Slashdot Mirror
A Libel Suit May Establish E-Jurisdiction
BrianWCarver writes: "The NY Times (free registration blah blah...) is reporting that a libel suit may establish a precedent of allowing online publishers to be sued not in the jurisdiction where their servers reside, but in the jurisdiction of the complaintant. A warden at a Virginia jail didn't like the way he was portrayed by several Connecticut-based online news outlets so he sued in his home state of Virginia. "If the district court decision stands, online publishers could be sued for defamation in any state or country that an online article is read." The article goes on to worry that this will cause publishers to self-censor their online publishing to avoid offending anyone in any jurisdiction, whatsoever, which if carried to its logical conclusion, means online publishing would simply cease." This may remind you of an earlier case in which an Australian businessman sued Dow Jones for libel.
Update: 05/27 15:12 GMT by J : Jamie Love points out elsewhere that 60 countries, including the USA, are
negotiating a treaty
regarding Internet jurisdiction for libel and defamation.
Liability for publishers is a very hard issue to deal with. The publisher of the leading Swedish daily Aftonbladet was held accountable for hate speech published in one of its forums. I wrote a short comment on the case published by The Register on the caveats in running an online forum: 'If the media companies and their publishers are held accountable for everything published in their web forums we will soon face an Internet where the possibility of a widened debate has been seriously damaged by law. Let us grasp the uniqueness of the Internet before it is gone. The Internet is not a paper.'
Regards
Mikael
Pawlo.com
just wondering.. if I am sued for something I have said on a website I own, will they come to pick me up and bring be in the US to be judged?
Also.. it would be funny if, say, the Chinese Government will sue the US government for "talking about illegal things such as freedom", because those pages can be seen from China.
Or will this lead to country-based firewalls?
-- There are two kind of sysadmins: Paranoids and Losers. (adapted from D. Bach)
This ia a very dangerous decision. It will affect all of free speech on US websites. I really think that sites that offer news, not opinions, should under the same rules as newspapers and magazines. But people with personal websites shouldn't be touched.
Wow, if this goes. We all have to live with the most opressive laws this world has seen. Just imagine our freedom of speech reduced to, for instance, what Iraque wants us to read.
Just have a look at what happend to Salman Rushdie.
Trip
The site where: "I'm right, as long as you ignore the things that prove me wrong", became a valid method of debate.
"US Government will sue the British government for "talking about illegal things such as freedom", because those pages can be seen from America"
I have yet to read the whole article, but how do they extrapolate that a suit in virginia suing someone in conneticut would allow people from any country to sue a publisher in any other place?
This isn't even larger than the states... how would it even carry any weight outside the US?
He tried to kill me with a forklift!
If the district court decision stands, online publishers could be sued for defamation in any state or country that an online article is read.
I don't understand this. Surely this just applies to the USA, not any country? Do they mean that, if, for instance, a UK publisher published something that was libellous under, say, Japanese law, then they could sue them in the USA? That would be most odd. Or do they mean that if something is libellous in any state of the USA, any pulisher in the world could be sued under USA law, even if they are not resident in that country? That would also seem strange. Or is this just an arrogant assumption that US laws apply everywhere else in the world?
OK so what happens if two people in two different states sue for completely opposite things where the publisher cant comply with both simultaneously.
This libel suit is just one part of an ongoing battle, one between the police/prison industry, and the general public.
If you are interested in Virginia's prison problem, including the so-called "supermax" prisions, and the insane shit that goes down at one of them, check out the following sites.
Committee to end the lockdown at Marion (old)
Drugsense
Human Rights Watch
November.org
In Virginia, prison is a big business, we import criminals to fill our prisons, and it's used as a source of revenue. On-duty cops are paid state funds to lobby the state legislature for harsher laws. Police, as a organized group, should not have a political voice, they are supposed to enforce the laws, not create them.
I'm no liberal, I believe in strict enforcement of sane laws. But when you have police writing the laws, to protect and expand their own industry, it does not serve the public's best interest.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Now comes the point: Defamation suits of any kind are nigh impossible to win. I don't see from what was presented in the article how the plantiff can win. The article was in fact reporting actual quotes. Truth is never libel, nor are opionions. Libel must have a specific intent to be injurious and must be a knowing falshood. How on earth this case doesn't fall under one of those I can't see.
If this case is won or even if the jurisdiction is accepted and upheld it does present a grave danger to free expression on the web. Not all countries have the same standard for libel/slander.
