Does Defamation Know Borders?

spam-it-to-me-baby writes: "Interesting court case going on down under at the moment involving a prominent Australian businessman who claims he was defamed by a Dow Jones article published on a web server in the United States. Prosecution is digging up an obscure 1848 judgement over what constitutes an act of publication to ensure the case is heard here rather than in the U.S. Dow's claiming the story was for a U.S. readership. The case continues ..." And since laws on what you can legally say aloud or in print vary greatly from country to country, please make sure your words are only available in pre-screened jurisdictions.

Comments

Check the stories before posting

[nstrug]

Does anyone even bother to read the linked articles anymore? It is the defendant (the WSJ) that is using the C19 English precedent to argue that the act of publication occured in the US and that New Jersey is the proper forum for a defamation suit.

Secondly, this is a civil case - there is no 'prosecution', just a plaintiff (a claimant in English new-lawyer speak) and a defendant.

More on some of the key players

[Goonie]

Geoffrey Robertson, the defence's lawyer, is a pretty amazing fellow, having represented one side or the other (and more often than not the side we'd collectively cheer on) at many high-profile human rights trials in Britain, Australia, and many other Commonwealth countries. Amongst others, he successfully defended Duncan Campbell, perhaps the most significant figure in publically revealing the tendils of the NSA's global network of listening stations, the defendants in several trials of people prosecuted under Britain's archiac "obscenity" laws of the 1970's, and defended several prominent death-penalty cases around the Commonwealth.

Additionally, he has written several highly-successful books on human rights laws, wrote a play (later turned into a BBC mini-series, IIRC) about one of the most famous obscenity trials he was involved in, writes occasionally for British and Australian newspapers, and hosted a fondly-remembered TV show that involved a large group discussing hypothetical scenarios about legal, moral and social issues.

Joeseph Gutnick, the plaintiff, is also a fascinating character. By profession, he is actually an orthodox rabbi. He has made and lost several fortunes out of Australian mining companies, and there have been persistent allegations that his fortunes have been gained by less than legal methods.

He has spent many millions of dollars supporting Likud and other right-wing parties in Israel, and has funded the expansion of some of the Jewish settlements that so enrage the Palestinians.

To top it all off, for the past three years he has been the president of the Melbourne (Aussie Rules) Football Club, which by Australian standards is the football club of a conservative, mainly WASPish, Melbourne "establishment". Whilst highly popular with the rank-and-file members of the club after personally funding the club with millions of dollars from his own pocket (very uncommon in Australian Rules football), and thus saving it from a merger with another club, he has managed to fall out dramatically with the members of the club's board, and resigned implying that the board was out to get him for his (domestic) political views and even that the board was anti-Semitic.

It is also worth noting that "Diamond" Joe Gutnick's financial situation is apparently very tight at the moment, so he is under pressure in a variety of ways.

So, all in all, there are some intriguing characters involved in this dispute, as well as the wider issues of defamation on the Internet.

Go you big red fire engine!

Re:Stupid First amendment

[gilroy]

Heck, it's early morning and I'm feeling quibblesome.

Blockquoth the poster:

Thusi[ sic] is so typical of Amierican ccultural[sic] imperialism. Because the US has a law giving them freedom of speech, they assume it gives them the right to say anything about anyone

First, as an American, I view it thus: We don't have a "law giving" me freedom of speech. I have that as a fundamental and inalienable right, just as the poster does and indeed all people do. In the US, we have laws (esp. the First Amendment) that helps safeguard that right.

Second, since it is a fundamental inalienable right of all humankind, we don't say it gives us the right to say anything to anyone. It gives anyone these rights; again, they are merely better protected in the US.

Third, as has been pointed out, the First Amendment is not a total shield. Even in the US we have libel suits and slander suits. (I'm not sure we have defamation suits, per se.) Such speech, the courts have ruled, is not protected by the First Amendment. But US laws on slander and libel are generally recognized to favor the defendant, primarily because the litigant must show that the statements are untrue. Other nations (at least, the UK and so, perhaps, Autralia) have no such requirement.

Let's look at that more closely, shall we? US laws says, you can't make up awful statements about someone, publish it, ruin their lives, and get away with it. UK law says, you can't discover the truth publish it, ruin their lives, and get away with it. As far as I'm concerned, the US gets the points for this one. If you've committed some heinous act, then you're the one who's ruined your life. It's not my fault just because I make it known. If you don't want to be painted with the brush, don't do the act.

So the issue isn't quite First Amendment after all. It's the issue of venue: where will the burden of proof lie? And despite what the poster said, that is a statement about the merits of the case. If the standards for defamation differ, then of course where the trial is held will help determine if defamation occured.