At 17:32 +0100 17/9/09, Sam Blacketer wrote:
>On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Thomas Dalton 
><<>> wrote:
>2009/9/17 Michael Peel <<>>:
>>  Plan to update libel law for web:
>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

At 17:36 +0100 17/9/09, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>Ah, so the report is accurate, but the thing being reported is not.
>That makes sense - thanks!


Hunter S. Thompson tried a scam once. He started a rumour, and then 
reported the rumour. His reporting was 100% valid and correct. But to 
omit the fact that he started the rumour....

Now read on..

<quot>In 1972, journalist Hunter S. Thompson accused democratic 
candidate Edmund Muskie of being addicted to ibogaine in a satirical 
piece. Many readers, and even other journalists, did not realize that 
Thompson was being facetious. The claim, of course, was completely 
unfounded, and Thompson himself is documented in the movie Gonzo: The 
Life and Work of Dr. Hunter S. Thompson discussing the 
self-fabricated joke of Muskie's alleged ibogaine use and his 
surprise that anyone actually believed the claim.</quot>


"Think Feynman"/////////

Wikimedia UK mailing list

Reply via email to