Slashdot Mirror
Gutnick Can Pursue Dow-Jones Libel Case
Anonymous Coward writes "Libel cases based on Internet material could be mounted anywhere in the world, after a landmark judgment handed down by the Australian High Court today. International news service Dow Jones failed in its bid to have a defamation action brought by mining magnate Joseph Gutnick heard in the United States."
1994: Dr Lawrence Godfrey Versus Demon
You can read the full judgement HERE
Nice conservative judgement in which the judges refused to redefine the law to suit the WWW (or Dow-Jones).
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
But he really is prone to stock scams. What's funny is that the WSJ dug up all this evidence already. Gutnick's got nothing but his word.
This is a good argument for including terms of use in a website.
In most terms of use, it is customary to include choice of law and jurisdiction provisions.
I would think that courts would not enforce the ones that are too broad, but if it is narrow it may work. See a lawyer about this since your milage may vary and IANAL.
Fight Spammers!
Great
I suppose....
Get your case heard in a non executing country.
does that mean an Arab country can take me to court for posting 'offensive' remarks on a website?
Not relevant. The point is that a third party has prima facie had their reputation damaged. Any contractual agreements between the publisher and the reader cannot affect that third party's rights.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
Good god! The last thing the world needs is an open legal floor with the USA.
That would't apply to libel cases where the victim doesn't have to agree to the T&C.
Yes, but you only have to worry if your country of origin is willing to extradite you or you plan to ever visit that country again.
More Great
Yeah, but you would have to make sure the "damage" occured in that non-executing country as well.
Wow, way to create an incredibly reactionary and inaccurate story summary. In reality, this judgement only affects lawsuits in Australia and not "the rest of the world." You know, given the fact that the ruling of an Australian court has no jurisdiction within any other country. Not only that, but this doesn't say in the least whether or not it actually was libel, he merely won the right to have his case heard in the court. The court could still decide that this particular case does not in fact amount to libel.
"Libel cases based on Internet material"
As a society, most of us don't realize the serverity of what we say on the internet. Now that internet defamation is prosecutable, I expect it to be one of the fastest rising crimes ever.
Even more great.
Just put a disclaimer on you website, emails, and all your discussion board postings. Something like:
"Not intended to be viewed by anyone in the country of Australia. By viewing this you agree that you forfeit any legal recourses available, cannot hold the posting or publishing individual or party accountable for any comments that have been made"
If it works for shrink-wrap software, it should work for anything else.
I think that most people that post on slashdot are dumb.
#1. How can they enforce this sort of thing on everyone?
For example:
Let us say that I say something mean about someone in Australia on the web. That person then files
suit against me in an Australian court.
I have no presence in Australia. Even if they manage to serve the suit to me via mail or something, what inclines me to go to the court? What can they do to me, since I'm in the USA?
Would they try to get the US Government to extradite me? Sure, it might just prevent me from ever visiting Australia, but I don't see how they could get someone over there to trial.
Since Dow Jones probably has some sort of presence in Australia, I can see how they might be more inclined to follow the court's orders... but what about everyone else?
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
The best great.
Guy's this isn't about extradition. It's about foreign money orders! Get it right.
You might get a fatwa issued though!
Can you say Salman Rushdie?
This is important stuff, and not just for Australia - it sets a precedent which other jurisdictions will follow.
So what do you think? Erosion of Your Right Online (TM) or a transjurisdictional extension of them?
Libel cases based on Internet material could be mounted anywhere in the world, after a landmark judgment handed down by the Australian High Court today It would be more accurate to say the cases could be brought in Australia. I don't believe the court made mention of the rest of the world in its ruling.
If you are an individual in the US, it would also be very difficult for you to libel, slander, or defame someone in Australia anyway (unless you are working for an employer that has power over public opinion such as a big company or press). eg. Bill Gates could Slander me (but only because he is idenitifiable becasue of Microsoft). In that case I could sue Microsoft IF they endorse or publish the information.
