2009/9/17 Sam Blacketer <[email protected]>: > On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Thomas Dalton <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> 2009/9/17 Michael Peel <[email protected]>: >> > 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.
Ah, so the report is accurate, but the thing being reported is not. That makes sense - thanks! _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list [email protected] http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
