"You have to admire the way the Sunday Times is brazenly trying to get its way: they delete the most blatant lies from the story on the their web site, they use copyright law to prevent people from quoting or displaying the original article, and now they only have to do something about the physical copies.
Hell, before the advent of the Internet it might have worked. It would have probably worked before printing. I bet some of the people involved regret the good old times when the peasants had no way of learning things on their own."
I think the real power of the internet is seeping through the half desperate aggression that the powers that be are unloading on it. So Glen G nuked the original article, and I think there's wiggle room for a human rights lawyer here somewhere, and that the S-T might be knee-jerking its way into trouble.
Remember, (and yes, Wiki is famously "only 78% correct"),
"Some common law jurisdictions also distinguish between spoken defamation, called slander, and defamation in other media such as printed words or images, called libel."
So is a printed libel lie, which is then removed with no warning, thus creating a *second* version of the story, now "slander" for that phrase because it's no longer in media? What is the legality of them removing fragments of stories like that, "just because it's online and it's easy"?
So then watch this, "fair use includes *criticism* ", which includes
There's still too much precedent to steamroll the law, but I think the S-T goofed.