Either way I don't think that Gutnick will win the case anyway. The press are a forum for opinion, that is what they do, offer their opinion and they did. I don't think there are many people who would have their perception of Joe altered in anyway by the article they published. Everyone here in Australia already knows he is a blood sucking parasite and as such the perception of his good standing is crap and has been for years anyway.
All of the companies he has run are in financial ruin (well most of them), and in typical fashion Joe is teflon man (the shit never sticks).
Hell, he even got kicked off the board of the football club he financially supported because he was such a prick. How can anyone who nobody respects or admires be defamed!
lounge around on the blue couch
Does this mean Saudi Arabia can now shut down ALL the porn sites, as they are illegal there? This IS a pretty scary precedent.
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
They dropped a couple of nukes on ya....
I'm surprised no one has refrenced this yet... http://www.snpp.com/episodes/2F13.html Andy: Hear ye, hear ye. This session will now come to order. With the cooperation of the US Department of State, we have present today one Bart Simpson.
[everyone mutters amongst themselves]
I believe he has something to say. Bart?
Bart: [goes to microphone, scratches, clears throat several times]
I'm sorry. I'm sorry for what I did to your country.
[everyone applauds]
Andy: [jovial] Well, you're free to go, Bart...right after your additional punishment.
Homer: Punishment?
Andy: Well, a mere apology would be a bit empty, eh? Let the booting begin.
Homer: Booting?
Andy: Aw, it's just a little kick in the bum.
[a man with a gigantic boot walks in]
Bart: Y'uh oh.
That in Russia there is NO precedent law.
And judges shouldn't follow any precedents -
just a law word and reference books.
A. if you post something defamatory on the web, and it affects someone somewhere in the world, don't be surprised if they try to sue you in whatever country that person has a reputation to protect.
B. most baseless suits (including those where the plaintiff has no reputation in the country where the suit is lodged) will be stayed in most jurisdictions--it's called forum non conveniens.
C. defamation is not a crime. This isn't about extraterritorial criminal laws.
D. Insulting a religion or king *may* be a crime -- eg lese majeste in Thailand. Problem: depending where the poster is, courts of that country may not have jurisdiction, and the crimes are unlikely to be extraditable (no dual criminality and all that). Solution: if you insult a country or its king, don't visit it. If you insult a religion, don't visit countries where that is an official or protected religion.
E. much free speech law in the US proceeds on a bogus premise anyway. The First Amendment (try reading it) is supposed to prevent the Government enacting laws which impose censorship ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press") and was intended to prevent laws stifling policical discourse. It is a restraint on Congress' ability to enact laws. It shouldn't apply to one private person slurring another without justification, any more than it applies to shouting fire in a crowded theatre. No Federal law == amendment not apply.
F. Even if a US company or person is sued overseas, unless they have assets in that jurisdiction, they are likely to be safe. No assets = nothing to enforce the judgment against locally, even if the plaintiff wins. Further, US courts will probably not enforce a foreign judgment obtained under libel laws which are incompatible with the ridiculously overbroad reading given to the First Amendment.
G. the issue in the Dow Jones case was interlocutory: could the case proceed to hearing in Victoria or not? There has been no trial. Whether the story was defamatory or not, and whether or not any defence applies, is only now to be considered.
H. the result of the judgment is to affirm responsibility -- if you have to power to say something nasty about someone, wherever they are located, you have the correlative responsibility for what you say. Being based overseas is no excuse. My spin: if you don't like that, use technological means to limit who sees the material; and/or check your facts about what you are saying; and/or don't make it a slur; and/or check the local laws of the places your target lives & has a reputation, and is accordingly likely to sue. (The judgment also politely observes that many US courts do not understand the single publication rule! :).
I. Godfrey v Demon was not about this issue. There, the defendant ISP which carried the objectionable posting was based in the UK, as was the plaintiff. See a good potted summary of the case.
J. Before anyone jumps to a conclusion and complains about US-centricity, I am not based in the US. Many web servers are.
