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."
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!
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
"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.
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?
this is not even an RTFA. Demon is a UK ISP, I'm pretty certain Godfrey's a brit, and it was contested in the English courts. not relevant.
I agree it was completely inaccurate and reactionary, but you're wrong that this won't affect the rest of the world. It will, and in at least 2 ways. First, it means that any legal person (ie, includes corporations) which has offices in Australia can now be held liable for posting information to a server in Uzbekistan, if that information is viewed by the relevant public in Australia. The second way in which it matters to the rest of the world is that it sets a precedent, and one which IMHO (and IAAL, so I know a little about this) will impact judicial thinking in other jurisdictions, and quite probably along the same lines. Defamation law, like Copyright law, is one of those things which is slowly becoming internationally equivalent... epect this in a Court Near You soon.
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
Althought I agree with you, you have to admit it's a little unfair of US citizens to complain when they do the same things themselves.
How about that DMCA case with the Russian guy. He broke a US law while in his home country and got in the shit over it. So US jurisdication covers the entire world and everyone elses' jurisdication only covers their own lands' and then only when it doesn't contradict US law?
vandan writes:
"How about that DMCA case with the Russian guy. He broke a US law while in his home country and got in the shit over it. So US jurisdication covers the entire world and everyone elses' jurisdication only covers their own lands' and then only when it doesn't contradict US law?"
To be fair, unless you have another post by this guy where he's cheerleading the US Gov't on that one, I really don't think you can hold it against him. Just because the MPAA gets away with sqwishing fair use doesn't mean I have to forfeit ever arguing fair use again.
My
Limekiller
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.
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.
Then quite a lot of western based clothing companies are theoretically treading on thin ice. Pornography, in Saudi, is not merely naked bodies. Bikini clad women count as well. So any clothing company that has a Saudi presence (and quite a lot do), and also makes/sells bikinis and probably has a catalog or ads depicting such, is, according to your statement, in danger of being sued by a Saudi court. Even if they do not export those particular items to Saudi Arabia.
So, the solution would seem to be either a) pander to the most restrictive countries on the planet, or b) do not sell goods anywhere but your own country.
I prefer C) this suit is a bunch of BS.