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 can see it now. The Taliban will come out suing millions of AOL users for showing their faces in public.
NO TOUCH MONKEY!
Check out this humorix article.
Looks like ESR might be able to sue the Supreme Court--if he moved Down Under!
Beware the Whyte Wolf.
With a gun barrel between your teeth, you speak only in vowels...
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!
I can't wait to see what life is like when we are simultaneously under the rule of law of 190 vastly different countries. Will it be legal in all 190 countries for me to wear shorts as I go down the street to get milk? Wait, let me ask my global lawyer. Oops, in somethefuckwhereistan it's illegal to drink milk. Drat.
I think we should break as many of these idiotic laws as we can. Hey, French Slashdot readers: NAZI PROPAGANDA! There, now you're all in trouble for reading this post and the French government is coming after Rob.
-- http://frobnosticate.com
Okay.. with the Dmitry case and the French Nazi memorabilia case and now this case, I think it's time to make a big push for a new international treaty, akin to a geneva convention or time zone agreement. Everyone needs to get together and decide how and if certain laws apply in Internet situations. This is getting just plane out of hand. If we keep going in this direction, the Talliban is going to indict people because they write about premarital sex on their web pages or people will start getting arrested in China because they have written something anti-communist in the past.
I don't understand why the "we're a sovereign nation" crowd, headed by lead blowhard Jesse Helms, isn't up in arms about this. This seems to the be ultimate internationalization of law...
"Yes.. no matter what the culture, folk dancing is stupid." -MST3K
Set a standard for libel of it cannot be true under any possible circumstance and that there are no free speech rights. Make the court filing fee of $1,000,000 USD.
Fight Spammers!
How can an Austrelian court jule that it can extend it's own jurisdiction to non-citizens, who are not even present on Austrelian soil and may have never set foot on Austrelian soil in their lives? Wouldn't this require the cooperation of the national government of the defendant's country of origin?
I guess I have to do some research or can someone clear this up for me...
--CTH
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
I am also curious. I was always under the impression that if you broke the law in another country, the worst that could happen is you just could never go there, or else be arrested. Since this is a US based company, who is going to force them to pay up? It makes no sense to me...
You think Aussies don't read this? You think word of this discussion won't reach some hungry lawyer in Australian looking to get a high-profile case under his belt? I fully expect someone at Slashdot getting a summons to appear in court in Australia.
I expect the eventual outcome of this will be a national Australian firewall, where if you don't kowtow to hte Australian court, the entire nation is blocked from accessing your site.
point. I do not beleive you can force a foreign national to pay, or imprison them, UNLESS they come to your COUNTRY. Much to my shame the USofA
has decided that our laws apply elsewhere, Why should the Aussie's be any different. Freedom was just an illusion fostered by the governments' INABILITY to exercise complete control. Technology is wiping that barrier out rapidly.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
Will cross-border prodecution stop at defamation law, or can we (or at least Austrelians) sue the Chinese for copyright violations? Perhaps this is a good thing. Then maybe the RIAA and the BSA would move their base of operations to Austrelia. Good ridence....
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
There definately needs to be some international agreements working out this sort of thing.
Chris Beckenbach
The above post is wholely created and housed in the United States of America (USA). By exporting the above post outside the borders of the USA the exporter agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the author from any suits arising from act of exporting or the contents of the above post, and further agrees to vigorously defend the author from and assume all liability under all suits of law that arise outside the USA from the act of exporting or the contents of the above post.
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.
Important to note, though, that as far as I can tell, it's not actually a LAW. It's a legal precedent. If somebody in Oz tried to sue me (a private citizen) for defamation, I could probably just tell them to go to Hell. As long as I didn't ever want to go to Oz, that is. I doubt the US government (bastards, though they can be) would enforce such a ruling. I just sit in my nice cozy apartment and laugh at them. Their cops don't have jurisdiction in the US. So long as ours don't help out (seems unlikely...got to keep up pretences of free speech), I'm perfectly safe. Still sucks for large corporations who do business down there and have to be accountable.
-Perrin.
Now I want you to go in that bag and find my lightsaber. It's the one that says bad mother-fscker on it.
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.
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
The old addage - 'Common sense isn't very common' is ringing very true right now.
Could someone just drop a big fricking rock on us all and put us all out of our collective missery?
III.IIVIVIXIIVIVIIIVVIIIIXVIIIXIIIIIIIIVIIIIVVIII
They thought the same thing about the DVD-CCA case in California (with the California Supremes deciding that anyone could be brought suit against in California's jurisdiction).
