May not be applicable for most, but I find the easiest way is to work it in with jet lag. Next time you take a long time-shifting flight, and you'll be at the destination a while, don't drink coffee at a regular time (or none at all) once you arrive. The caffeine withdrawal gets mixed up in the jet lag and time zone mismatch (ie your Sydney morning coffee craving comes on at 10pm London time), and you get over it.
Of course, to be of value you mustn't start up again when you get home, which I usually do cos it tastes so darn good...
I thought FatWallet had taken down some of the content already in response to some of the notices... I'd need further details to be sure (eg whether or not the take-down notices are expressed to have continuing effect), but wonder whether the controversy generated by those particular notices would be moot? (IAAL, but this is not legal advice)
Watching/.'rs comment on law is amazing . The whole thing is simple:
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.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, to be of value you mustn't start up again when you get home, which I usually do cos it tastes so darn good...
I thought FatWallet had taken down some of the content already in response to some of the notices ... I'd need further details to be sure (eg whether or not the take-down notices are expressed to have continuing effect), but wonder whether the controversy generated by those particular notices would be moot? (IAAL, but this is not legal advice)
Actually, I think this was the Pr0n version, and it wasn't Harry but Hermione... :)
Not as much as smack-stashing does.
Don't forget -- lawyers charge by the word!
That will be $38, thanks. :)
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.