h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Not really, but I like to do things that make other people happy.

1. Place head approximately five centimeters above desk
2. Move head sharply in a downwards direction
3. Repeat as necessary

I'm not sure what's more interesting here, seeing whether we're allowed to see the contents of this entry or following the conversation between Mina and Lucinda.

I think I'll just lurk a little

My post 22 was inspired by the censorship, rather than being a suggestion to Mina - perhaps I should have made that clear.

It did confuse me slightly Lucinda, so I just ignored it. If I bash my head on the desk I might break my computer.

It might be easier if there was some way to liase more directly with the legal team. Or rather than reactive moderation ('Is this acceptable?', 'No', 'Is this?', 'No') perhaps if we knew what can and can't be said, or an acceptable way of saying the 'unsayable', this entry could go ahead.

If Lucinda's entry continues to be hidden, it's only going to cause everyone frustration, italics and researchers alike.

Hi DoctorGonzo.

Knowing what can and can't be said can (in this case) be summed up quite simply:

You can't post stuff to h2g2 that is defamatory.

Defamation has a legal definition, and it's up to the individual to ensure that they are aware of what this means. In an ideal world we'd love to provide a free legal service to the public, but that is obviously not realistic, and the BBC lawyers are for internal queries, not external ones.

If people are genuinely concerned whether something they have written is defamatory, then:

1. They should consult someone who understands defamation law.

2. They should not publish it *anywhere* if they have any doubt.

This would apply to anyone sensible who was planning to publish anything in any media; it's not an h2g2-specific problem.

Lucinda is going to spend some time working on his entry to try to ensure that it is not defamatory. If his new version is acceptable then we'll be happy to publish it, but if not, then it will fail moderation again. We're working with him on this one, as it's a good subject for an entry, but we cannot publish defamatory material, and we unfortunately can't provide a free legal service to the public.

(Nice REM lyric in your name, by the way. )

I wish I could lend a hand, but I won't be studying media law (or 'law for journalists', or whatever the module is called) until next year. Still, it's great to know that the edited guide is willing to cover controversial subjects, pending lawyer approval.

DG, who knows all the words to 'Gardening at Night', and used to know all the words to 'It's the end of the world...'

Lucinda, OK I didn't get a chance to read the article but I know the subject matter reasonably well. Keep to the key facts that Nestle was highlighted as one company which was alledgedly doing what it was accused of, but since it was a major international player it was highlighted for the campaign to boycott it products. Keep the article as a truly historical account of the action that was taken rather than dwelling too much on the supposed actions of Nestle which casued the boycott and then no one can argue about it as you will be reporting history. But obviously tread carefully on any part that refers to Nestle and if possible try and input some of their quotes at the time to balance in. And source all quotes in footnotes, so as to make it an historic document rather than a deflametary piece. This may well be a way to get around discribing what Nestle were accused of. But check with the editors on that fact. As far as I would see it, it would merely be reporting history.

BTW has anyone found a good alternative to Nestle famous white chocolate bar as I'm still boycotting and still trying to find an alternative.

Green and Blacks do a rather tasty white chocolate bar - and it's fair trade. You can get it in the One World Shop at the bottom of Lothian Road, or Campbell's in Stockbridge. though that might be a bit out of the way for you now, DD

I'll head to Lothian Road after work then.

...and you could always go to Revolution afterwards

The h2g2 editors missed a couple of points which are perhaps relevant:

What can and can't be said: they missed 'You can't post links to h2g2 if the linked sites are defamatory'. It's going to be essentially impossible to verify that an entire website is defamation free, so the result of this is that I can't link to external websites in this entry.

The other thing they told me was that I have a single chance to get this right and legally squeeky clean, and if the next version I create is deficient in any way then that will be the end of the line. And further, the next version I create must be a final version, and I will not be permitted to edit it subsequently.

They also told me that I would *have* to get legal advice to write this entry, and suggested a number of times that maybe I'd be better off if I didn't even try to write the entry, and just quit while I was behind.

Clearly some meaning of "We're working with him on this one" of which I was previously unaware. On the flip side, this does at least explain why the homophobe blacklist hasn't reappeared...