:)
Now the neat thing would be for someone named in one lawsuit to demand a change of venue to Australia
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
It seems to me that Justice John Hedigan has just opened a can of worms that even he does not understand. Given that Australians can sue people in the US for defamation now, I guess this would mean that people in the US can sue people in Australia for voilating our 1st amendment rights.
.sig censored by Australian laws.
Last I checked, I am still allowed my opinion here in the US, and if I say that in my opinion John Hedigan is a clueless moron, and he tries to prevent me from expressing my opinion, then he is violating *MY* rights.
It would be a fun thing to be a lawyer and just for kicks, start a class action lawsuit against the Justice and the entire Justice System of Australia for violating our right to free speech. Wouldn't all American residents be qualified to join this lawsuit?
--
This
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)
In a word it can't. If you say use the internet to rob a bank in Australia they might get the US government to put you on a plane so they can try you. (Hell extradition happens all the time) However the US government has a lot of discression on how they do that.
But if we are talking about a civil suit there is not much they can do unless you have some assets in Australia.
Erlang Developer and podcaster
It's very easy to say "well, I can sue you in my country."
It's quite another to enforce it and deal with all the implications of said enforcement.
Though I am concerned about countries trying to pass draconian laws that affect people in other countries, though I am concerned about the DMCA-type legislation considered in other countries, enforcement is still the sticking point.
Sometimes, I visualize the future where the internet leads to the governments of the world arguing over whose laws apply where, who should turn whom over to whom, and so forth. This person violated this law, but we don't recognize your law, but this guy violated OUR law, so . . .
Maybe while they argue we can get something productive done . . .
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
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.
Not necessarily. We deposed Noriega, and took him to within our borders, tried, convicted, and sentenced him to prison.
On a less extreme note, there are plenty of extradition treaties and agreements.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Lets just say we put in a new tag like this:
<meta noread=".au,In other words, we need an /etc/hosts.deny for HTML on a per-file basis instead of .htaccess, independent of the server software. Of course, such a mechanism could be defeated by removing the host's reverse DNS entry, but the intent of the publisher regarding locale of publication could be easily discerned.
Then after the Australian government attacks the web again, the major sites can just shut them off for a few days to convey the world's collective displeasure.
I hear that the Aussies have a tremendous society, but their internet legislation over the past few years has left something to be desired.
Courts all over the world have exhibited signs of being on crack when it comes to juristiction in Internet cases. There needs to be a uniform way of determining juristiction in these cases but I'm sure that whatever they come up with with be viewed as wrong and stupid by those of us in the know on the net. Your average government official trying to make laws with reguards to net usage is rather like me trying to represent someone in a legal case, with my only experience being dozens of episodes of "Ally MacBeal." All lawyers have unisex bathrooms and take moments in court, right?
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
So when a country's judges make stupid decisions like this, everyone else to just totally block all access to their site from any of that country's IP addresses. I.E. Prevent that entire country from accessing any other's country's content.
Yes, I know that the users in that country could use a special server in another country to get access to the material, but you would not be 'publishing' in that country and should be able to fight this better.
Yahoo should have done this with France...
Eventually the judges may reconsider their rulings...
Looking for any old 8-bit Heathkit/Zenith software/hardware - http://heathkit.garlanger.com
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
What this means is that by publishing my web page, I'm opening myself to prosecution in any country with an internet connection. Right now, I can't see anything too objectionable on my site, but what if I post a section from the Bible that some Islamic fundamentalist government has outlawed? What if I post the Declaration of Independance and China outlaws that? What if I print something not "nice" and Lichetenstein decides to pass a no "not nice" libel policy?
A decision like this is more than overbroad, it's overboard. In a questionable attempt to make enforce Australian libel standards, this decision would quell Constitutionally-protected speech in America because even though it's protected within our borders, you'd be prosecuted on your first step onto foreign land. This decision also creates an absurd legal fiction that a person is everywhere at once. Posting something to a server in Boondocks, IA from Bumblefart, MN shouldn't subject you to Austrialian, Etheopian, or even Californian jurisdiction. It's bad law.
Why would you speak (or publish on the internet) if you'd get arrested when you traveled abroad? (The similarities to the Skylarov case are very much in mind here.)
