Slashdot Mirror
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."
I know people always talk about how things like the DMCA make them want to move as far away from the US as possible, but that often doesn't even compare to the situation with laws in Australia. As someone who has recently moved to the US, I can tell you very firmly that I have no interest in ever going back. Just something to think about.
I'm serious, reading some of the things that the UN intends to do with the world scare me.
A year ago I thought the UN was a good thing, but it's really starting to push the limits of it's charter. An organization started to defeat Nazism and Japanese Expansionism is starting to become a oppresive system it's self.
I don't want to start a flame war, or US vs. The World, but the UN is getting out of hand.
1. Expansion of the World Court's power.
2. Limiting access to firearms
3. Focusing the Anti-Racism Conference to an Anti-US, Anti-Israel Racism Conference.
4. Refusing to take action in Rwanda, yet "king-making" in Somolia.
Those are my big four right now about the UN.
The natural recourse is to cease all business in Australia and ignore the law suit. Problem is, as we see with the US attitude with countries like China, profit takes precidence over ethics. It's just profitable to limit your speech in places with Draconian laws.
Burn Hollywood Burn
As a German, I'd like to comment on this. First, I know about the arrest you mentioned, and I think it was wrong. There are laws in Germany that regulate if and when foreign citizens can be arrested in Germany. It is for example possible for you to be arrested in Germany when you've been involved in planning a military attack against Germany, which I think sounds reasonable, as such action threatens Germany's "national security". I suppose the US have similar laws. I don't know if those "foreigner arrest laws" can also be applied to publishers of nazi propaganda. From my reading of the law, it should not be possible, but IANAL.
But either way, there is a difference. Not only is racism definitely worse than calling someone a "devious businessman", most foreign publishers of nazi propanga also specifically leave Germany in order to publish in more free countries. They still publish German texts, and generally target a German audience. They know that if they did publish in Germany, they'd be considered criminals. One might even say that such propaganda threatens the national security of Germany (for example if it encourages terrorist activities against politicians or foreigners living in Germany).
The article discussed in this Australian lawcase, on the other hand, was not targeted specifically to an Australian audience. It was also not published in the US in order to circumvent Australia's laws. And probably the publishers didn't even know it would be a criminal offense to publish the material in Australia. It certainly did in no way threaten Australia's national security.
Don't get me wrong, I do not think the German court's judgement was a wise decision. You should fight fascism, but doing so with methods that aren't democratic is the wrong way. But this Australian judgement, IMHO, takes things a huge step further and is a much greater danger to free publishing on the internet.
Sig (appended to the end of comments I post, 54 chars)
The ability of one nation to impose its laws on non citizens living outside its borders is directly proportional to its ability to project force. In the case of Noriega, it was the United States ability to project our military force to Panama that allowed the forced extradition of Noriega to an American court of law. I am not sure what kind of force the Australian government is prepared to use to impose its laws, but I don't see Aussi commandos raiding the geek compound anytime soon ;-D
For an Australian Court to rule that a message posted upon a website operated in the United States, by an American company, and directed at readers almost exclusively in the U.S., is, merely because it can be read by someone in Australia, now subject to the jurisdiction of Australian Courts, the start of a dangerous precedent.
If someone imports a copy from the U.S. of the Wall Street Journal into Australia, does that make the publisher liable in Australia for alleged libel on a story in the newspaper?
Perhaps there are assets of Dow Jones & Company somewhere in Australia which the plaintiff in this particular case can attach, but, if not, they would have to come to someplace - most likely the U.S. - and then they'd have to convince an American Court (or whatever country they think they can find assets to attach) to accept the judgement as valid, not necessarily all that easy if the defendant fights it claiming that the courts in Australia have overstepped their jurisdiction.
The issue is even stronger if it was someone who had no presence outside the U.S., who decided not to try and defend what to them was a ridiculous lawsuit and the other party were trying to enforce a default judgement where the website operator didn't show up. The party suing might even be held liable for damages if the suit is considered frivolous or unreasonable.
It is this sort of relatively stupid attempt at an overly Draconian long-arm statute law that will eventually destroy respect for the judiciary and could conceivably backfire.
If the Australian Courts can impose in personam jurisdiction upon someone outside of the country merely because they put something up on a website outside of the country but can be read in their country, then those who publish elsewhere could do the same thing to impose in personam jurisdiction upon someone outside of the country who attempts to sue or respond to their content.
