Re: Re: Libel threat
Anthony DiPierro <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.org.wikimedia.legal |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Just another reason for NPOV. Statements such as "it is purported that Bradford has ripped off fans of Amos (and others) through fradulent sales on the internet" are definitively true. Martin Harper wrote: >My understanding is that truth is an absolute defence to the charge of libel. However, >it is a defence: that is, you have to prove that what you said is true - it is not up to >the prosecution to prove that it is false. If Wikipedia is sued, then to use this >defence, Wikipedia would have to prove that the material is true. Thus, as far as I >know, Wikipedia would not be able to use this defence. > >If you wish Wikipedia to have this defence available, you should provide Jimbo >Wales with solid evidence that the material is true, preferably backed up with a >sworn statement from yourself. > >-Martin "IANAL" Harper > >On 16 Jan 2004 at 10:39, Peter Gervai wrote: > > > >>...and I am really curious what the US law suggests (uhm, says): >>If someone write an article about me and I think it's not nice to tell >>the truth I am hiding, then can I force Wikipedia to remove the >>material which I dislike? >> >> > > >_______________________________________________ >Wikilegal-l mailing list >[email protected] >http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilegal-l > > >