Comments:Wikileaks claims news organisations pressured to remove articles on billionaire fraudster

Back to article

Wikinews commentary.svg

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

  • Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
  • Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
  • You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading

so how is Obama involved? -- 17:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting question, if he even is. No-one seems to know. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 17:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

this is the kind of story that makes wikileaks great. keep it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Additional links about Nadhmi AuchiEdit

Differing libel standards?Edit

Interesting that, according to this article, Carter-Ruck's web site claims that "A libel claimant does not have to prove that the words are false or to prove that he has in fact suffered any loss. Damage is presumed." In the US, if you are considered a public figure, exactly the opposite is the case - in order to win a libel judgement, you must not only prove that the words are false, but also that the defendant _knew_ that they were false.

For example, in once case I'm familiar with, an abortion clinic operator claimed that the local anti-abortion group was making death threats against him. They sued for libel. The judge ruled that, as long as the provider sincerely believed he was being threatened, his claims could not be considered libel, since they were "public figures". Not only did they lose the suit, but they were forced to pay the provider's legal fees - even though they had demonstrated that they could not have made any of the threats the provider claimed they did! —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Darrow (talkcontribs) 04:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC) \

That's the way it should be. Otherwise you have situations like with this French bastard who is attempting to subdue and erase all reports against him under the pathetic guise of "libel."