Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 1:21 AM, Keegan Peterzell wrote: > > > On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 8:58 AM, FT2 wrote: > >> I agree with the point you make, but still think it's the right thing. >> >> Essentially the counter argument boils down to "if they don't know there's >> a >> BLP they can't make work

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 8:58 AM, FT2 wrote: > I agree with the point you make, but still think it's the right thing. > > Essentially the counter argument boils down to "if they don't know there's > a > BLP they can't make work for us about it". Whatever is in the BLP will be > there whether they

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

> Regarding the original point about superinjunctions, an MP has named Ryan > Giggs in the House of Commons and this is being widely reported in the > British media. > > The superinjunction will be gone by the end of the afternoon. > Yet, this remains true: "The judge said: "It has never been sug

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

Regarding the original point about superinjunctions, an MP has named Ryan Giggs in the House of Commons and this is being widely reported in the British media. The superinjunction will be gone by the end of the afternoon. http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Video-MP-Names-Footballer-At-Centr

[Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

do this where it is easy to do so. WereSpielChequers > Message: 3 > Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 14:28:11 +0100 > From: FT2 > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List >         > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; char

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

I agree with the point you make, but still think it's the right thing. Essentially the counter argument boils down to "if they don't know there's a BLP they can't make work for us about it". Whatever is in the BLP will be there whether they know it or not. So the question is, is it ethically bette

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

I'm not so sure. As much as living persons have a history of raising/catching important errors in their articles, they also take exception to negative material. I had one rather protracted issue with a BLP where the individual feels he has been attacked by other parties and the media for a number

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

A specific email address isn't always available but virtually anyone notable will have a method of contact that can be found fairly quickly. Businesspeople have a business, academics have their university website, politicians and high ranking officials have a political website or governmental offic

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

On 5/23/11 1:40 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > On 23 May 2011 00:03, FT2 wrote: >> Out of interest, when a BLP is created and not speedy deleted, could we not >> write a standard email to the subject stating that a biographical article >> has been created on them on the online encyclopedia "Wikipedia"

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

: Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 13:33, wrote: > On 22/05/2011 19:32, Sarah wrote: >> On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 11:00,  wrote: >>> On 22/05/2011 11:58, Chris Keating wrote: >>>> Also rather interestingly, it appears

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

: Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 16:03, Andrew Gray wrote: > On 22 May 2011 19:58, Sarah wrote: > >> The BLP problem is a very divisive one on the English Wikipedia, but >> it's not entirely clear how grounded it is in fact. Sometime

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action On 22/05/2011 21:04, Fred Bauder wrote: >> > > By the way, I think this NYT"s article: > > https://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/22/us/22gossip.html?ref=todayspaper > > "The Gossip Machine, Churning Out Cash" > &g

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action On 23 May 2011 00:03, FT2 wrote: > Out of interest, when a BLP is created and not speedy deleted, could we not > write a standard email to the subject stating that a biographical article > has been created on them on the online enc

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

On 23 May 2011 00:03, FT2 wrote: > Out of interest, when a BLP is created and not speedy deleted, could we not > write a standard email to the subject stating that a biographical article > has been created on them on the online encyclopedia "Wikipedia", inviting > them to review it, explaining wha

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

> my personal interpretation is that BLP failings were more likely to be seen and more likely to cause some kind of real or perceived harm, leading to a greater response rate. I suppose that if your a notable figure... you probably take a look to see if a Wikipedia article exists... and even mone

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

Out of interest, when a BLP is created and not speedy deleted, could we not write a standard email to the subject stating that a biographical article has been created on them on the online encyclopedia "Wikipedia", inviting them to review it, explaining what it's about, and pointing them to remedie

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

On 22 May 2011 23:03, Andrew Gray wrote: > Writing to someone involved with the issue personally is always more > complicated, especially if they're - justifiably - angry or worried > about the situation. The problems are often quite complex, so can sit > longer while people consider how to appro

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 16:03, Andrew Gray wrote: > On 22 May 2011 19:58, Sarah wrote: > >> The BLP problem is a very divisive one on the English Wikipedia, but >> it's not entirely clear how grounded it is in fact. Sometimes we're >> told OTRS is overwhelmed by the number of BLP complaints, but

