RE: The Economist and e-Archiving

["Rick Anderson" <rickand@unr.edu>]

> How do we preserve the historical record and the right to disagree in a
> public-distributed-forum?

It's not a question of the right to disagree.  It's a question of the
right to defame.  Correct me if I'm wrong, someone, but I'm pretty sure
that right does not exist in France, the UK or the US.

> Isn't there a difference between something in the Economist, which is a
> publication of record and a defame chuck website?

Defamation is defamation.  The fact that it's published in the Economist
does not, I'm pretty sure, accord any special legal protection to a
defamatory article.  I understand the concern for the historical record.
But the assertion that ceasing to distribute the article is tantamount to
"wiping out the historical record" of the case seems a bit much.

> Explain, and even mandate an explanation, but why delete it?

Because deleting it is the only way to stop distributing it.  I think it
makes sense to add an explanation to a faulty research article, and to
leave the article in the archive.  I'm not sure that's a sufficient remedy
for defamation.  It would end up being like this:

"Hey, everyone, please ignore what I'm about to say.  Now: Chuck is a
compulsive burglar and puppy-kicker who is trying to overthrow the U.S.
government."

That just doesn't seem to work, somehow.

-------------
Rick Anderson
rickand@unr.edu

> If chuck is a public enough figure he has fewer rights to stop you, of
> course. But if chuck has enough resources, he may be able to get
> you to pull even what is true-truth is not necessarily a defense or may 
> not  be affordable (i.e. some truths may be so expensive because of
> situations like the Barschall case, that individuals or organizations 
> may be unable to utter them-or distribute them-.
>
> As a private citizen chuck probably has more rights rather than fewer.
> Chuck