Edit first, publish later

'Open access encyclopaedia' Wikipedia's libelling of John Seigenthaler juxtaposes the right to freedom of speech with the individual's right to a good name. As libelling on the internet increases, internet providers are advised to edit before they publish. By Conor Brady

Two weeks ago, this column reported the case of John Seigenthaler, the distinguished US journalist and editor who was libelled in the pages of Wikipedia, the massive "community encyclopedia" database. Seigenthaler, 78, was shocked and angered some months ago to find that when his name was word-searched on Wikipedia, he was described as having been a suspect in the murders of President John F Kennedy and his brother, Bobby. However, Wikipedia declared, "nothing could be proven".

In fact, Seigenthaler worked closely and loyally with the Kennedys. He remains close to the family today. When Jean Kennedy-Smith was US Ambassador in Dublin in the 1990s, his niece, Amy Seigenthaler, worked as her personal assistant here. Seigenthaler was outraged that not only did it take three months to get the libellous material removed from Wikipedia but that the organisation insisted it was unable to identify its author. Wikpedia is an "open access encyclopedia". Anybody who wants to can add or edit material.

Or at least, so it was until the Seigenthaler affair. In recent weeks, however, there have been changes in the way Wikipedia operates. And they are giving rise to a vigorous controversy about "freedom-of-speech" rights vis-à-vis the rights of the individual to preserve one's good name.

Wikipedia removed the false Seigenthaler entry and just before Christmas announced that it was putting new rules in place for people wishing to submit new material. From now on, anyone who wants to add copy to Wikipedia will have to register first, although visitors to the site will still be able to edit or modify content without registering. Wikipedia says that it expects the new arrangements to result in a big drop in the numbers of people contributing information to the site. In turn, this will enable its 600 or so "volunteer" editors to exercise higher standards of scrutiny on new material.

Proponents of the traditional publishing ethos – "edit first, then publish" – will see this as a pretty minimal concession to their values. But there is anger and disappointment among the armies of anonymous "contributors" who believe there is an absolute right to utter anything about anybody, regardless of its veracity or the damage and hurt it may cause.

One blogger opined after Wikipedia announced these changes: "Wikipedia will not be Wikipedia any more... it just won't be a community encyclopedia that can be edited and changed instantly by anyone anymore... faced with the overwhelming task of working through the mountains of data, the oversight committee will cut and chop Wikipedia and in the process take on a subtle bias peppered with a dash of political correctness. The breadth of material will narrow, since some topics will be just a little too 'hot,' a little too intellectual and not sensational enough to keep an audience that makes money for the big-pocketed corporate owners..."

The Seigenthaler affair has undoubtedly wounded Wikipedia. Ironically, the author of the libellous entry was identified through a combination of clever detective work and skilful use of technology. But it was unfortunate for the site that the "victim" in this instance is a high-profiled and influential journalist. He wrote the story of what happened to him in a hard-hitting article in USA Today (of which he was a founder-director), describing Wikipedia as "a flawed and irresponsible research tool". The aphorism comes to mind about not picking a quarrel with someone who buys printing-ink by the barrel.

Seigenthaler's successful counter-attack on Wikipedia has focused attention on the extraordinary freedoms that US federal law has conferred on internet providers. The 1996 Communications Decency Act (Section 230) states that "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker." In other words, internet publishers operate under ground rules that are quite the antithesis of those applying to print or broadcast publishers. Indeed, the same legislation obliges internet providers to protect the identities of their customers, even those who use the internet to libel innocent parties.

From an Irish or a European perspective, the moral of the tale is that if you want to libel someone on the internet, do it with a US provider like Wikipedia, Amercia On Line (AOL), BellSouth et al.

The contrast between US and EU law on internet libel could hardly be more stark. The British-based Demon Net company has been successfully sued for carrying material deemed to be libellous – although it merely acted as a server-provider. Closer to home, the former leader of the Ulster Unionists, David Trimble, successfully moved against the Amazon company in 1999, obliging it to withdraw the controversial book The Committee, which, he said, maliciously and untruthfully alleged that he had been involved in or condoned sectarian murders.

In the Demon case, a British physicist, Dr Laurence Godfrey, sued the provider company because it carried an email that was obscene and defamatory of him. Demon decided to settle out of court. Dr Godfrey took relatively small damages (£15,000) from the company but it also had to carry his legal costs of £250,000.

European courts in general seem to take a somewhat forgiving view when providers react promptly to remove material that is offensive or libellous. Demon's potential defence in court was significantly weakened by the fact that it had refused Godfrey's request to remove the material. The possibility of Demon defending itself with a plea of "innocent dissemination" was thus eliminated.

Mainstream Irish publishers prudently consider themselves to operate under one set of rules regarding defamation, whether in print, broadcast or on the internet. The first step, when a solicitor's letter arrives alleging libel, is generally to take the material down from the website.

Conor Brady is Editor Emeritus of the Irish Times. He is a senior teaching fellow at the UCD Graduate School of Business where he lectures in modern media.