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

On 22 May 2011 19:58, Sarah wrote: > The BLP problem is a very divisive one on the English Wikipedia, but > it's not entirely clear how grounded it is in fact. Sometimes we're > told OTRS is overwhelmed by the number of BLP complaints, but no > figures are given. > > Some hard stats -- X number o

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

On 22/05/2011 21:04, Fred Bauder wrote: >> > > By the way, I think this NYT"s article: > > https://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/22/us/22gossip.html?ref=todayspaper > > "The Gossip Machine, Churning Out Cash" > > may be of some relevance. I don't think we should pander in this way, > regardless of public

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

> > Well, whatever he meant, it isn't his decision. The WMF's legal dept > has recently published their draft policies, which includes one on > subpoenas [1]. It basically says that, unless lives are at stake, they > will only comply with US subpoenas. For US subpoenas, they'll decide > whether to

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

On 22 May 2011 20:39, Sarah wrote: > On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 13:33, wrote: >> On 22/05/2011 19:32, Sarah wrote: >>> On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 11:00,  wrote: On 22/05/2011 11:58, Chris Keating wrote: > Also rather interestingly, it appears that a Scottish newspaper has > reve

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 13:33, wrote: > On 22/05/2011 19:32, Sarah wrote: >> On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 11:00,  wrote: >>> On 22/05/2011 11:58, Chris Keating wrote: Also rather interestingly, it appears that a Scottish newspaper has revealed the identity of the footballer in

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

On 22/05/2011 19:32, Sarah wrote: > On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 11:00, wrote: >> On 22/05/2011 11:58, Chris Keating wrote: >>> Also rather interestingly, it appears that a Scottish newspaper has revealed >>> the identity of the footballer in question, on the grounds that English >>> superinjuncti

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 21:22, Philippe Beaudette wrote: > I asked Christine to do a quick scan, what follows is her response: > > *There isn't an exact "BLP" queue in OTRS; there is one for overall quality > (called, what else, Quality) which is where a lot of the BLP concerns go, as > they are q

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 11:00, wrote: > On 22/05/2011 11:58, Chris Keating wrote: >> Also rather interestingly, it appears that a Scottish newspaper has revealed >> the identity of the footballer in question, on the grounds that English >> superinjunctions don't apply in Scotland. >> >> Perha

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

> On 22/05/2011 11:58, Chris Keating wrote: >> Also rather interestingly, it appears that a Scottish newspaper has >> revealed >> the identity of the footballer in question, on the grounds that English >> superinjunctions don't apply in Scotland. >> >> Perhaps the WMF should open an office in Edinb

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

On 22/05/2011 11:58, Chris Keating wrote: > Also rather interestingly, it appears that a Scottish newspaper has revealed > the identity of the footballer in question, on the grounds that English > superinjunctions don't apply in Scotland. > > Perhaps the WMF should open an office in Edinburgh, if L

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

On 22 May 2011 17:22, geni wrote: > On 22 May 2011 11:58, Chris Keating wrote: >> Also rather interestingly, it appears that a Scottish newspaper has revealed >> the identity of the footballer in question, on the grounds that English >> superinjunctions don't apply in Scotland. > > I rather doubt

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Thomas Morton wrote: > Also; hard to see anyone suing you for communicating the info for the > purposes of supressing it :-) > > Tom Morton A few years ago, I would have said the same about communicating the info for the purposes of free press. --Dan ___

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

> On 22 May 2011 11:58, Chris Keating wrote: >> Also rather interestingly, it appears that a Scottish newspaper has >> revealed >> the identity of the footballer in question, on the grounds that English >> superinjunctions don't apply in Scotland. > > I rather doubt that is their legal position. T

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

On 22 May 2011 11:58, Chris Keating wrote: > Also rather interestingly, it appears that a Scottish newspaper has revealed > the identity of the footballer in question, on the grounds that English > superinjunctions don't apply in Scotland. I rather doubt that is their legal position. There is pas

