On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dal...@gmail.com>wrote:

> 2009/9/17 Michael Peel <em...@mikepeel.net>:
> > Plan to update libel law for web:
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8259814.stm
>
> Does anyone know what this means?
>
> "Publishers of online archives and blogs might also be given a defence
> of qualified privilege - that a piece is fair and accurate and
> published without malice - against an offending article after a year
> time limit has expired."
>
> If it is fair, accurate and malice-free, then it isn't libellous
> anyway, and doesn't need correcting.


This is talking about news reports or blog discussions of claims made by
third parties, eg "at the public meeting Joe Bloggs said John Doe had
accepted bribes and was corrupt".
Let's suppose John Doe was not corrupt and Joe Bloggs was just trying to
smear him. The report would still be libellous unless it came under the
Reynolds qualified privilege defence from case law, but this is rather weak
and difficult to qualify for. So the proposal is to have a statutory
defence.

-- 
Sam Blacketer
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Reply via email to