Forum:Defamation (jurisdiction of law)?

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Defamation (jurisdiction of law)?

Note: This topic has been unedited for 4410 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Hi there (Wales?)

I would like to request advice on what laws cover content on Unencyclopedia. If the tort law of defamation applies are contributers protected against legislative action. I ask because it seems that anything goes and the content suggests that most users are quite young and may not be aware of the potential repercusions of their actions. If your postion is that "no one will care," how are we to understand this claim to authority when the laws of many countries suggest otherwise. Noted in particular, the assertions regarding President Obama, prostitution law and pot. Some advice would be appreciated. If there is some kind of exemption, from the truth as a legal concept, being offered I wouldn't mind making use of it! – Preceding unsigned comment added by Themis (talk • contribs)

I admit I have no idea what the law, statute or loophole happens to be called or even under which country's government it applies, but yes. Something or other keeps us from getting in trouble. I think. Maybe. Somebody else should probably elaborate. -RAHB 09:06, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but we are a satirical site, and satire trumps everything. We don't abuse nonpublic figures (except for Missy Jablonskier, that skank from the next street over), don't issue jihads, all visit prostitutes and smoke pot (in fact many of us are prostitutes and write here between johns and johnettes). And the internet trumps stupid censorship laws in non-host countries, if the net can float in then people can read it. Obama? Ha! Aleister 9:47 24-3-12

Themis, if you want to contribute, go ahead. Don't write anything nasty about Mao Zedong as Uncyclopedia is currently hosted behind the Great Firewall of China. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 14:13, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

Let me tell you that if Encyclopediadramatica exists since like 2004 and have had no legal problems except the article "aboriginal" being blocked in Australia, there's no way in hell Uncyclopedia could be sued! It's called Free Speech, First Amendment. Edit and have fun! :) Mattsnow 15:10, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

cocks --112.187.239.21 19:39, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

What he said. ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Sun, Mar 25 '12 5:04 (UTC)

Fair Use is reasonable, fairly broad protection. And the fact that the lawyer's fees would be more than they could ever get out of us helps. We're hobos with keyboards. Well, just the one keyboard. And it smells like hobo. True story. Lastly, we quickly give in and surrender at even the mildest threat. Wikia is France. And not that cool Napoleon-era France, either, with the slashy swords, silver tongues, and sopping syphilis. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 09:06, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

Parody is a defense against defamation in certain jurisdictions. For example, our Italian sister site, Nonciclopedia, was recently in some legal doo-doo because Italian laws aren't as protective of satire. Libel laws in the United Kingdom are notoriously bad and it's not uncommon for works of satire to be deemed libel if they cause demonstrable harm to the person or group being satirized (and in this case, they would not have to prove malice). Thankfully, Uncyc is hosted by Wikia, which is based in the United States, so content on Uncyc is covered by U.S. libel laws which are very protective of parodies and satire. In the case of Nonciclopedia, editors were still threatened with legal action because the editors resided in Italy despite Nonciclopedia itself being covered by U.S. libel laws. It may just be some loophole in the infamously fucked-up Italian legal system, but I'm inclined to believe that it was just another idle threat of legal action to force editors to remove content, like the ones Uncyc received from the Video Professor. --EMC ^[TALK] 21:56 Mar 25 2012

The libel laws in the UK are severe in comparison to the USA but magazines like Private Eye have survived and flourished. Very often their successful battles against attempts by others to silence them have acted as adhoc law about what can be written about someone or an institution. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 08:57, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Part of the US Copyright Act includes the right to parody. The Copyright Act would protect Uncyc because Uncyc is hosted by Wikia and Wikia is in US jurisdiction. As for defamation, because Uncyc goes to such great lengths to make sure everyone knows it's parody/satire/humor site, no information could reasonably be interpreted as factual. Only if there's a "statement of fact" can there be defamation. Case closed. ~  Talk 04:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Um,

We do have our very own Uncyclopedia Legal Department, which I do believe does keep blackmail handy for the occasional unaware country who tries to get uppity.
(We're precedent setters, for years tech companies in America have collected patents for legal self-defense & unself-offense, and political parties have successfully achieved gerrymandering, largely based on Uncyclopedia's example in this area.)  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*  (talk) (stalk) Π   ~  ~  25 Mar 2012 ~ 09:10 (UTC)

I always thought that Lyrithya was a struggling law student, who, with absolutely zero dollars (or euros or pounds) to spend in real life, dedicated her free time to making us behave, both socially and publically. If only she was around ... then she could clear this all up for us. [whispers gently into the echo-y air: "where aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaare you L"? "whhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhere?" ...... --ShabiDOO 18:46, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

Ahem

This article is a good basis to start with relating to this issue. As long as the purpose of the speech was to satirise (read: make the funny) then we are free to express ourselves in that context. If we started to write articles that claimed to be truthful (as in the case of the ED Aboriginal article) the ground becomes shakier. Where we make that disclaimer is on the main page where we refer to ourselves as the "content-free" encyclopedia - effectively saying that nothing within here is truthful. Or as it says in that linked article "Defamation requires a "statement of fact" -- and for this reason, most parody, because of its fictional nature, falls outside defamation law by definition." Nominally Humane! 11:27 28 Mar

As for Australian Law, a side note. "The limits are regarding cartoons, humour, parody or satire are unclear. Good humour is likely safe but derisiveness, ridiculousness or 'for the lulz' may be less so." In short, Austrakian law does not give protection for parody. A case in point was the comedian "Pauline Pantsdown" who recorded "Back door man" using sound bytes of Pauline Hanson to suggest that she was a homosexual man. Even though she is a public figure - and obviously female - this was classed as a defamatory act. This is about the only case of defamation via parody that I know of that has gone through the courts here. Copyright infringement, on the other hand, makes no exception for parody. And as for the Aboriginal article before - there is legal clauses that protect against defamation of a racial group. Andrew Bolt - a complete cockhead right-wing pundit - recently was forced to retract statements he made under the same law. (I'm safe saying that as he is well known for having a cock as a head.) While ED were within their rights under US law, because they "broadcast" within Australia they fell under publishing in Australian Law. There is the allowance for certain levels of copyrighted material to be used for critical purposes though. Nominally Humane! 11:38 28 Mar

hey

We used to make fun of these people. Why not now?--WELCOME TO UNCYCLOPEDIA HELL!!!! 11:45, March 28, 2012 (UTC)