As for other countries sueing America. Remember this is America. We never listen to international law when it doesn't suit us, but that is another discussion.
Feminism is the radical notion that women are people.
For example: http://profs.lp.findlaw.com/netjuris/netjuris_1.ht ml
(emphasis added)
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
this is fine and dandy in the states - but wouldn't it only apply in another country if *THAT* country had set a similar president?
I seem to recall that here in the UK demon internet wasn't held to account for a posting on one of it's websites/forums, but the user that posted was. There was also a similar case regarding the friendsreunited.co.uk website where the poster was sued, not the publisher.
The US is certainly the 3rd largest country in the world - and is the strongest ecconomic power, but that doesn't mean that the rest of the world follows it's dumb-ass legal system.
---
P.S. I didn't post this - a big boy did it and ran away
Surely the above paragraph could also be applied to national newspapers, national broadcast news, national magazines...basically anything created in one place but available everywhere.
The fact that nationally-available media is still created and published probably means that online media would also still be created and published.
Cheers,
Ian
Disclaimer: Not only am I not a lawyer but I'm British, which means I have no idea about American laws in these circumstances.
...for international businesses to not have a US subsidiary that can be sequestered in these cases? Remember that in many countries, courts habitually award legal fees to the winner, so frivilous lawsuits are less tempting. Not so in the US, where you have to pay to defend yourself, then pay to launch a counter suit to recover your fees, and it's much easier to use litigation to silence those who can't afford to defend themselves. Bottom feeders like $cientology Inc will be watching this case with great interest, I suspect.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Lord knows, nothing libelous ever appears on Slashdot.
"I was a lot angry," recalled Mr. Young, head of Wallens Ridge State Prison"
I think this is a great quote.
Well once again the US Government decides to try and attempt to control the internet from "free speech" which is the 1st amendment.
So what would happen if I wrote something that defamated a US citizen? I live in Canada and US laws don't apply here. I'll give the one finger salute to the FBI, or what US agency that comes a knocking at my door.
We had actual fireworks thrown into a cinema I was at (filling the room with smoke) and after ducking everyone went back to their seats. Lots of people complained when the cinema stopped showing the film and told people to leave!
The server lives in one state, the offended party lives in another but asks that the content be delivered outside state lines. How can they possibly think that it's fair?
Consider this: What if this silly idea is allowed? If they decide that a state can claim jurisdiction over a web site because any ammount of content is delivered there, what's to stop them from claiming that they're owed income tax on the profits reaped for ad placement on pages delivered to that state or, for that matter, a "fair" portion of taxes paid because they now consider them to be doing business in that state?
To further muddy the waters, consider a company like AOL, they have a large number of caches scattered around the country, where does jurisdiction lie?
If this silly idea is allowed to fly, it would be a huge can of worms. There's no way this can possibly stand in any reasonable court.
Don't anthropomorphize computers, they don't like it.
If I can read an online article online then I would have to agree that it *is* being published in my juristiction. I think a simple way around this is creating generic registrations which require a user to log-in. There is no need to specify a name or anything, but a user could specify their country. If they want to lie, go ahead, but at least then they can't sue anywhere but in the juristiction that they specified.
IMO if you are writing an article about someone somewhere else, you still need to be accountable for what you write. Just because they may live half-way around the world doesn't mean you can say whatever you please. If the DJ article wasnt' meant to be read in Australia, then don't allow Australians to read it. Obviously the article was meant to be published in Austratlia (they say the ship print copies there) so they should be accountable for what they say about someone there.
Just my 2 cents CDN (about 1 cent USD)
"If the district court decision stands, online publishers could be sued for defamation in any state or country that an online article is read."
How can a District Court decision affect what is considered to be right or wrong in Another Country? Not living in America, there is no rational or logical reason for what someone in a disctrict court that I've never heard of to punish me for something I've published on my web server in Another Country. If they want to sue me, they should come to my country and do so. What if I was to buy alcohol when I'm under 21? That's illegal in some states. Would they try to fine me even if I was consuming it in another country? This just seems silly to me.
Follow me
Constitution of U.S. and Colorado null and void in Denver since 1906
This is to be expected. Whenever you try to plug dissimilar systems :^).
together you get the common denominator effect. Recall the old
cross-platform applications back when there were legitimately
multiple available operating systems
But seriously, The solution to this is a uniform set of laws
internationally and a uniform set of constitutional rights.