K. I am a lawyer, but this post does not constitute legal advice, is not offered with any warranty, and I assume no responsibility for anyone acting upon it.
If the person claiming libel, read the article, then it may be argued they agree.
Of course this all comes down to how much a person who is making a claim is exempt from copyright and EULAs in investigating for a lawsuit or potential lawsuit.
Fight Spammers!
A lot of commentators are missing the point when discussing the Gutnick decision:
1. The High Court was asked to throw the claim out of Court as it was not justiciable (ie capable of being tried);
2. The High Court held that, on the face of it, Gutnick had a claim that prima facie could be founded in law;
3. The High Court refer the matter back to the State Supreme Court where the action will be heard on its merits;
The result, Gutnick's claim will be won or lost on its own merits in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The High Court did not say Australian Courts can impose orders on foreign companies (the defendant has an incorporated presence in Victoria) or that the comments made against Gutnick were actually defamatory.
For our American friends, before being incensed that some other country's Court might issue orders against sacred US companies recall that US Courts often try their hand at extraterritoriality.
Remember when the Aussie guv'ment tried to punish Bart Simpson? Ha! They couldn't even boot an 8-year old boy! I love that episode.
anybody who has ever had access to the internet is declared guilty of something, somewhere.
Film at eleven.
KFG
Yes, it only applies to Australia. So this is mainly only a problem for corporations that have a presence everywhere (like news services, for example). For them, though, this is very problematic, and as mentioned, even if this guy loses his suit, the finding of fact already decided (I use the US term but I assume aussie is similar) is important in itself.
For private individuals, I assume you can tell the aussies to piss off. I would be surprised if the US extradited anyone on such a charge, but you never know. Basically, if you libel an aussie, don't plan on that Sydney vacation.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
in particular in the "defences available":
'There is a Light that never goes out.'
The other point to be made here is that the High Court's ruling is not on a constitutional issue. Therefore, whilst it may not affect this case, it's quite possible that Australian laws may be passed in the future that explicitly define where something is published with regards to the internet.
Exactly how that definition *should* be worded is worthy of some discussion, also...
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Gutnick has a reputation in Australia of always wanting everything. Last time he was in the news here was because of the rift he created in the Melbourne football club as CEO and was booted out. Melbourne were playing in the grand final and he didn't attend because it was the sabbath. The guy has got money and he never backs down.
I can see the headlines now, Gutnic vs Anonymous Coward.
See also abc.net.au news
For a scholarly, but readable roundup of Australian Defamation Law and the Internet I'd recommend:
m l
http://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/defamation.ht
'There is a Light that never goes out.'
I don't think that a defamation action can legally be excluded by a choice of law clause. The purpose of a defamation action is to "refame" or remove the defamation of the claimant in the place where the action was claimed. See the judgement http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/200 2/56.html paragraph 6.
It does not seem likely that the publishers can say that they are free to defame in any jurisdiction other than the ones they choose.
This also means that if the website can not be viewed in a particular country (I'm thinking of the Great Firewall of China), then a website defaming a member of that country can not bring an action for defamation unless that person also has a reputation in another country where the site can be viewed.
Just like Dow Jones. =D
Granted, the article covers choice of law in a libel case, but the interaction between contracts and investigation reaches to other areas of law.
Of course this all comes down to how much a person who is making a claim is exempt from copyright and EULAs in investigating for a lawsuit or potential lawsuit.
For example, in the United States, the DMCA's circumvention ban does not apply to any investigative action in which federal, state, or local government is involved (17 USC 1201(e)).
And doesn't a subpoena trump a unilateral contract?
Will I retire or break 10K?
From the article:
"The landmark judgment means material published on the internet is deemed to have been published in the place it is viewed online, not the country of origin."
I don't know what the legal system is like in Australia but in the states you can generally sue anyone for anything you damn well like, regardless of its merits.