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

In a message dated 5/22/2011 1:35:51 AM Pacific Daylight Time, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk writes: > There are many core problems that affect this issue. One of which is > 'Verifiability not truth' which seems a laudable concept when applied to > hearsay, and to allow articles on the paranorma

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

"Dead wood" has been suggested, but I strongly disagree with it. While there are issues and it needs careful work (nobody's denying that) I'm not seeing hard evidence that so many BLPs - even minor BLPs - are the train wreck that some represent nor as hard to manage as some portray. What I wouldn'

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

Also rather interestingly, it appears that a Scottish newspaper has revealed the identity of the footballer in question, on the grounds that English superinjunctions don't apply in Scotland. Perhaps the WMF should open an office in Edinburgh, if London is too risky ;-) Chris _

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

Well, the CTB Superinjunction is now broken in a number of places on en.wikipedia. So there we go. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

On 21/05/2011 23:09, Sarah wrote: > On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 16:01, Risker wrote: >> As to the comments from MZMcBride and Sarah, I would like to see a >> significantly higher minimal level of notability for BLPs. In the past few >> years of working with the Arbitration Committee, I have seen lite

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Sarah wrote: > > For those who deal with the BLP queue on OTRS, how serious is the > problem of BLP attack pages, whether rising to the level of defamation > or not? > > I know the problem exists -- anyone who edits can see it -- but I'd be > interested in hearing

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Sarah wrote: > > > For those who deal with the BLP queue on OTRS, how serious is the > problem of BLP attack pages, whether rising to the level of defamation > or not? > > I know the problem exists -- anyone who edits can see it -- but I'd be > interested in heari

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 16:01, Risker wrote: > As to the comments from MZMcBride and Sarah, I would like to see a > significantly higher minimal level of notability for BLPs.  In the past few > years of working with the Arbitration Committee, I have seen literally > thousands of BLPs that easily m

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

On 21 May 2011 17:35, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote: > MZMcBride, 21/05/2011 22:25: > > Marco Chiesa wrote: > >> Is there any project which allows usernames such as Administrator, > >> Bureaucrat, Oversight or Steward? Isn't that confused and probably not > >> allowed? Or which project allows a user

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

MZMcBride, 21/05/2011 22:25: > Marco Chiesa wrote: >> Is there any project which allows usernames such as Administrator, >> Bureaucrat, Oversight or Steward? Isn't that confused and probably not >> allowed? Or which project allows a user name for more than one person? > >

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

On 21 May 2011 22:14, MZMcBride wrote: > That sounds vaguely similar to > . > > Let me know if you start a Requests for comment/discussion about this. I'd > be interested, as would a number of other list participants, I imagine

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 15:14, MZMcBride wrote: > Sarah wrote: >> On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 14:33, MZMcBride wrote: >>> I think anyone who has been in the "BLP trenches" has had the same thought. >>> The reality is that an encyclopedia without a "Barack Obama" article or a >>> "Nelson Mandela" arti

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

Sarah wrote: > On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 14:33, MZMcBride wrote: >> I think anyone who has been in the "BLP trenches" has had the same thought. >> The reality is that an encyclopedia without a "Barack Obama" article or a >> "Nelson Mandela" article really isn't a general reference encyclopedia, or >

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 14:33, MZMcBride wrote: > Sarah wrote: >> I'm increasingly wondering whether we should be hosting any BLPs, because >> these are often difficult decisions to make -- at which point there is >> legitimate public interest in a person's private life -- and they can't be >> rea

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

Sarah wrote: > I'm increasingly wondering whether we should be hosting any BLPs, because > these are often difficult decisions to make -- at which point there is > legitimate public interest in a person's private life -- and they can't be > reached thoughtfully in an open-editing environment. I th

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

Marco Chiesa wrote: > Is there any project which allows usernames such as Administrator, > Bureaucrat, Oversight or Steward? Isn't that confused and probably not > allowed? Or which project allows a user name for more than one person? prohibits thos

