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."
Try again.http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ ct/2002/56.html
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
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.
They don't really care about *you* per se. Someone who considered themselves defamed would go for deeper pockets - your employer (if you posted from work), or your ISP (more likely). If they didn't remove the offending material, they'd try find a way to have *them* brought as a party in Australia, which, being corporates, is a hell of a lot easier.
In short, if you've got not presence in Australia, don't lose any sleep over this. US courts have a long history of throwing out decisions that violate public policy (i.e. free speech). For instance, see Matusevitch v. Telnikoff (702 A 2d 230 (Md CA 1997)). In this case an English defamation decision was thrown out in America.
Robert Ewing Visit the ANU Film Group home page http://www.anufg.org.au Australia's largest film society.
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
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.
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.
1. Murder or willful murder; assault with intent to commit murder.
2. Manslaughter.
3. Aggravated or willful wounding or injuring; assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
4. Unlawful throwing or application of any corrosive or injurious substances upon the person of another.
5. Rape; indecent assault, including unlawful sexual acts with or upon children.
6. Illegal abortion.
7. Procuring, or trafficking in, women or young persons for immoral purposes; living on the earnings of prostitution.
8. Abandoning or exposing a child when the life of that child is or is likely to be injured or endangered.
9. Bigamy.
10. Kidnapping; child stealing; abduction; false imprisonment.
11. Robbery.
12. Burglary; housebreaking or any similar offense.
13. Larceny.
14. Embezzlement.
15. Obtaining any property, money or valuable securities by false pretenses or other form of deception.
16. An offense against the law relating to bribery.
17. Extortion.
18. Receiving any property, money or valuable securities knowing the same to have been unlawfully obtained.
19. Fraud by an agent, bailee, banker, factor or trustee, by a director or officer of a company or by a promoter of a company, whether existing or not.
20. An offense relating to counterfeiting or forgery.
21. Perjury; subornation of perjury; conspiring to defeat the course of justice.
22. Arson.
23. An act done with the intention of endangering the safety of any person traveling upon a railway or in any aircraft or vessel or other means of transportation.
24. Any seizure or exercise of control, by force or violence or threat of force or violence, or by any other form of intimidation, of an aircraft.
25. Piracy, by statute or by law of nations; revolt on board a vessel against the authority of the master of the vessel.
26. Malicious injury to property.
27. An offense against the bankruptcy laws.
28. An offense against the laws relating to narcotics, dangerous drugs or psychotropic substances.
29. Dealing in slaves.
The real discussions on Slashdot usually only interesting to a few people :)
Cornell LII isn't directly affiliated with AustLII the way, say CanLII (Canadian law) is, but they keep in touch...
CanLII is actually funded by a levy on the practicing certificates of Canadian lawyers, which is a perfect example of law firms doing an end-run around the legal publishing monopolies.
Btw, check out WorldLII, which contains stuff from most of the common law world (minus US) as well as links to stuff from all over. Much better then Findlaw :)