Since national sovereignty isn't going away anytime soon we have
an impasse. So common denominator effect rules and there isn't
much you can do about it. Hiding behind sovereignty will only
last a while since economic dependencies will eventually
override this last wall of defense.
Expect things to get allot worse before they get any better since
the people who can effect the needed changes have to answer to
constituents who won't stand for dilution of their rights or
ill-gotten privileges.
The Internet was to bring us all together - what we didn't realise
is that we don't really all LIKE each other, but the genie is out of
the bottle so hang on it's gonna get rough.
Login to NYTimes without registering by clicking here, and then just click Register and Go.
SpamNet - a spam blocker that really works
Isn't it just striking that a jail warden is actually pulling this off ? How many suits have been futzed because of jurisdiction issues ? Now all it took is for this guy to call a few contacts to pull some strings in the system. What if the offended person was I, Billco, joe average office worker ? I'd be flat on my ass, still pissed as hell at the online agencies, but with no recourse because I don't have friends in the legal 'business'.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
I was pretty surprised that Carl Kaplan did not mention the fact that 60 countries are negotiating a treaty that may set international jurisdiction rules for libel and defamation cases. The NYT continues to ignore this treaty, and here the omission is really pretty stark.
http://www.cptech.org/ecom/jurisdiction/hague.h
james.love@keionine.org
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Microsoft, which described the flaw as "critical," said the program capabilities of the debugger -- designed for diagnosis and analysis of applications running on the operating system -- could allow the running of unauthorized programs. "An attacker could take any action on the system, including deleting data, adding accounts with administrative access or reconfiguring the system," according to the Microsoft bulletin. The company should have responded sooner to the debugging issue, which was discovered in mid-March. They were aware of it quite a while ago and didn't acknowledge it.
Libel (or alternatively, slander) is a problem that all publishers, broadcasters, etc, have to deal with in whatever sphere they disperse their content. This is why you see news presenters signing off their on-air notes, which have been vetted by legal staff.
International disputes can only exist where there are extradition treaties, or in jurisdictions where trial in absentia is legal (ie much of the US, I understand; IANAUSL), in which case an unsuccessful defendant could be declared persona non grata, and apprehended upon entry to that jurisdiction. Put simply, if you do something illegal in one country, AND IT AFFECTS THAT COUNTRY OR ITS CITIZENS, then you will be subject to that countries laws, whether or not you were in that country at the time the offence was committed.
Salman Rushdie is a good case in point: He can go almost anywhere without fear of legal reprisal, with the exception of Iran. On the other hand, if the Ayatollah went to the UK, he could be arrested for inciting violence (calling for Rushdie's death).
The rules are simple:
1-Don't publish if it isn't true, or you can't prove it;
2-Don't break the laws of anywhere you might want to go;
3-Don't break the laws of anywhere that has an extradition treaty with
where you live.
Claiming that the internet isn't publishing is bunkum; the medium is different (monitor, IP connection, so on, rather than paper), but the effect is the same. Free speech doesn't translate to "Free to lie"; anyone diseminating information has a responsibiliy to ensure that information is accurate and true.
Those who don't accept their responsibilities don't deserve their rights (to paraphrase a certain US president).
The suit is being filed in federal court. Is this normal for cases of libel? Does the federal government provide remedies for someone being called a racist? If it is normal, then it would be right for the case to be held close to the person supposedly grieved.
Second, why does this not apply to dead tree news or broadcast news? The article mentioned some bull about no paper circulation. I imagine that 99.99% of all PCs in the area don't get this newspaper either. You would think that anyone anywhere can "access" any form of news.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Got to love the author of this article. The case here involves someone suing libel. Slander, and not telling the truth are not protected under the first amendment. The statement that all on-line publishing may go away because of this case is so chicken little one has to wonder if the author has feathers!
If a publisher is sure that their stories are well researched and the reporters have sufficient evidence to back up their stories, then there it doesn't matter what state you get sued in. The publisher wins. I think the problem comes when publishers (and other media for that matter) that have in the past published blatant lies, but are protected by a certain states week libel laws.
Isn't it a good thing that the press can be called to the mat for their untruths? I remember at one time the NY times oft quoted as "All the news that fitted to print". Yes inded, they WERE that bad (late 70's early 80s) After a change at the head of that ship, the NY times has redeemed much of it's former reputation. I believe a few law suits helped it along it's way.