Anyway, I'm going to be spending a few weeks or so trying to jump through the various hoops I've been set here. After that I'm going to need some unofficial legal advice, so if anyone here *is* a lawyer, or in training to be a lawyer, then any help they'd be prepared to give would be *very* welcome.

Incidentally, Nestle was chosen not just because they were international, but also because report after report has put their name as the worst offender...

I'm not sure where you were linking, but I'm pretty sure we can assume that the Mark Thomas site has been checked - it is C4, and C4 are in the same position as the BBC. If there a WHO site, well, that's similar to a government agency - they must be beyond libel.

Perhaps it would be better if the whole thing was created offline, with emails between the h2g2 team and Lucinda. That would mean that nothing would be published, until it was ready. If h2g2 (and by association the BBC) allow themselves to be bullied by the threat of libel, it sets a worrying precedent.

Lucinda: "They also told me that I would *have* to get legal advice to write this entry, and suggested a number of times that maybe I'd be better off if I didn't even try to write the entry, and just quit while I was behind. Clearly some meaning of 'We're working with him on this one' of which I was previously unaware. On the flip side, this does at least explain why the homophobe blacklist hasn't reappeared..."

Seeing as this debate is about defamation, let's take a purely illustrative look at a typical example. (Don't take this seriously, please - we're *not* going to sue you for defamation, Lucinda! )

If we were litigious (which we're not) we would argue that the statement above would be taken by right-thinking people to imply that we provided Tony (the author of the homophobe blacklist) with exactly the same support as we have been providing you on this one, and that this is why the blacklist hasn't reappeared.

We would contest this implication, and would claim that it damages the reputation of the Editors (an identifiable group of individuals) in the minds of right-thinking people by attacking unfairly the level of customer support we give to contentious entry authors. We would then sue you for defamation, as all the requirements for defamation have been satisfied.

Your defence - and you would have to make this defence case convince a jury, as it is up to you to defend the defamation suit - would be to prove that we provided Tony with the same support as we have offered you, and that this is the reason why the homophobe blacklist has not reappeared. We know that this is not the case, and unless you pulled out evidence to the contrary (which would surprise us considerably!) you would be guilty of defamation (BTW, *do* you have such evidence, such as our private emails with Tony on the subject?).

Seriously though, this point shows how complex the whole topic of defamation can be, and this is why we are only happy to put the piece back through the lawyers once - because otherwise the entry will keep going back and forth, and that is a drain on the legal team that we are not happy with. Of course, if the piece is fine except for a couple of tweaks, then making those tweaks will mean we don't have to bother the lawyers again, and if the whole piece is fine but a little bit does need putting through the lawyers again, then that should be fine too. But what we cannot provide is an on-going tennis match between the author and the legal team, and that is why we have asked Lucinda to get it as right as he possibly can, first time.



Just for the record, and as a guide for anyone thinking of writing possibly defamatory entries, when Lucinda says we "suggested a number of times that maybe I'd be better off if I didn't even try to write the entry, and just quit while I was behind", he's referring to these two paragraphs, from two separate emails we sent:

"If you cannot ascertain whether the material is defamatory or not, then you should probably question whether you should be considering posting this Entry on to our site."

"If you post something on to h2g2 that is defamatory we will remove it. It is up to you to check that it is not defamatory, otherwise you must accept that the piece will be moderated. We are not here to provide a free legal service. If you're concerned that you are unable to post an entry on this subject that is not defamatory, then you perhaps you should not attempt to do so. It's obviously going to be extremely difficult to write about this subject without specialist legal advice."

Ideally, we'd get a version of the entry that we can publish... but if not, then we can't publish it, simple as that.

Wow, I remember my college's students union meeting once having a vote on whether we should boycott Nestle products.
This was in 1989.
Is this really *still* going on???!!!

It's not your job, as you have repeatedly stated, to provide a free legal service to researchers. Hence, my criticism of the legal service provided is not a criticism of your performance of your job. As such, my criticism is no more defamatory than my criticism of Mark Moxon's beard.

From what I've heard, Mark's beard is a criminal, rather than a civil matter...

But maybe Mark's beard wins the
approval of Allah?

And maybe Mark doesn't even have a beard ...