On Fri, 2010-05-28 at 00:38 +0100, AGK wrote:
> On 27 May 2010 19:48, Michael Peel wrote:
> > On the surface, it looks reasonable for Wikimedia (meaning the WMF
> > primarily, but also WMUK if we ever assist with hosting), as we'd fall
> > straight under 9.1a as a facilitator and hence would clear
On 27 May 2010 19:48, Michael Peel wrote:
> On the surface, it looks reasonable for Wikimedia (meaning the WMF
> primarily, but also WMUK if we ever assist with hosting), as we'd fall
> straight under 9.1a as a facilitator and hence would clearly not be liable.
> I have to admit to not being famil
On 27/05/2010 20:18, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> Keep in mind that Private Members bills almost never pass. This will
> draw attention to the issue, nothing more.
Well, the government has said it's going to reform libel law. It's just
a question of when and how far
KTC
--
Experience is a good s
Keep in mind that Private Members bills almost never pass. This will
draw attention to the issue, nothing more.
On 27 May 2010 19:48, Michael Peel wrote:
> Hi all,
> I'm forwarding the email below as it affects Wikimedia a bit, due to the
> following (extracted from Anthony Lester's Guardian arti
Hi all,
I'm forwarding the email below as it affects Wikimedia a bit, due to the
following (extracted from Anthony Lester's Guardian article):
"The Bill sets out the circumstances in which an internet service provider or
forum host should not be liable for defamatory material and sets time limi
