Block
<steve.block(a)myrealbox.com> wrote:
Is there any thoughts on private individuals?
Are we open to libel
suits if we edit a page containing a libellous statement and fail to
remove it completely from the edit history?
I don't think there are any legal presidents in that area.
No, but it would be nice to hear people's opinions, and also nice to
hear if any legal opinion had been given to Wikipedia regarding this.
Look at it this way:
* Newspaper editors are often named in suits, at least within the UK.
* The reason they are named is that they authorise content which is
published.
* By saving a page, I am creating an edition which is published.
* I am called an editor.
Also note the [[McLibel case]].
Those sued did not make the statements, they simply distributed them.
I would think a lawyer will make a good argument that it is possible
we can be named in a suit if we have edited a page containing a
libellous statement and failed to remove it.
Your hypotheseis leads to an absurd result. If I edit this page
containing an alleged libel for matters unrelated to that statement how
am I supposed to know what is libellous in that article? By your line
of reasoning, if I want to be safe I might as well delete the entire
article. Your reading would make busibodies of us all.
Ec
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l