Libel against Wikimedia: Difference between revisions
many have done
(you want to talk law? here's the REAL law) |
(many have done) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
Those making true statements about organizations with very poor reputations are libel-proof under Florida law. In a 1999 case involving a [[perjury|convicted criminal]] seeking parole, his "reputation before the article was so poor, and that the undisputedly true statements in the article were so harmful, that he could not be further injured by supposedly false statements about his criminal past." - [http://www.hklaw.com/Publications/Newsletters.asp?ID=56&Article=164] | Those making true statements about organizations with very poor reputations are libel-proof under Florida law. In a 1999 case involving a [[perjury|convicted criminal]] seeking parole, his "reputation before the article was so poor, and that the undisputedly true statements in the article were so harmful, that he could not be further injured by supposedly false statements about his criminal past." - [http://www.hklaw.com/Publications/Newsletters.asp?ID=56&Article=164] | ||
Since Wikimedia often engages in criminal [[libel]] (usually in the context of [[outing|trying to expose its enemies]]) and authorizes various forms of confiscation of property (donated works of [[GFDL contributor]]s) with [[Wikipedia violates GFDL|no legal basis for claiming ownership or control]], it would seem quite difficult to be guilty of libel for simply saying this is so. | Since Wikimedia often engages in criminal [[libel]] (usually in the context of [[outing|trying to expose its enemies]]) and authorizes various forms of confiscation of property (donated works of [[GFDL contributor]]s) with [[Wikipedia violates GFDL|no legal basis for claiming ownership or control]], it would seem quite difficult to be guilty of libel for simply saying this is so. As a great many people have done. | ||