[WikiEN-l] Libel law

Thu Dec 8 14:57:30 UTC 2005

On 12/8/05, Steve Block <steve.block at myrealbox.com> wrote:
> Justin Cormack wrote:
> This is one of the points I'm trying to make.  Since Don King sued a US
> lawyer in the UK courts, what is to stop someone suing a US editor in
> the UK courts?  I believe the foundation has satisfied itself Wikipedia
> is immune from Englandf and Wales libel law, but I think it is important
> to establish the position to individual editors.

Nothing stops you from suing a US editor in UK courts.  You will
probably have problems with jurisdiction (a domicilary of the United
States is not subject to the personal jurisdiction of a UK court even
under very broad long-arm principles, although this doctrine has been
become rather disheveled of late) and with service of process, and
even if you obtain a judgment you will have problems enforcing it
against the US editor since the US will not enforce a UK libel
judgment without basically retrying the case under US law.

The largest risk, IMO, is to domicilaries and subjects of the United
Kingdom, who are subject to the personal jurisdiction of the Queen's
courts and may reasonably expect to be held responsible for their
actions in those courts.  The rest of us (unless we own property in
the United Kingdom or otherwise have ties there) can probably safely
ignore UK libel law.  In general, an editor of Wikipedia must exercise
caution to avoid violating local laws regarding speech, or be prepared
to suffer the consequences of their actions under those laws.  (Which
really sucks for people living under oppressive regimes, but there's
only so much we can do for them.)

> I mean, taking it a step further, although Wikimedia may be exempt from
> a writ in the UK courts, if one was to aimed at Wikimedia from the UK
> courts with editors named on the suit, the best recourse from my reading
> of the law is that courts allow a full apology, retraction and some sort
> of small financial settlement rather than have a lawsuit.  Would
> Wikimedia be happy to comply with that even though it is likely exempt
> from the suit itself?

The Wikimedia Foundation would be foolish to do anything other than
seek to have itself dismissed from any such action.  I do not expect
the WMF to act as a liability insurer for its volunteer editors.

> Basically, I am asking whether the policy is shoot libel on sight.

Libels should be removed as soon as they are discovered.

Kelly