I don't mind too much if corporations want to lock their customers into "their" internet, and I don't care if the government attempt to regulate because they'll fail for a variety of reasons. I'm much more concerned about the rights issues. While decisions like this won't kill the internet(no, there's no immenient demise of the internet), but it will surely make it a less interesting place. -sk
I think it's time to make a big push for a new international treaty, akin to a geneva convention
... even though the rules are draconian, at least then we know what they are. And thus we all fall right into their trap, giving up our rights for a little dubious certaintly and playing right into their hands. What is worse, from the way the US Constitution is written it is entirely possible that international agreements, once ratified by congress, may in fact supercede constitutional protections (this is a highly debated point, but alas not the cut-and-dried your rights are protected from such things most of us like to believe ... and reading the constitution doesn't shed much light on the issue, so in the end the interpretations of our increasingly unreliable Supreme Court will likely be all that stands between us and the Abyss).
Our fundamental rights to freedom of expression, speech, freedom from search and seizure, etc. are under concerted attack from numerous directions at the state, federal, and international level. At the international level this is happening on at least two fronts, with multinational treaty groups/trade regions (think European Union and NAFTA) and global treaties (think WTO and WIPO). It is quite likely that a part of the strategy to get everyone to knuckle under the kind of draconian world-wide laws those whom WIPO and the WTO represent desire (i.e. the corporations of Earth) is to deliberately make the current situation so untenable that we will demand something, anything, to replace the current situation.
How better to achieve that than to have every Tom, Dick, and Harry (e.g. California, France, and Australia) claim world-wide jurusdiction, such that the world's lowest common denominator (e.g. the Taliban) comes to impact each of our lives? Then a worldwide, standardized DMCA might look inviting
Farfetched? A couple of years ago, before the DeCSS and Dmitry cases I might have thought so. But in todays climate I not only find it a reasonably possible scenerio, but a likely one.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Noriega was actually 'extradited'. The extradition process was somewhat suspect since the US had invaded the country in question but the forms of legal behavior were followed even though the spirit was completely ignored.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
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.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
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/
Really great, but it's NOT plain HTML, and it doesn't give the publishing industry the suggestion from a standards body to cut off any region that threatens them.
No, my idea is never going to see the light of day, but perhaps the way to fight internet censorship is not to lobby and demonstrate, but to provide equal power of censorship to the producer and the consumer.
It's all about checks and balances.
When I hear Americans whining about NAFTA, however, it almost seems as though its a personal grudge against Canada, for allowing our corporations to do business there with only the same restrictions has American organizations, including sending Canadian employees and what not.
... in fact, I can't think of a single instance I've heard anyone gripe about Canadian companies doing business here, although hearing gripes about American factories moving to Mexico for cheap labor has become almost cliched.
Actually anti-NAFTA rheotric in the US centers far more on Mexico than Canada
I am in favor of nationalization, and did favor NAFTA for a time. The EU has done some good, as has NAFTA. However, as things are currently being implimented NAFTA, the EU, the WTO, and above all WIPO are actively promoting Corporate profits and corporate rights at the expense of national sovereignty and individual rights on so many levels and fronts that one cannot enumerate them all. Extending copyrights in the US (Sony Bono Act, may the tree that killed him live a thousand years) to life+75 years, gutting any reasonable notion of "limited time" required under the US constitution is but one example. US efforts at an international cybercrime treaty and an international DMCA style treaty are two additional examples that will not only gut the rights of Canadians and Europeans, but also of Americans. International treaty has not only become a mechanism whereby corporations can persue policies which would be unconstitutional otherwise, but have also become a mechanism whereby national governments, through the auspecis of international law, can circumvent their own constitutional restraints at the direct expense of the people.
Having the Taliban's notions of propriety shoved down your throat in America seems farfetched, until you remember California extending and enforcing its laws overseas against individuals for committing the unpardanable sin of writing software in order to allow their computer's DVD player to play their legally purchased DVDs under a free operating system not officially blessed by the California Media Cartels. You may be skeptical of such scenerios, but I rather doubt after his experiences in the "land of the free" Dmitry Sklyarov is.
It isn't the concept of internaitonalization that is bad, it is the implimentation which has placed corporate benefits above individual rights and actively diluted national sovereignty without any consideration for the costs and repercussions. In fact, the current implimentation of internationalization is sufficiently bad that, IMHO, the entire process should be stopped and reversed until a better, more just implimentation can be devised.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Hmm, you had better tell the EU then. According to their website here:
"The European Union (EU) is the result of a process of cooperation and integration which began in 1951 between six countries (Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands).
After nearly fifty years, with four waves of accessions (1973: Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom; 1981: Greece; 1986: Spain and Portugal; 1995: Austria, Finland and Sweden), the EU today has fifteen Member States and is preparing for its fifth enlargement, this time towards Eastern and Southern Europe."