Get a grip chicken little, the sky isn't falling.
cluge
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
... is great if you happen to be rich enough to own a printing press. The Internet changed that. Now, anyone, including me, can own a 'printing press'. If this decision stands, freedom of the press may be back exclusively in the hands of the powerful once again.
There are some great ideas in the Constitution of the United States. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press may be the most important of all.
Geeky modern art T-shirts
Now, let's throw all of that out the window, because it doesn't apply in the least to the case in question.
If the newspaper in this suit sells even one subscription or newsstand copy in the state the suit is being filed (which it does) then it's established what is called "minimum contacts." If it sells papers in Virginia, it can be sued in Virginia. That the questionable material was seen on the internet as opposed to in black & white is competely irrelevant -- the company is doing business in Virginia. So, while the slippery slope can certainly exist, it doesn't exist here.
Move along, people, nothing to see here.
"You're never ready, just less unprepared."
For those able to read Dutch, read Karin Spaink's(famous for her Church of Scientology clashes) story on how she got sued in Belgium for an article she wrote in a Dutch newspaper.
"The truth shall make ye fret" -- The Truth, Terry Pratchett
This article is even more alarming than the one this entire thread is about.
Some rinky-dink, ignorant, slack-jawed yokel Judge thinks he and his city aren't bound by the Constitution of the United States?
Mister Fucktard Judge needs to stripped of his citizenship and locked in a pit with nothing to eat but his own feces.
1) This is not a "new" idea, nor is it limited to the Internet. Believe it or not, there are parallels that can be drawn between the internet and the off-line world. This case seems not too different from the (in)famous Hustler case, in which Hustler Magazine was sued in New Hampshire, despite the fact that very few of its magazines were sold there.
2) Jurisdiction does not equal liability. Just because the VA court found personal jurisdiction over the defendants, does not mean they will be found guilty. As someone points out below, it is very very difficult to win an libel suit against a Media defendant. Several doctrines have been developed over the years that apply equally to the print and online worlds. This case sounds very similar to the facts in New York Times v. Sullivan, which sets the bar very high for public officials who sue newspapers.
3) On the flip side, just because I publish on the internet should not be license to dispense with all modicum of responsible reporting. Although I do not know the facts of this case, it sounds like the defendants will probably win, since they are reporting on the opinions of others. However, one of the ongoing complaints around the world (including here in the USA) about the American press is that they don't always report stories fairly. (Ask the Palestinians for instance). The basic (and difficult to establish) doctrine of liability for libel and defamation is a minimum check against irresponsible reporting.
3) Believe it or not, bad reporting can be very damaging to people who don't necessarily deserve to be pilloried. The number of cases of people who have been tarred and feathered in the press is too many to count. There are standards of reporting, and there is good practice in journalism. Reporters should be held to them whether they print online or on the bathroom walls.
4) This case is in Federal Court for a reason. One of the fundamental rights (Article III of the U.S. Const.) is that citizens of different states can sue each other in the federal courts; it's called "diversity" jurisdiction. The purpose is to ensure that, for instance, a Connecticut reporter doesn't find his fate entirely in the hands of an elected Virginia State judge. The federal courts (don't laugh) are expected to be somewhat more even-keeled than the unpredictable state courts. With a few notable exceptions (DeCSS, Napster) that actually tends to be true.
5) Jurisdiction does not equal liability II: Another issue often overlooked by non-lawyers is the law applied (i.e. the "Choice of law"). Even if the defendants win their motion to have the case dismissed or transferred to Connecticut, the plaintiff can still sue them, they would just have to do it in Connecticut. However, the law of libel, and Choice of law doctrine in 90% of the states says that, when an interstate libel occurs, you apply the law of the state where the most harm occurred. Since the defendant's reputation is largely in Virginia, you would apply Virginia law...even if you are in Connecticut state court (or federal court in Conn, which is where you would be under diversity jurisdiction).
6) The advantage that people are clamoring for here is that online defendants should be allowed to snipe from their home jurisdictions across the internet at whatever target is convenient. If the target of a possibly unjustified, and unfair, attack wants to do anything to defend themselves, they have to do so at great expense in a distant jurisdiction. Think about that, who does that really hurt? It hurts the little guy who can't afford to take his grievance a long way away. Large corporations can litigate anywhere, but individuals cannot. It is exactly this type of jurisdiction limiting that large corporations fight for, and usually sneak into contracts with their customers, so that they can avoid the majority of suits that would be brought against them. (For instance, "I would sue XYZ Corp. for their crappy product, but the license agreement says that all suits have to be brought in California, and I live in New York... I just can't afford it.")
In short, don't jump to conclusions just because the defendant happens to use the internet and the plaintiff appears to be some 18th century small-town southern lawman. People who know how to use the internet can be bad too, and when they are, the law should apply to them equally.
And IAAL.
Flame away,
automan
I'm a lawyer with excellent karma. Something's gotta be wrong.
Demon was sued by a teacher
I forgot to mention: The distributed nature of the internet is pretty much irrelevant.
You don't sue the paper mill. You don't sue the newsagent or bookstore. You don't sue your paperboy.
You sue the person/company who caused the information to be put to print.
The location of the server containing the information is not the issue, since in being downloaded, it will be transferred through many servers. The liable party is the person who started the distibution chain. This is true in any medium, be it print, radio, television, internet, semaphore, morse or cave painting ("Grug draw Ogg with small penis. Ogg have penis bigger than Grug! Ogg kill Grug!!" I get way too much spam...).
The unique nature of the internet is that the net itself, and its content, pays little attention to physical location. But that content has to be created somewhere, and viewed by someone.
danheskett, that's nicely written (despite the typos, I mean.) It's surprising it hasn't as yet been modded up? Does that mean the moderators somehow disagree with it?
"I've never been to Connecticut in my life," he said. "These articles came to Virginia. These articles came to my community."
I think we're all missing the important question here. Did they use mass transit or travel seperately and further pollute the world?
The law as it is generally interpreted makes sense to Mr. Young, the warden. "I've never been to Connecticut in my life," he said. "These articles came to Virginia. These articles came to my community." How did the articles come to Virginia? To his community? He accessed the website and brought them to Virginia. If I called a friend to get a newspaper and mail to me, then I transported them, not the orginal pubisher. jackb
But it still fits -
About 15 years ago, I heard that Iran had contacted the US govt and demanded that they hand over Madonna and Michael Jackson so that they could be put to death on obscenity charges.
(For some reason, the US chose not to...)
Yet, the US feels free to nab Skylaroff and that kid in Norway for doing stuff legal where they live.
Here in Japan, it seems to be legal to publish photos and videos of young teenagers that would get you put away for years in the US, yet pornography that is legal in the US is quite illegal here. They even go as far as to sandpaper away the "naughty bits" from every copy of Playboy and Penthouse imported into Japan. Who's right?
Maybe the best thing is to have the equivalent of that little "Kosher" mark on websites like they have on food, then let the viewer filter as they like. Then limit access to the internet to adults.
But then again, the US will probably just force its standards upon the rest of the world like they always do.
-- My Weblog.
I can just imagine a news report of the future if this goes through
"Officials today are serching the nation for a person known only as 'Anonymous Coward' this person seems to be able to communicate across the internet at all hours of the day as well as sporadically mentioning something called goatse.cx, as well as saying "fp!!!!" several thousand times an hour.
"Detectives are scouring the nation for this insidious character, his ability to speak fluent Hax0r and unique hatred of both Linux and Jon Katz should make him an easy target."
"In other news pigs were seen flying in a V formation yesterday a first it seems....'
--
Why can CS see my network but XP can't?
Read Errant Story.
Well I agree, you should not sit in a far away jurisdiction to attack someone else.
Hoever me sitting in my little area, saying something that is legal and appropriate should not be prosecuted under the laws of some other far away land.
I feel a person should be judged by the laws under which they live, not the victim. For the internet this could be either the location where the content was created, or the location where the content was distributed from. The content only reached the 'victim' by his explicit request, like going to a newstand buying a paper and carrying it home.
This can be taken to either extreme.
Being prosecuted for supporting equal rights for women.
Being let off on murder.
If the material is false, intended to deceive or mislead, or intended to destroy the reputation of a person, then it should have absolutely no protection whatsoever.
There is a grey area, but only if you are really reaching. "Reasonable satire", for example, would cover any emphasis of an existing, REAL trait. That is what satire is all about. In fact, it's what all classical art is about, too!
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
IANAL, but maybe someone here who is can answer this. How does the state of VA compel the journalists to answer the charge? It's a civil suit, so there's no extradition or anything like that -- it seems to me all they would have to do is ignore it and it would have no real effect. Do they even have a legal obligation to answer the charge? I live in Virginia -- if someone sues me in Connecticut, do I have any legal obligation to show up for the trial? Maybe I'm missing something here -- but this just doesn't seem to me like a sound legal strategy.
I do not read or respond to AC's. If you want a discussion, log in. Otherwise, don't waste your time.
Skip that pesky login process.
IANAL, but... This case could provide a legal precedent for any content, online or on paper, that can be read extra-jurisdictionally.
This generation of judges might treat computers as if they're magical and a special case to the death, but in a few hundred years, when these ones have all died off, we'll end up with case law that will restrict the behavior of smarter judges, who get that print is print, wherever it occurs.
"Look at me, I invented the stove!" -- Ben Franklin
However, that is really beside the point. The real issue is what constitutes libel and slander, and what is just opinion. If I saw that I don't like the food at a restaurant that is my opinion. If I say that they put fecal matter in there food then that is a factual claim. If it is proven that it is false, and I fabricated it, then that is slander/libel (depending on the medium).
That being said however, I do agree that there is entirely too much sensitivity and whininess going around. I like the line in Spiderman, "tell him he can sue me and make money like every other American" Ok, I am paraphrasing him... I slept since I watched it, OK! :)
President Mbutu v. the whole frickin' world
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
To this (legally uneducated) observer there also seem to be similarities with some states having laws against "defamation" of their pet local industries (e.g., Oprah getting sued in Texas for giving beef some hard knocks).
Could Ralph Nader write "Unsafe at Any Speed" in today's legal climate? (Wow, does that reference date me!)
In analyzing this matter you first need to separate the emotional issue (oh my god they're suing for stories posted on the Internet) from the legal issue (whether or not the court in Virginia has the jurisdiction to hear a case concerning alleged liable against a company in Connecticutt that published the story on a web page).
The legal issue is pretty simple: Does the web-publisher have sufficient contacts in the forum state (Virginia) such that the exercise of personal jurisdiction would not offend the principles of fair play and substantial justice?
Answer: It depends. On one hand the company is based in Connnecticutt. However, CNN is based in Atlanta, and they can be sued more or less anywhere (they earn ad revenue in Nebraska, for example). The issue here is what are the nature of the contacts of the publisher in Virginia beyond having a web page that is viewable in Virginia and a story about a warden in Virginia.
If you want my ballpark legal opinion, the court in Virginia can exercise jurisdiction not necessarily because of the web page, but merely because the story was written about a warden in Virginia, and the publisher and/or author created sufficient contacts in Virginia while getting the information needed to write the story to give the court specific jurisdiction over any litigation related to that story.
It all goes back to a case where an insurance company based in another state got sued in California over the single insurance policy they sold to a customer in California. The jurisdiction created is insufficient to sue the web publisher for all purposes, but it is sufficient to sue the web publisher over the story that was published.
If the court in Virginia exericses jurisdiction based on this approach, it will probably be held valid on appeal AND WILL HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT STATE THE SERVERS HAPPEN TO BE LOCATED.
As for the libel question, that's another issue entirely. In general, you cannot prove libel against a public figure (such as a warden) unlesss you can prove "actual malice" in which the publisher either knew the story was false or acted with a deliberate and callous disregard for the truth.
144l. ph34r my 133t l3g4l 5k1lz!
Note in the NY Times' story's opening paragraph (my emphasis added): "two Connecticut newspapers had written stories about his prison's treatment of inmates from that state."
Because Mr. Young and the VA prison system deals with people from across the states, his (and the system's) reputation has national interest.
ancarett, historian and zombie gamer
Havenco.
Soon you'll have to put an EULA on your site to protect yourself against the laws of every other state and country. Something that reads: "By entering this site you agree that any claims against this site will be litigated in my country / my state."
Of course, probably only the EULA on a website will be upheld for a big corporation. Any run of the mill webmaster will probably be screwed since they can't afford teams of lawyers.
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
This tool is very useful, albeit morally reprehensible...
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
>>Could Ralph Nader write "Unsafe at Any Speed" in today's legal climate.
you have brought out a very valid point, But I think that if you first print it ( in paper ) then issue the online copy afterwards you might be safe, In any case the reuslts should be interesting.
Mike
if you see me, smile and say hello.
I think we might be able to avoid this by saying something on a front page like "By entering any farther into this web site, you hereby agree that all suits brought against this web site will be brought in the same state/country as the web server itself, all violaters may not enter this web page any farther" Then you can ask anyone who sues you outside of your country/city, "how did you know there was content there? You had no right to enter the web site" I suppose I'm a bit idealistic.