While I doubt our courts will act in a reciprocal manner just to make a point, the tacit argument the Australian government is making is that they can apply our laws to American entities. If this is taken to its logical conclusion, and Americans are allowed to apply American legal standards to Australians, this might forever be known as the Pandora's Box Judgement.
My
Limekiller
tonto too, if you want.
Gutnick doesn't have to have read your web page to be defamed by it. What will this do?
The US has the death penalty for defamation suits? It's not even a criminal matter!
"Hot lesbian witches! It's fucking genius!"
People should be accountable to the laws of the nation they reside in, and only those laws. They should only have to know one set of laws: those for the country they reside in. It is outrageous that a US citizen could be sued for Libel in Australia under the much more restrictive Australian laws, which would be unconstitutional in the US.
If someone in Australia thinks they were defamed by someone in the US, then they should have to sue the person in US court, if they have standing. I personally think that foreigners in other nations shouldn't be able to use the civil courts in this nation.
The principal here is very simple: that a person should only have to be accountable to the laws of the nation (s)he's residing in. Anything else is inherently problematic, as it will put people in catch-22's, where a certain action may be mandated by the laws of one nation, but prohibited by those of another. This is why I think that the US should withdraw from most international agreements, in that they violate the US Constitution and the rights of US citizens. International treaties, for example, could allow a US citizen to be trialed in China for publishing an opinion critical of the Chinese government.
Another inherent problem with US citizens being subject to the (say) defamation laws of Australia that it is analagous to taxation without representation. In this case, laws are being imposed on US citizens without those citizens being represented in the creation of those laws. It is outrageous.
Every nation has enough bad worthless laws of its own. Nation's don't need the bad laws of other nations in addition to the bad laws of their own. Each nation's citizens run into enough problems with their own nations bad laws, let alone those of other nations.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Thanks for the link.
:)
A few possibly interesting observations:
The most substantive is that some may wonder at the liberal citation of American precedent. The reason is something called choice of law, which in this cases tells the Australian court to look to American precedent in certain cases. We have similar legall traditions, but this must be quite difficult in some cases. I read one case where a serviceman sued an American company for a defective mortar or something; the place of injury tort law was determined to control -- in that case, Cambodian law.
There's no "e" in judgment -- weird lawyer thing -- no, I don't know why. This is apparently true in Australia as well as the U.S.
Australian law is ahead on the U.S. on this point: numbered paragraphs! American lawyers still cite page numbers, though few ever see physical pages. Paragraph numbering allows for for more precision, though I wish they could set them off a little, so it didn't feel as though you had someone slowly counting over your shoulder.
The tone is also more casual for a high court; American judges generally avoid using "I" in their judgments unless writing in dissent.
(Well, i think these things are interesting.
This is Bill Gates we're talking about, right?
Please try to remember here that Dow Jones published an article about Joe Gutnick's reputation. They're not being randomly targetted, they choose to publish an article which Mr Gutnick believes impuned his reputation.
Why should he have to defend his reputation, which is to say, his public standing, in the US? A country where he doesn't live, and where no-one cares about his business interests?
If people in the US are worried about being sued by overseas countries take a look at what's happening to the "illegal combatants" in Cuba: Your country is holding foreign nationals (including Australians) with NO access to any legal representation.
Which situation represents a big threat to Justice?
They tried to say that they should not treat the Internet differently than other published media, but their decision singled out the Internet for special treatment.
If the libelous statements were made in a US-based newspaper, of which some copies were physically mailed to Australia, Australians would not have been able to sue the US publisher. But when the statements are on a US-based web site, which is "mailed" to Australia via the Internet, Australians can sue.
---------
There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
Dowjones has several Australian offices and it markets services there.
What is dangerous though is that it sets some dodgy precedents for reporting of less savoury regimes in, for example, Zimbabwe that like to keep criticism to a minimum. The BBC could certainly be hit in court for their reporting of Mugabe's administration (in earlier times they certainly had a bureau there(. One man's reporting is another's unjustified criticism.