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

On 21 May 2011 14:39, Marco Chiesa wrote: > Is there any project which allows usernames such as Administrator, > Bureaucrat, Oversight or Steward? Isn't that confused and probably not > allowed? Or which project allows a user name for more than one person? en:wp has User:Oversight, administered

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

On 5/20/11, Fred Bauder wrote: > > Please mail User:Oversight with any such instance you are aware of. We do > suppress any mention of a superinjunction, as the assertion that there is > embarrassing personal information sufficient to support issuance of a > superinjunction is defaming. > Is ther

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

Our BLP policy is pretty solid, and the editors that enforce it are pretty good at keeping out the crap :) We can always improve it, of course. And there are never enough BLP editors. (There are probably about 5 or 6 that specialise heavily in such content). Most of the outstanding issues are wit

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 20:19, Wjhonson wrote: > >  It is not up to us to decide that something is "private".  If it's been > published, then it is public. > If it's been published in a reliable source, than it's useable in our project. > But not everything that's usable has to be used. I'm incre

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

It is not up to us to decide that something is "private". If it's been published, then it is public. If it's been published in a reliable source, than it's useable in our project. We routinely suppress disclosure of private information. When do the details of an affair become public? And ho

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

> On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 18:01, Fred Bauder > wrote: >> >>> 2) Regarding "Our BLP policy has worked.", that's a fascinating >>> argument that the super-injunction *is* worthwhile. If Wikipedia >>> defines verifiability in terms of major media sources, and the >>> super-injunction inhibits those s

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 18:01, Fred Bauder wrote: > >> 2) Regarding "Our BLP policy has worked.", that's a fascinating >> argument that the super-injunction *is* worthwhile. If Wikipedia >> defines verifiability in terms of major media sources, and the >> super-injunction inhibits those sources, t

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

> 2) Regarding "Our BLP policy has worked.", that's a fascinating > argument that the super-injunction *is* worthwhile. If Wikipedia > defines verifiability in terms of major media sources, and the > super-injunction inhibits those sources, then it effectively > inhibits Wikipedia (even if it's im

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

On 21 May 2011 00:42, Wjhonson wrote: > {{fact}} > I dispute that private communications are public. > The catch is the postcards are not considered private (postman can read them). If this applies to unencrypted emails (that can in theory be read by the admin of any server they go through) is a

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

: Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action On 20 May 2011 23:33, Thomas Morton wrote: > It's not publishing the info. It's fine. Err you are aware that the courts regard sending the information on a postcard counts as publishing? > The point is to stifle mass media. That d

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

:Oversight feed. Exactly what is and isn't considered a private communication is a complex area though. -Original Message- From: geni To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Sent: Fri, May 20, 2011 3:28 pm Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action On 20 May 20

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

Hmm. TL;DR version - communicating the contents of an injunction is not inherently illegal, communicating it to a private mailing list might be actionable, but highly unlikely, especially if the intent is to help supress publication of the information in a wider forum. Ok, now the longer form. Wh

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

[Posting wearing my battered free-speech (ex)activist hat, not the Wikipedia-critic hat] 1) Stand-down a little - apparently Twitter is only being asked to produce identity information, same as the Wikimedia Foundation has been in other cases (under court order). http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technol

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

On 20/05/2011 23:14, FT2 wrote: > One interesting thing jumped out at me from this article: > > "Google argued that the users of Google News were responsible for the acts > of reproduction and communication, not Google. It contended that it only > provided users facilities which an enabled these ac

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

On 20 May 2011 23:33, Thomas Morton wrote: > It's not publishing the info. It's fine. Err you are aware that the courts regard sending the information on a postcard counts as publishing? > The point is to stifle mass media. That doesn't mean that they are the only people the law applies to. --

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

It's not publishing the info. It's fine. The point is to stifle mass media. Tom Morton On 20 May 2011, at 23:28, geni wrote: > On 20 May 2011 23:13, Thomas Morton wrote: >> Ah. No thats not accurate. Fortunately even the British courts can't >> stamp On private communication. >> >> The injunc

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

On 20 May 2011 23:13, Thomas Morton wrote: > 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. > No it isn't. Telling one mate down the pub might but multi

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

> On 20 May 2011 18:02, Fred Bauder wrote: > >> > On 20 May 2011 22:47, Fred Bauder 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 avoid

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

One interesting thing jumped out at me from this article: "Google argued that the users of Google News were responsible for the acts of reproduction and communication, not Google. It contended that it only provided users facilities which an enabled these acts and so was exempt from infringement...

