Libel chill: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Libel chill''' is a classic tactic undertaken by an organization that wishes to silence its enemies. It consists of threatening to file [[libel]] actions that would be expensive to defend, not in order to win damages, but to prevent some truth from being revealed. A [http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2004-May/015211.html classic example] from the [[Wikipedia mailing list]] is James Wales explaining how he intimidates others from filing claims against the [[ | '''Libel chill''' is a classic tactic undertaken by an organization that wishes to silence its enemies. It consists of threatening to file [[libel]] actions that would be expensive to defend, not in order to win damages, but to prevent some truth from being revealed. A [http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2004-May/015211.html classic example] from the [[Wikipedia mailing list]] is James Wales explaining how he intimidates others from filing claims against the [[Wikimedia]] Foundation: | ||
:"in order to file a legal action, he or she would have to reveal his or her true identity, which would then enable us to finally take legal action to permanently ban them from the website, as well as providing an opportunity for me to file a libel claim against him." - Wales [http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2004-May/015211.html] | :"in order to file a legal action, he or she would have to reveal his or her true identity, which would then enable us to finally take legal action to permanently ban them from the website, as well as providing an opportunity for me to file a libel claim against him." - Wales [http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2004-May/015211.html] | ||
Because of the nature of its work revealing corporate abuses, the [[Consumerium Governance Organization]] can expect to very often be the target of such chill. | In other words, any person who so much as contests the [[Wikimedia]] policies or donation strategies as being legal under the laws, even of their own country, is to be instantly intimidated and forbidden from responding even to comments about themselves. This would seem to restrict the right to [[libel]] to those who are part of the [[insider culture]]/[[sysop power structure]] who perform these "bans". | ||
Because of the nature of its work revealing corporate abuses, the [[Consumerium Governance Organization]] can expect to very often be the target of such chill. Hopefully it will not pre-emptively employ libel chill as Wikimedia does, but will have a proper legal strategy to avoid publishing libellous statements by contributors (but especially not by officers and directors, as often happens at [[Wikimedia]]), and another proper strategy to avoid using any self-escalating tactics like the above. | |||