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."
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!
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
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