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."

Comments

Re:You don't seem to get it

[belldandy]

I realize that I may not be the most unbiased person to reply to this post, seeing as how I am an American, but I didn't take to be a "We're American, so we are always right case". Rather, I believe that it was "We're an American company, who was publishing something mainly for Americans, we don't think litigation should take place where the good was consumed, rather where it was manufactured."

Think about it - if this is allowed, where do we draw the line? Is every paper in every country responsible for knowing all countries laws regarding publishing issues? Or do we censor on the lowest common denominator? Should organisations that promote literacy and education for women have removed from the net when the Taliban was in power (I know that they weren't internationally recognized as the government, but you get my point). Should all on-line publications be censored from showing a woman without a head covering because it would offend some Muslim?

At what point does it stop? This case is about WHERE the plaintiff can litigate, not who 'owns' the WWW.

Regards,
-Tammie
BTW: I didn't vote for that bumbling, fumbling idiot.

Re:You don't seem to get it

[Sheetrock]

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 ...".

Not only is it not likely that one could say that and continue to enjoy a full set of teeth in most places in America, but there are a few jurisdictions that have made it illegal as well under hate crimes law (one guy in Idaho is facing up to five years in prison for something similar). The whole concept seems to be that we are free to use speech any way we want as long as it isn't causing harm to someone else, which is why slander and libel laws are still on the books despite their apparent conflict with the First Amendment. I don't know if any case involving hate crimes vs. free speech has gone to the Supreme Court yet, however.

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

If you think 'us americans' fully control the DNS space, run an alternative. I'd use it. The whole .com, .org, .net concept is outdated and springs out of the concept that the Internet started here. We'd probably be better off if that was scrapped and country codes were mandatory for every address so that whatever legal craziness abounds is mostly tied to a national scale. BTW: This paranoia that all Americans think as one to do things to piss you off is an unhealthy thing.

You might not be aware that the U.S. has recently decided that it has jurisdiction over its wires as well (see http://www.politechbot.com/p-02845.html). Most Internet traffic passes through our country. This may mean that if you are transmitting something between two sites in your own country that is legal there and illegal here and your connection happens to pass through our country (willing or unwilling) you have just committed a crime in the U.S. I don't know if that sounds stupid to you, but it sounds pretty stupid to me. How is Europe's decision any less stupid? Should the channel of distribution matter any more than the two points doing the communicating? What kind of impact could this concept have on satellite or radio transmissions that may bathe an unintended region with illegal content as part of the process of delivering that content to an area where it is perfectly legal?