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

Also; hard to see anyone suing you for communicating the info for the purposes of supressing it :-) Tom Morton On 20 May 2011, at 23:08, Risker wrote: > On 20 May 2011 18:02, Fred Bauder wrote: > >>> On 20 May 2011 22:47, Fred Bauder wrote: Please mail User:Oversight with any such instan

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

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 wrote: > On 20 May 2011 18:02, Fred Bauder wrote: > >>> On 20 May

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

On 20 May 2011 18:02, Fred Bauder wrote: > > On 20 May 2011 22:47, Fred Bauder 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 > publish

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

Huh? Why? Tom Morton On 20 May 2011, at 23:00, geni wrote: > On 20 May 2011 22:47, Fred Bauder wrote: >> Please mail User:Oversight with any such instance you are aware of. > > That's not actually legal. > > -- > geni > > ___ > foundation-l mailing l

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

> On 20 May 2011 22:47, Fred Bauder 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? Fred

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

David Gerard writes: Over the last several years, the UK libel laws have been a strong > consideration in WMF carefully maintaining *no* local business > presence in the UK. The legal environment here is toxic for anyone who > doesn't have to put up with it. > I've discussed this precise issue (i

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

> On 20 May 2011 22:22, Tom Morris wrote: > >> Twitter are planning to open a London office: >> http://www.brandrepublic.com/bulletin/digitalambulletin/article/1066031/twitter-open-uk-office-serve-commercial-needs/ >> This should be... interesting. > > > Over the last several years, the UK libel l

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

On 20 May 2011 22:47, Fred Bauder wrote: > Please mail User:Oversight with any such instance you are aware of. That's not actually legal. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

> On 20 May 2011 17:37, Chris Keating wrote: >> It won't be too long before a reputable news source covers the whole >> issue - >> or indeed a British Parliamentarian raises it under parliamentary >> privilege. > > They won't. Most reputable news sources are not interested in kiss and > tell and t

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

> On 20 May 2011 17:23, Risker wrote: >> Speaking as someone who's been in the middle of this exact issue from >> the >> Wikipedia perspective, edits similar to the one described to have been >> made >> on Twitter were removed multiple times from our own site over an >> extended >> period: not bec

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

On 20 May 2011 22:22, Tom Morris wrote: > Twitter are planning to open a London office: > http://www.brandrepublic.com/bulletin/digitalambulletin/article/1066031/twitter-open-uk-office-serve-commercial-needs/ > This should be... interesting. Over the last several years, the UK libel laws have b

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 19:29, David Gerard wrote: > On 20 May 2011 19:21, Fred Bauder wrote: > >> I think any user who uses Twitter to publish information in the U.K. may >> potentially be liable. > > > The jurisdictional issues impact the users. Suing Twitter is unlikely > to go very far. It is

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

> On 20 May 2011 21:21, Thomas Morton wrote: >>> They won't. Most reputable news sources are not interested in kiss and >>> tell and there are other ones that are in place for really rather good >>> reasons to the point where breaking them would probably get you sued >>> for libel under even US la

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

On 20 May 2011 21:21, Thomas Morton wrote: >> They won't. Most reputable news sources are not interested in kiss and >> tell and there are other ones that are in place for really rather good >> reasons to the point where breaking them would probably get you sued >> for libel under even US law >> >

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

> They won't. Most reputable news sources are not interested in kiss and > tell and there are other ones that are in place for really rather good > reasons to the point where breaking them would probably get you sued > for libel under even US law > Heh, what news do you read! > > > Then, of cour

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

On 20 May 2011 17:37, Chris Keating wrote: > It won't be too long before a reputable news source covers the whole issue - > or indeed a British Parliamentarian raises it under parliamentary privilege. They won't. Most reputable news sources are not interested in kiss and tell and there are other