The website publisher could include language in their right to use clause of their website, perhaps with a click-thru agreement in order to get to it, possibly even via a law similar to UCITA and using that to require someone who has a complaint to use arbitration in a specific city of their choosing, or to sue them only in a specific court, perhaps tossing it back on them and requiring anyone using the site to submit to in personam jurisdiction in their area and agreeing to accept service by mail, and requiring they not sue the website operator in any other place or agreeing to automatic liquidated damages of three times the amount of the judgement and agreeing to allow the website operator to submit the automatic judgement to the local court in the city where the publisher operates and allow it to be collected anywhere in the world without trial, and, waiving any defenses and any other requirements which might be available elsewhere.
Imposing 'long arm' jurisdiction over the Internet for communications or use where the other party has no physical presence is conceivably a two-edged sword and it cuts both ways.
The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
As for truancy, the idea is that children aren't smart enough to realize the consequences of not going to school. They are forced to go for this reason. It prevents the nation from filling up with ignorant tards, so I support it.
There is no such excuse for a legal adult. The entire premise of legal adulthood is that you are old enough and sufficiently experienced to realize the full consequences of what you do. This is why the law is far harsher with adults than with minors. It's a trade-off.
Once, in my town, there was a vote for who should be the head of the local school board. I forgot to go on that day - I was busy with school and work, had been losing sleep, etc. Should I be fined for not showing up? No, of course not. It would be ludicrous.
"Contempt of court"? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! More like the court should be held in contempt of me for forcing me to go to the polls if I don't want to vote!!!
In what way does requiring you to attend a polling booth inhibits you
:)
;)
"freely express[ing] your will"?
Your will might be that they have absolutely no control of you, your will might be that there be no foolish patriarchy to establish ludicrous laws that enroach daily further and further on individual freedom, in this case, forcing you to attend a polling booth on the assumption that you will vote (which is indeed what is assumed, the fine notice which you recieve is for "not voting" not "not having your name marked off on the electoral role" the secondary is merely a clever circumvention of the intent of the law to begin with. I know this, I got one of these fines)
In case of the above it becomes rather clear why such a law is inhibiting you from expressing your will.
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".
freedom in this example would be fairly obvious, the freedom to not attend some ridiculous farcical attempt at an emulation of the flawed ideal of democracy.
Dictatorship in this particular context of course is that terms are being dictated to you that you are obliged under threat of fine or gaol or violence or death to comply with, (if you refuse to pay the fine, they throw you in gaol, if you resist, they use violence, if you use it back, they will kill you if they cannot subdue you)
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?
It's no different, but as you try to make your example validate the previous instance, it in fact invalidates this specific instance, what right should the government have to appoint truant officers to throw children back in inefficient and fatally flawed compulsory education systems?
The right, of course, is that is the government and it may do as it chooses, because it is in fact a dictatorship with smoke and mirrors in tow.
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 $20 fine you get from the
AEC for not voting.
And once again you do not validate your claims by this example, you simply point out another example of blatant government extortion, the government of Australia taxes it's citizens at 48.5 percent over the minescule rate of 60,000$ per annum (that's about 30k USD, which is probably not far above the poverty line over there).
It is blatantly extortionate, no better than an organised criminal syndicate involved in racketeering where you get to choose the wiseguy with the best pinstripe suit to fuck you over on a regular basis.
AFAIK there are no gaol terms for not attending.
The Fines act 1996 gives the government the authority to suspend drivers license in the event of non payment of any fines, *including* no vote fines, after six months they have the right to force community service, if you fail to participate they have the right to sentence you to gaol, if you resist, they will use violence to subdue you, if you use violence to respond, they will kill you. Being a sheep is not an option unless you would also be willing to submit your safety to a mugger in the street, the government has no more validity than that.
BTW, the fine for not voting in federal elections is $20 ($50 if you get
taken to court). If the threat of a $20 fine makes Australia a
"dictatorship" you clearly have no idea what a real dictatorship is!
Your information is inaccurate, the fine is 50$, if the SDRO is required to enforce the fine it is a further 50$, if further action is required as outlined in the above examples it is more money at each step along the garden path.
It is a dictatorship, mild or otherwise, it doesn't matter, being shot with a 9mm or being shot with a 7.62mm bullet is still being shot.
even if in this particular instance, the government of Australia does not deem it fit to bill the family of the deceased the cost of the bullet used to slay them.
If you are living in another Common law jurisdiction (Canada, UK, etc.) then getting the judgement enforced is possible but not exactly easy. The exception is the US where the courts routinely refuse enforcement of foreign libel judgements, particularly those originating in the UK.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/