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."

Comments

Disclaimer

[SparkyMartin]

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.

Re:Disclaimer

[tc]

Doesn't work. The person being defamed/libelled is a third party, not the reader of the site. They could sue for libel without ever having read the site, or encountering your proposed disclaimer.

Question about the precendence this sets...

[Maul]

#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?

Re:Question about the precendence this sets...

[spindizzy]

Yes they can still try you but of course enforcing the judgement is problematic. As part of the judgement would probably be a court order requiring removal of the offending remarks it could lead to your content being blocked within Australia (although as Defamation is done at a State level here it shold really only apply within that state). Of course it would be nearly impossible to enforce the financial part of the judgement unless you gained some sort of financial status within the country.
The US government wouldn't extradite you on a civil matter ( defamation is a civil matter, libel a criminal one ).

BTW Truth is not necessarily a defence against defamation in Australia, if intent to cause harm is the motive you can still lose a case. The defamation laws are highly tilted in the favour of the rich over here.

Re:Geeeez...

[Capsaicin]

It can be used as precendent where the laws are comparable

Not exactly a precedent (ie binding), but certainly as pursasive. The other problem (from a publisher's point of view), is that if internet publishing isn't brought to its knees by Australian defamation actions, it will become a lot more difficult to argue that adopting a non-traditional view of where defamation takes place is vitally necessary for the survival of web based publication.

For example, in the United States, the DMCA...

[yerricde]

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?

This is problematic

[dh003i]

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.