Australian Court OKs International Net-Defamation Suit

Proud to be unAustralian writes: "Australian IT reports that a landmark court ruling puts Internet publishers around the world on notice that they can be sued under Australia's strict defamation laws -- and effectively in any of the 190 nations where defamation proceedings can be brought." entrippy contributes a link to another article on the case running at The Age.

Reader Diabolus notes that "it is unlikely that this same success would have occurred under American law. This occurred despite the site being hosted in America. It seems that RMS' nightmare 'Harm from the Hague' has come to pass even before that treaty is signed."

Comments

Australia, nearly a dictatorship?

[Bodero]

The following is a quote from that site:

"...elections in Australia are held under a system which does
not allow you to freely express your will because you are required, by law,
to attend a polling booth on election day and have your name marked off
the electoral roll. There is no compulsory voting in Australia as you do not
need to mark the ballot paper. You can put it, unmarked, into the ballot
box. However, the fact that the parliament demands that you be
somewhere on a chosen election day, under threat of fine or jail,
demonstrates that they demand your obedience with menaces. That is
not freedom that is dictatorship."
--http://www.ozscan.net.au/mandate/

1) "...you are required, by law, to attend a polling booth on election day
and have your name marked off the electoral roll."

Getting your name marked off the electoral roll is not only so the AEC can
find out who voted and who didn't so it can fine the latter. It is also:

a) to discourage electors from voting more than once; and
b) to ensure that those who do vote in a particular electorate are
qualified to do so

(Without that precaution you might end up with the sort of stacking that
goes on in the ALP. For example, busloads of the party faithful being
whizzed in from outside a crucial marginal electorate to vote.)

2) I'm not sure quite what you mean when you claim that being "required,
by law, to attend a polling booth on election day" does "not allow you to
freely express your will".

In what way does requiring you to attend a polling booth inhibits you
"freely express[ing] your will"?

After all, the purpose of holding an election (or a referendum, for that
matter) is to allow electors to cast a vote. That is where the "will" of
the electorate is expressed. Compulsory attendance plays no roll in how
that will is expressed.

You are not required to vote for a particualr candidate or to reveal who
you voted for.

What exactly do you mean?

3) "...the fact that the parliament demands that you be somewhere on a
chosen election day, under threat of fine or jail, demonstrates that they
demand your obedience with menaces. That is not freedom that is
dictatorship."

Define "freedom" and "dictatorship".

Kids within a certain age bracket have to attend school or face getting
dragged there willy-nilly by the local truant officer. Why is that
different from grownups being required to attend a polling booth?

If you earn over a certain income threshold you are required to pay income
tax. You might be able to reduce the amount you pay by making use of
various deductions, tax shelters, and so forth, but if the tax office
issues you with an assessment which requires you to pay a tax bill you
have to pay that bill or risk court action--not to mention fines which are
a good deal heftier and more onerous than the $20 fine you get from the
AEC for not voting.

4) "...under threat of fine or jail..."

AFAIK there are no gaol terms for not attending.

You might, of course, get tossed in gaol for contempt of court or being a
repeat offender (ie you keep staying away, they keep fining you, and you
keep not paying), but the same thing would happen if you treated speeding
tickets, parking fines, or a bill from the tax office in a similarly
cavalier fashion.

BTW, the fine for not voting in federal elections is $20 ($50 if you get
taken to court). If the threat of a $20 fine makes Australia a
"dictatorship" you clearly have no idea what a real dictatorship is! :)

Re:How can an Austrelian court extend jurisdiction

[danglick]

The suit is against a corporation. Presumably, the corporation does business in Australia; hence, it has assets there, which can be seized to enforce a verdict.

At the moment, corporations are pretty much the only ones at risk, for that very reason. (Although an indvidual may eventually find their possibilities for international travel somewhat limited.) That's the scary part of the Hague treaty. If it's passed, the foreign verdict CAN be enforced in your home country.

Re:Do you have to be Austrailian to file suit?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell, you don't even have to be _human_ (or a sentient being) to file suit, as evidenced by the actions of lawyers every day... :-)

Still room for appeal

[Goonie]

Before everyone gets too excited, I should point out that there are still several things that will happen before this stupid ruling actually means anything:

• The ruling was in the Victorian Supreme Court. There is a higher state court to appeal to - the Court of Appeal, in which instead of one Supreme Court judge you get five (I think it's five, certainly it's more than one) of them and a majority decision is reached. An appeal here seems likely.
• After that, there is the national High Court, which like the US Supreme Court rules on constitutional issues. IANAL, but I suspect that an inventive lawyer could find constitutional issues (related to the power of the Federal vs. the State government to control international commerce, and free trade between states) that might be ground for a High Court appeal.
• After all that, you have to remember that it's case law interpreting an Act of Parliament, not the constitution or anything (even if it was, the Victorian state constitution doesn't require a referendum to amend, just Parliament). There's nothing stopping the State Government amending the legislation, and if this ruling is left to stand they will come under fairly substantial pressure to do so.

This ruling has had a fair bit mainstream press attention, and most of it is well aware of the potential damage the decision could do. Anyway, don't panic quite yet. There's still a way to go before we really have to worry about this piece of judicial stupidity.