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

On 20 May 2011 17:23, Risker wrote: > Speaking as someone who's been in the middle of this exact issue from the > Wikipedia perspective, edits similar to the one described to have been made > on Twitter were removed multiple times from our own site over an extended > period: not because of the inj

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

On 20/05/2011 19:56, Fred Bauder wrote: >> >> Also if it is found that WMF is negligent they may consider any senior >> member of WMF resident in London to be personally liable. > > Oh! Poor Jimbo! > I wouldn't count on that DBE being in the post. ___

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

> On 20/05/2011 18:06, FT2 wrote: >> I ask since clearly a US citizen in the US can post these online, so - >> can a >> UK citizen on holiday there? Or a US citizen in the UK? Or...? >> >> In other words, how do the factors interact such as -- 1/ the country >> you're >> a citizen of, 2/ the countr

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

On 20/05/2011 18:06, FT2 wrote: > I ask since clearly a US citizen in the US can post these online, so - can a > UK citizen on holiday there? Or a US citizen in the UK? Or...? > > In other words, how do the factors interact such as -- 1/ the country you're > a citizen of, 2/ the country whose laws

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

On 20 May 2011 19:21, Fred Bauder wrote: > I think any user who uses Twitter to publish information in the U.K. may > potentially be liable. The jurisdictional issues impact the users. Suing Twitter is unlikely to go very far. It is *possible* they may be able to do something to Facebook, who I

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

> I ask since clearly a US citizen in the US can post these online, so - > can a > UK citizen on holiday there? Or a US citizen in the UK? Or...? > > In other words, how do the factors interact such as -- 1/ the country > you're > a citizen of, 2/ the country whose laws were claimed to be broken, 3

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

>> On 20 May 2011 17:37, Chris Keating wrote: >>> It won't be too long before a reputable news source covers the whole >>> issue - >>> or indeed a British Parliamentarian raises it under parliamentary >>> privilege. >> > I'm thinking it will be interesting to see how Twitter's position is > handle

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

I ask since clearly a US citizen in the US can post these online, so - can a UK citizen on holiday there? Or a US citizen in the UK? Or...? In other words, how do the factors interact such as -- 1/ the country you're a citizen of, 2/ the country whose laws were claimed to be broken, 3/ the jurisdi

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

This does all raise an interesting question of what jurisdictions actually cover. In the "superinjunction" case for example, which of these is legally able to be sued: - A UK citizen who posts the names online from their home in the UK and then remains in the UK after - obviously "yes".

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

> On 20 May 2011 17:37, Chris Keating wrote: >> It won't be too long before a reputable news source covers the whole issue - >> or indeed a British Parliamentarian raises it under parliamentary privilege. > I'm thinking it will be interesting to see how Twitter's position is handled, namely that i

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

On 20 May 2011 17:37, Chris Keating wrote: > It won't be too long before a reputable news source covers the whole issue - > or indeed a British Parliamentarian raises it under parliamentary privilege. > > Then, of course, the material will be in the article even if there is still Note that the re

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

> > > A footballer protected by one of the British "superinjunctions" is > > suing Twitter and persons unknown after he was alleged on Twitter to > > have had an affair. Something that could have repercussions for > > Wikipedia. > > > > > > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/may/20/twitter-sued

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

On 20 May 2011 12:09, Sarah wrote: > A footballer protected by one of the British "superinjunctions" is > suing Twitter and persons unknown after he was alleged on Twitter to > have had an affair. Something that could have repercussions for > Wikipedia. > > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/

Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

> A footballer protected by one of the British "superinjunctions" is > suing Twitter and persons unknown after he was alleged on Twitter to > have had an affair. Something that could have repercussions for > Wikipedia. > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/may/20/twitter-sued-by-footballer-over-

[Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

A footballer protected by one of the British "superinjunctions" is suing Twitter and persons unknown after he was alleged on Twitter to have had an affair. Something that could have repercussions for Wikipedia. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/may/20/twitter-sued-by-footballer-over-privacy Sa