Isn't that someone who abuses an all you can eat buffet?
But how global a person's reputation? My reputation in Antarctica is certainly less important to me than my reputation in my home town. Does the law assume a person has only one reputation that extends across all jurisdictions? This should be a matter of international law.
"Mr Gutnick lives in Victoria. He has his business headquarters there. Although he conducts business outside Australia, including in the United States of America, and has made significant contributions to charities in the United States and Israel, much of his social and business life could be said to be focused in Victoria."
"The primary judge recorded in his reasons that Mr Gutnick "seeks to have his Victorian reputation vindicated by the courts of the State in which he lives [and that he] is indifferent to the other substantial parts of the article and desires only that the attack on his reputation in Victoria as a money-launderer should be repelled and his reputation re-established"."
Is it a US publisher? New Jersey, in fact. But that doesn't change the fact that the damage occurred in Australia. Why shouldn't he be able to seek civil action in his own local courts?
"But now this means you can get sued anywhere in the world!" Um... so? You assume that that's going to have weight in your home country. I've got news for you: No matter what you may read on Slashdot, you don't get arrested for breaking the laws in another country. At worst you get arrested for breaking laws in your own country very similar to the laws in the other country in question. If Gutnick wins his case and Dow Jones doesn't have any assets in Australia, he'll still have to come to the US and convince a judge in the state where Dow Jones is incorporated that
- Yes, Australia did have jurisdiction in this case, and
- If the trial had taken place in the US, the outcome would have been the same (ie. it's against the law in that US state as well)
Bringing up a certain Simpson's episode everybody thought of as soon as they read "Australia" and "court," should the Australians instead have had to go to Springfield and bring charges against Bart under Illinois law? Better yet, you know how you can sue telemarketers that call after you tell them not to? Do you think you should have to go to their home state before you can try to get your measly $500? Because that's exactly what you're arguing for.Come on, people! This ain't exactly the Dred Scott case we're talking about here!
No, wait, that was just a matter between US states. For all the bitching and moaning I've seen on Slashdot being "US-centric," a search of the site for Stanley Young v. New Haven Advocate doesn't turn up any hits.
Of course I can.
But can you read Salman Rushdie? I doubt it.
and as most countries do not recognise terms of use as being able top remove your rights the US would become the only place to NOT try the case...
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
I know George Bush is keen on killing but I did not know he had brought in the death penalty in civil cases...
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
So what DLL's does this source code require in order to encode? Does it require Win NT, Win 2000, Win 98, Win XP, or Win XP Professional DLL's? Quicktime or Direct X?
The judgement can be found at www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/2002/56.ht ml
"The first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is stop digging."
IANAL, but I really don't see how this sets any precidents that didn't already exist. The way I see it is this:
If a US company with no presence in Australia commits libel against an Australian then can the US company be sued? Theoretically yes, but in reality there would be absolutly no point, since the Australian court has no jurisdiction over the US company or any of its assets, so the court could simply be ignored.
However, if that US company has a branch in Australia it becomes a completely different matter. The Australian court does have jurisdiction over its Australian branch, and therefore the US company cannot simply ignore the ruling, or it could risk having its branch closed down. When a company establishes a branch in another country then the company is effectivly subjecting itself to the laws of that country.
So in answer to a previous post, can a US company be sued in Saudi Arabia for publishing pornography on the internet? No, so long as that company has no presence in Saudi Arabia. However if a US company with a branch in Saudi Arabia publishes pornography then yes, because they have assets which are under the jurisdiction of the Saudi court. The same applies to China - If a US company with a factory in China publishes information on the internet which is deemed illegal in China, then there is a very good chance that the Chinese government would take action against the company's chinese assets.
The demon case is completely irrelevent here - that was between a british individual and a british ISP - there was no question of jurisdiction.
1) Don't murder anybody.
2) If a Democrat is in the White House, don't belong to any unpopular religions (for Muslims, see rule #1).