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master"-Unknowen
Good news for the plaintiff:
Defamation is always a matter of state law, which the federal courts are required to follow. In every single state I'm aware of, the proper venue (as opposed to jurisdiction) for suits in defamation is the district where the plaintiff resides. The reason for this is that the damage to the plaintiff's reputation (if any) is presumed to have occurred where he lives.
Bad news for the plaintiff:
The courts where he lives may have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit, but may not be able to obtain jurisdiction over the person of the defendant (this is the issue of "minimum contacts" mentioned in the article). This is the reason why so many experienced lawyers will file suit in the jurisdiction where the defendant resides even though it is generally more convenient to litigate at home. Doing so also greatly simplifies collecting any judgment you may receive.
REALLY bad news for the plaintiff:
Unless something REALLY radical happened in this case, the merits are still governed by New York Times v, Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), which held that before a media defendant could be held liable in defamation, "The constitutional guarantees require, we think, a federal rule that prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with "actual malice"--that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." Sullivan, at 279-280. In short (and I only know of ONE case (Carol Burnett v. The National Enquirer) where "actual malice" was successfully shown (Sullivan applies to celebrities too)) when you sue a newspaper or news magazine in defamation, you lose.
utter rubbish
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Libel laws, as currently written, are nothing more than a tool used by the powerful to silence those less powerful. They are completely and utterly without merit. Want proof? When was the last time a libel suit was filed against Jesse Jackson, or Al Sharpton? These are individuals who certainly knowingly engage in destroying people's reputations for political gain. The reason lawsuits aren't filed against them is because they're rich, and the defendants are (relatively) poor.
Libel laws should be completely redrafted, as should all civil law. For one thing, we should receive the SAME protections under civil law as we receive under criminal law. The plaintiff should have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. The logic behind why proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required for a criminal case, but not a civil one...is ludicrous. Someone losing millions of dollars is just as severe as them being sent to jail for years.
But as for libel laws in particular, it should have to be proven that the person knowingly and maliciously destroyed a (wo)man's reputation, when the defendant knew that (wo)man hadn't done what they allege.
As for this particular case, the idea that a court in one state has jurisdiction over a man in another who's never even visited that state is absurd. Certainly, even if a judgement is made, there's no way the court can exact the payment of the verdict, as it has no authority to order the impoundment of finances in another state.
Certainly, no person/organization in the US should ever be held liable for violating the IP/libel laws in another nation. US courts should be very clear that they will NOT enforce any decisions made by non-US courts within the US. I also think that its ludacrous that people in one state should be held liable according to the laws of another. Someone in CA should not have to worry about libel laws in FL. If I publish a newspaper here in NY, I shouldn't have to worry about the libel laws in FL; that should certainly be the same for if I publish it on the Internet. Otherwise, publishing something on the internet makes a US citizen liable to the laws of every state in the nation: that's fucking absurd.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
I think there are a few things about the definition of libel that have gotten lost in this thread.
1: libel simply establishes the grounds for a civil suit, not criminal penalties. This just means that the plaintiff gets the opportunity to sue.
2: proving libel requires demonstrating not only that your reputation was harmed, but that the published information demonstrates an intentional or negligent disregard for the truth, and cannot be regarded as satire.
3: a quick retraction is frequently a very good defense.
4: even where there certainly appears to be clear negligence on the part of the publisher, the legal environment strongly favors the defendant. For example, while the Blumenthal vs. Drudge case involved a fairly clear case of negligence (an anonymous source along with no attempt to contact the Blumenthals prior to publication) the case went nowhere primarily because Drudge used the First Amendment privilege to keep his sources anonymous. The Blumenthals were faced with a legal fishing expedition for evidence that Drudge's accusations were false and politically motivated, while simultaneously drudge's defense promised to grill everyone associated with the Blumenthals on the stand to prove the accusation. AOL was found blameless in this case also.
The prison industry (actually the unions representing prison guards, even moreso than the corporations) is lobbying hard for ever-harsher laws, including a mandatory life sentence for possession of drugs.
New Mexico has found the allegations so damning that they have removed their criminals from Mr. Young's Supermax prison.here
Human Rights watch has written articles on the Supermax prision that Mr. Young is in charge of Here
So, why is it libel for the Hartford Courant to report that a public official has had a lawsuit filed against him? Especially a public official that is running such a contreverial system?
