|
Ouch. Honestly, I'm just more ashamed that he used his real wikipedia account and can't write for shit. I'd of been more angry if he used a sockpuppet account or showed any signs of intelligence.
*Gets out the media law textbooks*
Bear in mind that as Wikipedia is in the US, none of this may even apply.
--
The official legal definition of Libel is a statement about a person that is defamatory, and also tends to do one of the following:
-Expose the person to hatred, ridicule or contempt.
-Cause the person to be shunned or avoided.
-Lower the person in the estimation of right thinking members of society generally
-Disparage the person in his/her business,trade or profession.
All of those can be argued here, however they do not need to be. it's more just a rough guideline of what can qualify as defamatory, rather then just unpleasant. It's almost always defamatory to say of a person that they're a liar, cheat or in financial difficulties. I would say implying the UKCM costume solely to get into events for free would be a defamatory statement on the entire organisation alone, before we confront the other parts.
In order to prove Libel, as both a tort (Civil wrong) and as a criminal charge you need to prove several things. Firstly you need to prove that the article has been published. In the laws eyes to sustain a prosecution the words must be written in a permanent form. You could argue [although it's unprecedented I believe] that the wiki is a permanent form as the words remain there.
You also have to prove that it is defamatory, and not true. This is slightly tricky to do, because while he is putting things in a negative light, it is true that we have no clearing procedure, and true that we tend to use marine costumers as spotters. This isn't actually a negative thing. However, if you can prove that one of these things is a lie, then you're good to go.
Thirdly, you need to prove that the article pertains to you. I'm not 100% accurate on class action libel, but the UKCM are in reality a fairly small group of active members, I think you could reasonably argue that it was libellous to the entire core group, which would be like a crime multiplier.
In closing, I'm hungover, this is poorly written and this is only a tiny tiny primer of things you should consider before paying to get an appointment with a solicitor.
Honestly, I think it'd be incredibly tricky to press a criminal charge of libel in this case. I think a civil case of Libel could have a decent chance if you could establish the three points above, however - knowing who wrote the article [a quick google of the name Smendrick should prove enlightening.] I'd suggest that sueing for damages could be an exercise in futility. I'm hesitant to suggest a more fitting course of action on anything so permanent as the internet. Basically, defamation is complicated. I've got a lot of experience with it from "my side" and I can tell you how to avoid defamation, and I can point out about 400 ways the above article could avoid a defamation charge, but your best bet is to consider what is posted above, make sure you have answers to all of the points that are likely to come up, and seek legal advice, prehaps for a couple of sources. It's not likely to be an easy resolution, and it may in fact become quite expensive if you lose, as you will have to pay costs.
If any more information is required, I can try to clarify some points.
[EDIT: Scapey beat me to a lot of this, with less words.]
_________________ Sgt. Jake Tucker - 13th Regt. 1st Batt. Freebooters. 
|
Register
FAQ
Search
Login
AKA: Simon