At paragraphs 51-52 of the leading judgement, there is a strong suggestion that even though Victorian law will be applied, the defences available in New York will influence the effect of Victorian law in the circumstances of the case. This is something that Justice Gaudron repeatedly suggested in the hearing (she delivered a separate judgement that I haven't gotten to reading yet, but the fact that the lead judgement includes this suggestion is promising since it means the position won't disappear with her impending retirement).
Objecting that it is a stupid law was option (C)
Oops, I meant to say it was option (B).
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
It's really as simple as this. There are a lot of things to do, and not enough hours to do them. There are a lot of voices clamoring for attention, and each one only gets to say so many things that, having heard, I judge not to have been worth listening to, before I cross them off the list of people worth listening to. If every post I wrote made you want to slap it with a -1 Flamebait, you'd probably stop reading them in spite of the fact that someday I might say something worthy of your attention. There would be other voices more worthy, and only so much attention to go around.
As for the movie, I may well go see it, but it's taken time and hearing from a number of people that the movie is worth the time to overcome Mr. Moore's prior comments which led me to write him off years ago.
I was going along with what you said to let you get where ever you were trying to go. You didn't go far enough to get a result answering my question.
Oh so you don't get it after all. I try to enlighten you.
Consider the nature of a crime. A crime, as you might know is constituted by the union of mens rea and actus reus, or in plain speak, the intention to commit a crime, and the actual action of commiting that crime. The effect on the victim, excepting only that they are a victim, is (or ought to be) irrelevant. Crime is a matter between the perpetrator and the state (or the community if you prefer).
Consider this hypothetical then. I am standing on the NSW side of the NSW/Victorian border, and I discharge a firearm with intent to kill (or to cause grievous bodily harm; or with 'reckless indifference'; or in the commission of a indictable offence) at someone standing on the Victorian side and my discharging of this firearm successfully kills that someone. Now where did the murder take place?
I don't think there is any precedent for this, so we can't know what the answer for sure, but the logical result would seem to be that the murder occured in NSW, where both the intent and act were located.
Now lets contrast this with the case of defamation. Defamation is a tort of strict liability, meaning that the intent of the tortfeasor forms no part of the tort (though it might be relevant in awarding damages). You might not want to defame someone, you might not think what you said did defame someone, you don't even have to be aware that there is anyone who was defamed by what you said. All that matters is that there is someone who could be defamed by your statement, that they had a reputation capable of being injured, and that that reputation was in fact injured. Unlike a crime, a tort is matter between the plaintiff and the defendant, the state is a stranger here, except insofar as it provides the forum.
So in this case the logical conclusion is that defamation takes place where the damage to reputation occurs. Since the defendants intent is irrelevant, and their bare statement is insufficient to constitute defamation (ie the same statement was published in Bumfukia, but since the plaintiff had no reputation there, no defamation occured there.) Not only is this logical, but, as you would know from your reading, there is firmly established authority here, Duke of Brunswick v Harmer (1849) 14 QB 185. That should be the end of the argument!
What the High Court was being asked to do was to create a special, and IMO illogical, exception to this long established rule, merely because of the Net factor. This is like the Communications Decency Act saying, sure there is freedom of speech, but if the Internet is involved it should be curtailed. Or that copyrighted material in digital form needs extraordinary proctection (in fact the invention of an entirely new species of intellectual property )etc.
If I'm standing nude in France, and someone sees it through a telescope inTurkey, ...
Fucking amazing telescope!
Given I have as little idea as you, about either French or Turkish law, I really couldn't say which law applies. I guess it depends on whether its a law against being nude, or a law protecting someone from seeing nude people through their telescope.
You need me to fill in more details?
I need just a little bit more than that actually. I need you to give me a hypothetical that can be afforded a sensible answer. As it stands your problem is rather like asking a mathematician this: Suppose a rational number r when divided by zero and multipled by pi equals 25. What is the value of r. Is it A) 5, B) pi, C) 25, or some other rational number? Like the mathematician, I am forced to choose option D) Your problem is wrong.
