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)
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"
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?
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)
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.
Um....how is a libelious statement covered under free speech? Free speech is not totally free speech and can never be. You can't walk in to a crowded theater and shout fire and not expect to be arrested for inciting a riot that will insue after everyone starts to panic and rush out of the theature. I think the post is really taking to much for granted. People on so many websites and in so many forums are not wanting to be accountable for anything they say. The fact is you are accountable. You can go on a site and slander someone the same way you can't do it on TV. IANAL, but I think most lawyers would agree with my opinion. Free speech is a priviledge, not a right (it's only called a right under the constitution). If the populous continue's to make statements they don't want to be accountable for, well maybe free speech isn't a good idea. Don't get me wrong, I think mosty free speech is a good thing. I should be able to say anything I want about CmdrTaco, Hemos or Cowboy Neal without publicly slandering them. From what I gather about the Dow Jones case is soem guy in Australia is pissed he lost money because of what was said on their site. Well, then the person and the site who wrote that can be found libel for it! Could this establish an E-Jurisdiction? Well, sure it can. Just because we are on a World Wide Web doesn;t mean we can't be found libel for what we said! Does this mean that publishing will cease on the web? I doubt it. People and companies will just have to make sure they are careful what they say. Something they should already be doing.
Gorkman
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Lord knows, nothing libelous ever appears on Slashdot.
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.
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.
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
I can't remember the exact legal term, but there is something where the decisions found in one state may be legally binding in all others. The key thing is is "may be". Some states have laws on the books that are violations of law in other states.
Plus, through in the fact that this is a civil case, not a criminal one. In a criminal case, you must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil case, the guilt only needs to be established by a preponderance of evidence. What that means is in a civil case, it has to be "more likely then not" that guilt is evident. (This is, btw, how OJ was liable for the deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman in a civil court, regardless of the fact that he had been found not guilty earlier in a criminal court.)
What this all boils down to is that _if_ this case goes through in Virginia, and _if_ the publisher is found guilty of libel, then it is possible that the decision may be used to affect other cases in other states. But there is also a good chance of this heading up to Appeals Court, and maybe even to the Supreme Court.
IANAL,
Kierthos
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
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."
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.
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.
Unfortuantely you're wrong. The case you are referring to I think is one in which Demon was used by a teacher because some kids had posted libellous things (relating to the teacher's holiday to Bangkok) and the teacher thought that Demon should remove them. The court ruled against Demon, partly because the company did not remove the material when the teacher asked them to.
However, I agree that it's a good thing the rest of the world doesn't have laws like in the USA. I don't think laws allowing the ownership of firearms, not being allowed to drink until you're 21, and having to drive at ridiculously slow speeds on highways would be very popular in most of Europe!
Demon was sued by a teacher
It's worse then that. I once shouted it in a theater that was only half full. They got me anyway. Fascists.
Matthew Collins, an Australian lawyer who has written on Internet libel, said a decision by a United States appellate court affirming Mr. Young's jurisdictional claim could bolster judges in Australia and elsewhere. American courts, he said, are widely regarded as being the most protective of free expression, and a ruling adverse to news media interests would carry weight.
You are so full of crap. What you've highlighted isn't even an opinion, it's a statement from a lawyer trying to defend his position by referring to USA law. You're treating it as if it is fact.
Unfortuantely you're wrong.
And so are you. This is the case of Lawrence Godfrey vs Demon Internet. The case was that somebody had posted a message that was forged to look like it came from Dr Godfrey, and was defamatory of him. This much all the parties agreed on.
Dr Godfrey faxed several ISPs and news providers in the UK and asked them to remove the posting form their newsspools (a mostly futile act it has to be said). Most complied but Demon, presumably thinking he was a usenet kook, didn't. Dr Godfrey followed up with several more faxes requesting action, but Demon refused to comply. So he sued demon for libel, as they were publishing the message in question. After much legal bickering (including the novel argument of "he was asking for it") Demon lost. A good account can be found at cyberrights.
Dr Godfrey is a University lecturer BTW.
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 do *not* have to be careful about what I say. Thats the whole friggin point. I can say anything.
Believe what you like then, but if you ever decide to put that belief to the test, do not be surprised if things turn out badly. I do not think that even the likes of the ACLU would condone outright slander and defamation.
There are limits to freedom of expression, and I would go so far as to argue that there must be limits. Sure, we have to do distasteful things like permit the dumb-ass rednecks of the KKK to hold their marches and rallys, but we do so knowing that they are exposing their ignorance to the world. They are allowed to voice their opinions (however objectionable) as per the same laws that permit others to disagree with the government, the media, and other citizens.
However, I think it would be considered a crime if a private citizen were to publicly announce a bounty on the head of another person. In fact, I am pretty sure that it would be a crime if I privately offered to pay someone to kill another person. I doubt that this would be considered freedom of speech.
Sorry dude, but you can't say whatever you want...
*** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
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... 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
President Mbutu v. the whole frickin' world
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
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
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
Well, actually, the term comes from the Constitution
The reason for this principle was a feeling among the framers of the Constitution that a plaintiff should only have to win his suit one time.
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
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.
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});
The first amendment usually means POLITICAL speech. For example...I can say that George W's policies suck (they are not all good policies, but in general, I do not agree with that statement). How is saying that I can't slander you against the constitution? That's different. The government is not restricing my political views. I can go on the street corner and hold up a sign and chant down with abortion or abortion is murder. That's a political view. That is the speech that is protected.
Other speech can be considered to be under protection as well. The DECSS folks wrote a program that decrypts DVD's and that program, now that I think about it, could be considered damaging speech. Although I don't agree with that view of DeCSS...I think all the writers wanted to do was watch a DVD on a non blessed system....something that IMPROVES DVD sales, not hurt them. It's still uneconomical to copy DVD's. They have NOTHING to worry about there, plus DeCSS isn't necessary to copy a DVD if you just do it bit by bit.
Besides....the stuff I am talking about is just common sense. People say stuff all of the time without thinking...I won't be surprised if someone who thinks they are just joking with someone get's sued because of the "joke". The point is if I go talk to Joe's boss and say something like Joe tokes up a joint every day before work without proof and a keep saying it to people through the company...people will believe it and that's something the first amendment was never meant to protect.
Gorkman
God does not give you the right to say anything. God gives you the ability to say anything, and hopefully be able to know WHAT to say and when to say it. God gives yoiu the freedom to say what you want, but say the wrong thing, and you will get burnt. It's as simple as that. Also the constitiution does say that they shall make no law restricting speech and I am not saying that they have not done just that (Campaign Finance Reform anyone??). Also that's for the FEDERAL government. Your local laws can be different. The feds make no laws regarding things like inciting a riot. That's to be decided by the states. Also, and again, you MUST think about when the constitution was written.....the First Amendment was wrote so that the President or Congress could not make a law restricting POLITICAL speech. The rest of the protections are just a bonus. Jefferson and the rest just wanted to make sure the US government did not have powers that the King of England did. Same does for separation of church and state. Anytime the government want's to do something like start a school voucher program so we can take our money back and use it for the same thing(just at a private, sometimes a religious school) we are told oh no that violates the separation of church and state....(no it does not....the separation of church and state means that the state cannot start a church and say you can only go there....like the King did in England!). People confuse this stuff all of the time. And, I will say again:
Libel cannot be a protected speech
Slander cannot be a protected speech
Defaming speech cannot be a protected speech.
Some can say that restricts speech....no it does not. Sure, you can say it, but you will face the consequences if it damages someone reputation beyond repair.
Gorkman
Except for one thing....ther probably are not any companies in China that are not owned by THE STATE! Except for ones based in recently acquired Hong Kong.
Gorkman
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Gossip is always legal. Its never illegal. Gossip is just that. If you take gossip at face value you are an idiot.
This includes being able to recognise "gossip" even when it perports to be something else. Or is uttered by a "journalist" or politican.(Indeed especially from the latter.)
You're saying that gossip isnt protected? Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
Yes I am saying that it isn't protected if it turns to slander and gossip could very well do just that. The DMCA is a bad law and in my opinion has NOTHING to do with free speech (unless you say your speech is held back because you can't copy a movie or afford a DVD blank/burner because of the cost.....which is laughable.). You simply cannot go about saying stuff that is untrue without getting into trouble dude. Both with the law, and with the person. I say to you read the first amendment and thne THINK about what the authors went through. Even they had admitted that there can and should be limits (within reason). You impress me a slipery slope kind of person who says that once it happens once, it all goes down hill. I quite frankly never believed in the slippery slope. There is none. Our government was designed to prevent it. Also, I frankly DON'T agree with some of the anti terrorist things implemented since 9/11 and do believe they are unconstitutional. If the government would have actually had the manpower to actually enforce existing immigration laws, then 9/11 would never had happened or if it did have to happen, it may hve happened differently. Several of our high jackers were in the country illegally in the first place. If they were actually deported, sure, someone else may have done it or they may have done it a different way (like from a airline that is not US based), but the attacks would have been seen long before they happened and we may have had time to react.
Believe what you must about the first amendment. I agree that 99 percent of speech can be and shoud be free, but that 1 percent would cause a whole lot of people greif. Also, go an try and test this in your own life. Go and start dropping tips on some upcoming stock IPO and see if the SEC doesn't come after you if they turn out to be false. Go and tell your boss your cube mate smokes pot everyday. You will see how fast you get smacked with a lawsuit. Oh and as for references, search for them yourself. The court records are public you know. Also, I found a good PDF that logically defends my position here at this URL. Here is another page covering it as well. I mean really alot of this is common sense and to say ALL SPEECH SHALL BE PROTECTED is irresponsible.
Gorkman
You are so full of crap. What you've highlighted isn't even an opinion, it's a statement from a lawyer trying to defend his position by referring to USA law. You're treating it as if it is fact.
Reading the original statement it is quite clear that the possibility 'could' exist. So the statement made is a literal fact, just as the statement 'Jimmy Carter could run again for a second term' is a litteral fact even though it is entirely unlikely that he will.
Non-US courts have repeatedly asserted extra-territorial jurisdiction over US citizens, the Us has little room to complain in this respect however since the US has passed more laws claiming extra-territorial jurisdiction than any other. The infamous Helm-Burton act attempts to prosecute foreign companies for doing business with Cuba. But extra-terriroial law can be justifiable Osama Bin-Laden was charged with 'conspiring to murder US citizens abroad'. The US civil courts have recognised extra-territorial claims arrising out of the Holocaust.
Extra-territorial judgements are a primary source of what is called international law. However before getting steamed up, consider the fact that most countries court systems are over-loaded and so they tend to attempt to minimise their scope. So for example when a copule of US citizens tried to bring a libel action in the UK against a US company over an Internet publication the case was rejected on the grounds that the plaintifs had recourse in another jurisdiction that was more appropriate. On the other hand a Greek PM was able to bring a libel suit against a Greek newspaper with a tiny UK circulation as in that case Greek law did not permit a case to be brought.
There is however a much closer relationship between the law in the UK (except Scotland), the US and Australia, all are based on English common law and precedents in one jurisdiction may be raised in another. Such precedents are not binding, in much the same way that a judgement in the 1st Federal circuit is not binding on the 5th but can certainly be introduced and may carry weight. The whole point of common law is that the law should not be capricious and should be as predictable as possible so it is not a good thing if courts in one common law jurisdiction takes a different approach to another in the same circumstances.
I do not see the rulling haveing any effect on non-US courts however as the principle that a citizen can sue a US company in their local over a publication made on the Internet is already well established in most jurisdictions. I suspect that the rulling is more significant when it comes to enforcing a judgement. At the moment there is little point in bringing a suit in the UK against a US resident as the US resident can effectively resist collection through the US courts for an indefinite period.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
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