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.

Comments

Related Links

[GigsVT]

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.

Internet Jurisdiction section on FindLaw

[Seth Finkelstein]

This is an oft-discussed topic. Consider FindLaw - Internet Juridiction

Internet Jurisdiction

The Internet is an interstate and international medium. But does operating a Web Site mean that the operator is subject to personal jurisdiction in courts wherever the Site is accessible? The answer obviously is no. This outline describes the types of activity that likely will permit a court to exercise personal jurisdiction over an Internet actor, consistent with the due process clause of the United States Constitution.

For example: http://profs.lp.findlaw.com/netjuris/netjuris_1.ht ml (emphasis added)

Courts generally have declined to assert personal jurisdiction solely on the basis of Web Site advertising. However, courts have exercised jurisdiction over Web Site operation where additional and more active contacts with the forum took place, such as Internet sales to the forum residents, conducting business in the forum state through numerous contacts, or entering into specific dealings with forum residents

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

Isn't this just yet another reason...

[Rogerborg]

...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.

A least Malda won't have to worry.

[Anonymous Coward]

Lord knows, nothing libelous ever appears on Slashdot.

Hague Convention

[jplove]

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.ht m

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:will they come to pick me up?

[analog_line]

China already has a national firewall. See also Saudi Arabia, and probably many other nations. Where have you been?

I believe it's only a matter of time until all countries firewall their Intenet access. The US will likely be forced to if the various copy-control bills are passed, because it will be illegal for anyone to download almost anything that doesn't have copy control support built in. They'll also likely be built to keep hostile nations out. It won't be the Iron Curtain. It's be the Iron Firewall. News flash people. The Internet is as much of a place as anyplace else. It can and will be controlled by whomever has the political clout to do so. All this free-love wishful thinking of the past few years is finally starting to be brought down, and the Internet shown for what it really is, just another piece of land to be grabbed, squatted, exploited, fought over, died for, invaded, and buried in. It's landfill. An internal virtual moon built by many people the world over, who didn't change into anything else just because they logged on the Internet.

Don't believe the FUD

[automandc]

This will almost certainly be modded down by those who enjoy proclaiming the evil of the American Court system, but I will try anyway.

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