It's a random bad law in a random contry. ... The point is that some
country has some sort of law against it.
This is one way your problem is wrong. And I hope that the foregoing discussion of the differences between murder and defamation make it clear that talking about "some sort" or "random bad law", is just hopelessly vague.
Perhaps in YOUR country, but maybe Bumfukia has the death penalty for civil violations.
This confusion of criminal and civil law is another way your problem is wrong. Sure Bumfukian law may not distinguish between what we conceive of as criminal and tort law and might prescribe the death penalty for what we would properly consider civil causes. However, to execute me, I presume, Bumfukia would like to have access to my person (I don't know, perhaps execution in effigy suffices in Bumfukian law), and I'm not just going to go there and turn myself over. Therefore they will have to try to extradite me, and at this point the criminal (and in fact treaty) law of my country comes into play. First of all there has to be some extradition arrangement between my country and Bumfukia (which there isn't, so I'm safe). Secondly extradition law applies only to serious offences (which this isn't) and protects the person to be extradited from oppression (which this would be), usually by requiring that there be some equivalent criminal offence in the extraditing country (which there isn't).
Again contrast this with foreign money judgements, which are respected between countries even in the absence of bilateral arrangements and even when no similar cause of action exists between in the country making good the foreign money judgement. (For the US law regarding foreign money judgements, see my earlier post on another branch of this thread.)
Again, the law of YOUR contry is irrelevant.Now this is perhaps the greatest source of your misunderstanding. As you now know, (I assume you took the foregoing explanation in) the law of my jurisdiction (and indeed the law of Dow Jones' home jurisdiction), is highly relevant. It is because of the fact that US juridictions will honour the money orders made by Australian courts that US companies have to fear Australian courts, even when, as is the case with Dow Jones, they have no corporate presence within Australia.
OK, maybe this is not entirely the only reason they have to fear Australian courts, and Gutnik v Dow Jones is a case in point. In the case of defamation the primary remedy the plaintiff seeks (especially a filthy rich plaintiff like Gutnik), is not the money order, but the vindication of their reputation in a court of law. Conversely Dow Jones has got to be worried that, if they fail to make out a truth or truth+ (whichever applies in Victoria) defence, that the entire world will know that they simply make up shit about people without having the facts to back it up. I'm sure Barrons would like to be thought of as being more authoritative than that, which is probably why they wanted to fight in a jurisdiction where they didn't have to prove truth.
Bumfukia defines the use of itallics as civil defamation of the presiden's dog, and the law imposes the death penalty. Do you understand the law now? You think it's a dumb law, *I* think it's a dumb law, but it's a Bumfukian law. Objecting that it is a stupid law was option (C).I don't work on the dichotomy dumb (or bad) law vs good law. I work on the dichotomy valid or invalid law, and I have no trouble in accepting the hypothetical validity of the Bumfukian law. That being the case, the question resolves itself into one of asking how enforcable Bumfukian law will be in my jurisdiction, which as we have seen is not very. Alternatively it might concern me that people would think I was the kind of person to use italics, which clearly doesn't worry me either!
Now assuming Gutnik wins his case in Victoria, should he decide to try and actually get the money (he might be wise not to), the issue of enforcibility would again arise. I am not an American lawyer, but I would guess that Dow Jones would raise 1st Amendment arguments, when Gutnik goes to the NY, or NJ court with the Victorian order, and, given the current free speech jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, that defence might just fly. Though as I have noted, this would be a consolation prize for Dow Jones, who would have been exposed as scheissters in the Australian court. Of course it might not be Dow Jones who end up with the egg on their face. Remember Oscar Wilde and the risks of suing in defamation though, it may be Gutnik who will rue the outcome.
And if the exact same text had been painted on the side of my house rather than placed on a computer would they have ruled the same way? (I don't know.)With what I've taught you, you ought now be able to answer that for yourself.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke