Slashdot Mirror
Australian High Court To Decide Net Defamation Case
natslovR writes: "In a World first for a 'final' court, the defamation case against Dow Jones by an Australia businessman will go before Australia's High Court, allowing it to determine whether defamation laws apply across the Internet irrespective of geography.
The businessman claimed he was defamed by an article that Dow Jones published in a US based online magazine. Australia's High Court will now determine if a lower court erred when it ruled that the article was published in Melbourne, Australia and so defamation proceedings could be brought against Dow Jones under Victoria's strong anti-defamation laws, despite the webserver on which it was 'published' residing in the U.S, the writer residing there too, and the online magazine's primary audience being U.S. based."
Anything you do within the "sovereignty" of a country is governed over by the laws of a country. Since you americans have apparently decided that you fully control the DNS space, and thus the visible part of the internet, you should really not be surprised that antother country does the same
...". I really don't get the principles you live by. Then again, as the last round of elections proved, neither do you. "Have a nice day".
Europe does not want anything racist on it's wires, doesn't it have jurisdiction over those wires ? Certainly it does. How do you stop people from transmitting racist things ? Simple, you sue them. Is that legal ? Ofcourse because they willingly transmitted illegal stuff over Europe's wires. Are they going to get convicted ? Defineately.
In america you can say "Black people are the dumbest, most stupid assholes I've ever seen", but you cannot say "encryption X works like so
Is a tribunal necessary in order to determine the outcome of these international cases? International law is fickle, especially when it comes to the Internet...
Perhaps a court may cause more trouble than it fixes.
Some sort of greater arbiter should analyze such cases. It is the only true possible solution to such dilemmas. The question is: how?
If a US company has any assets in a foreign country, they are subject to jurisdiction in that country. At least the assets are. It is called "in rem" jurisdiction, if I remember rightly. Such assets can be used to satisfy any judgment a court of that land makes. If any company representatives shows up to defend the suit, then they have just agreed to personal jurisdiction there too.
The real problem, though, comes up should DJ have any significant assets in Oz. Those are definitely at risk, just as the U.S. freezes or takes the local assets of foreign organizations it doesn't like. I suspect an operation like DJ prints an Australian edition, and has local staff for reports on the Aussie stock market(s?), in which case they've definitely got something to lose.
We can only hope the Supreme Court can see what the country, and society, have to lose if they let this stand.
I refuse to believe corporations are people until Texas executes one. -- desert rain on http://www.dailykos.com/user/
I know this is flamebait, but I'll reply to it anyway.
It's true that an Australian court is limited in the actions it can take against US Citizens and Corporations. As you say, it will be difficult to make a case against an individual count for much more than a piece of international protest, but corporations are always at risk.
But the case needs to be examined not from a perspective of what can be logistically done, but from a perspective of what is ideally right. If a Victorian does read the published material in Victoria, the end effect of the publishing is the same as had it been physically published in Victoria. On the other hand, this has the effect of lowering all laws to 'lowest common denominator' across the international sphere. But if material were held to be published only where it was hosted, then this has the opposite effect, making the most relaxed laws possible.
I don't know which way the High Court will go, and I don't envy their decision. Maybe I'm biased as a Victorian, but I don't like to see people defamed unnecessarily. In a sense the decision will have more to do with the relative strength of US anti-defamation law than anything else - the high court would be unlikely to leave a Plaintiff with no course of action if a clear breach of Australian law exists.
Not true - as long as the foreign court exercises due process and there is a sufficient connection between the venue and the act that gives rise to the suit, a US court will enforce the judgement of a foreign court.