I certainly hope Lawrence doesn't leave the list. I'd also urge extreme
caution in distributing the article in any way (web e-mail or photocopy),
and in what anybody says about its author publisher on this list. This is
because Lawrence has mentioned the word which was in my mind right from
the start, libel. If one thinks the article is libel, then legal advice
should be sought as soon as possible, and this serious matter should be
pursued properly. In that case much will hinge on the nature of
"publication" of (a) the original article and (b) the publishers'
circular - is it a true "publication" or merely a private circulation? In
which case the lesser and more tricky-to-define slander will (as I
understand it) apply. In considering the (potential) libel, account would
be taken of the role played by the injured parties in drawing attention
to, or assisting circulation of, the article/circular. A defence could
very well suggest that drawing attention to an article published in an
edition of ?hundreds at most by means of the WWW (messages to this list
are freely accessible on the web) substantially diminished the claim. The
list might indeed be laid open to a counterclaim. Do, please, be careful
in this. Public lists work within legal parameters.
That's why I'm sugesting *restraint* (and am holding off from any further
critical comment myself for the time being, for fear of muddying the
waters) until all options have been considered. That's also (I imagine)
why Griffiths restricted himself to the perfectly justifiable issue of
"factuality". If it's serious, take it seriously.
RC
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|