Ah. No thats not accurate. Fortunately even the British courts can't stamp On private communication.
The injunction is on publishing the info. Telling your mates down the pub is fine. Tom Morton On 20 May 2011, at 23:08, Risker <risker...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 20 May 2011 18:02, Fred Bauder <fredb...@fairpoint.net> wrote: > >>> On 20 May 2011 22:47, Fred Bauder <fredb...@fairpoint.net> wrote: >>>> Please mail User:Oversight with any such instance you are aware of. >>> >>> That's not actually legal. >>> >>> -- >>> geni >>> >> >> What on earth is illegal about assisting the project in avoiding >> publishing defamatory information? >> >> > > What Geni means is that if he (as a UK resident) identified something that > violated the superinjunction, emailing Oversight would be sufficient for him > to violate the superinjunection. I am not certain that is 100% correct, if > he does not name any names, but I can understand that perspective. As it > is, there are plenty of non-UK citizens/residents watching the articles > involved to address the situation, so generally speaking UK > residents/citizens should not feel they are obliged to put themselves at > risk. > > Risker/Anne > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