This case is somewhat similar to Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984) where a California resident sued National Enquirer and its employees, based in Florida, for libel. Basically, at least for print media, there is a three part test (taken from this case):
1. The defendant must have committed an intentional tort (e.g. libel)
2. The plaintiff must have felt the brunt of the harm in the forum
3. The defendant must have expressly aimed his tortious conduct at the forum
Basically, if the author knows where the person they are writing about resides, they should expect suit in that forum.
And the active/passive distinction may not matter for a tort. Also, there may very well be general jurisdiction over the author if they have a significant presence in the forum state.
(A question was raised earlier about how to get into federal court. One way is diversity: the P and the D are from different states. But then again general jurisdiction may destroy diversity...The other way to get into federal court is in a "federal question" case--a case involving a federal statute, or the rare federal common law...)
Just my $0.02.
wood
"Advice is what we ask for when we already know the answer but wish we didn't." --Erica Jong
Don't forget a certain President of Panama, still being held (technically as a prisoner of war, I believe).
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Ha muerto LI NO FUN
editado por Pobrecito Hablador el Martes Mayo 28, @05:05AM
desde el dept. Sin-Editar.
He de comunicar con todo el dolor de mi corazon que
aproximadamente
a las 4.51 de la madrugada del martes murio el mas desgraciado de los
usuarios de linux,mientras leia la cronica de la perdida de su nombre le estallo la tarjeta de sonido que llevaba incorporada la placa de
su ordenador un athlon que funcionaba miserablemente mal con multiples problemas de pantalla de video debido al mal trabajo de linus con el kernel 2.4.18.
Yo su viuda estoy pensando ciertamente en denuciar su perdida a las autoridades pertinentes ya que un simple sistema operativo no
deberia causar la muerte de ningun individuo aunque fuera tan desastrosamente torpe como fue Li NO FUN.
Rogad a Dios por este alma caritativa que paso a mejor vida el 28-05-02.
Posdata
En su postuma voluntad LI NO FUN pidio encarecida y entrecortadamente que le fueran concedidas la oreja y el rabo
de torero valiente, torero español, al ilustre torero gitano Marauder de la Moreria.
Descanse en Paz
LI NA FUN
And haul some OC-12 out there and declare that US law is illegal... And get the backing of the Chinese government. *shrugs* it could happen
Comment removed based on user account deletion
For those interested in the Antipodean angle, the case Gutnick v Dow Jones has recently been granted leave to appeal to Australia's highest court. There should be argument before the High Court of Australia sometime in the second half of the year with a decision in early 2003.
The state of play is that Gutnick has been allowed to bring his action in Victoria, Australia, despite the protests of Dow Jones. Dow Jones are appealing that decision.
The earlier decision can be found here.
The case here involves someone suing libel. Slander, and not telling the truth are not protected under the first amendment.
The KEY controversy isn't about libel and the 1st amendment, it's about jurisdiction. I suspect you may have picked that up, but your post didn't convince me you did.
I think the problem comes when publishers (and other media for that matter) that have in the past published blatant lies, but are protected by a certain states week libel laws.
I have a problem with states with vague and overbroad libel laws that can be easily exploited. How about you keep your libel laws in your state, and I'll keep my libel laws in my state. For good faith, I won't publish anything in your state, so I can enjoy the freedoms in my state.
Broadcasters and Newspapers are able to selectively publish and air to specific regions (large regions, but selective) if they want to avoid jurisdictional problems with specific broadcasts, if they choose.
This isn't the case with the Internet, how do you restrict which states can view your website and which can't?
The part that makes this a "The Sky is falling" scenerio is that a precident like this doesn't limit itself to libel, and opens itself up for exploitation from ambitious states who might want to silence more than just libel with thier own loose definitions in thier laws.
Forget speech for a moment, this type of jurisdiction ambiguity is practically inviting a state to legislate it's own tyrannical version of the DMCA and enforce it everywhere in the US because by being on the Internet, it's being trafficked in that State.
I'm not suggesting my scenerio will happen, it's too brash and understood by too many. Smart politicians like to legislate laws that seem harmless enough and are difficult to explain, but are effective for whoever bought them.
I can understand the urge to go against the Slashdot crowd, as they're great at trivializing issues like this with trite and obtuse interpretations, just try to resist turning it into a knee jerk reaction.
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion