|
If the US is trying to enforce its intellectual property laws all over the world, it seems reasonable for Australia to enforce its libel laws in its own country. Globalization sometimes bites the imperial power....... arthur WHERE IS THE INTERNET? If a citizen of Country X believes he's been libeled by a magazine published in Country Y, does he sue in Country X or Country Y? Australian mining magnate Joseph Gutnick chose Australia to file his lawsuit against Dow Jones, publisher of Barron's magazine, which he alleges defamed him. Australia's highest court has just ruled that it has jurisdiction over the case, and Gutnick says that publishers will now "have to be very careful what they put on the Net. The Net is no different from a regular newspaper. You have to be careful what you write." Australia's high court has ruled that Dow Jones can be sued in Australia for an article that appeared on their website. The defamation suit was launched by Australian mining magnate Joseph Gutnik, who argued that the unflattering article about him on Dow's Barron's website could be read on the Internet by people who know him in Melbourne. Dow Jones argued that the article was published on its web site in the United States and wanted the case heard there. The case is a major precedent, because the First Amendment can no longer protect publishers if they are sued in non-US jurisdictions. Some say the case will cause a major increase in litigation, and will force online publishers to review the content of their websites. Publishers can now face potential liability anywhere in the world. http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/4703935.htmAustralia
WHERE IS THE INTERNET ? (2) In ruling that businessman Joseph Gutnick had the right to sue Dow Jones in Australia, the court held that material is published where it is downloaded from the web - not where it is posted to the web. The difference is crucial. If the US-based global media company had persuaded the court otherwise, Mr Gutnick would have had to argue his case in the United States, where the contentious material was posted. The US has more lenient libel laws and a free speech regime. The decision is the first in the world by a superior court and confirms previous similar decisions. Legal commentators say it will have serious ramifications for internet publishers, who will need to be more cautious about web publishing. Mr Gutnick had sued Dow Jones - which distributes Barron's Online via the internet - over the article which was posted on the web from its offices in New Jersey in October 2000. The seven High Court justices unanimously rejected the Dow Jones argument that the US was the appropriate place to hear the case and that US laws should govern the defamation case. The Chief Justice, Murray Gleeson, said in a joint judgement: "It is where [the] person downloads the material that the damage to reputation may be done." But the judgement said the law could be developed to "recognise that the publisher may have acted reasonably" according to the laws of its own country. The court dismissed suggestions the internet was different from other broadcasters, which could decide how far their signal was to be transmitted. "It [the internet] is no more ubiquitous than some television services." The chief executive of the Australian Internet Association, Peter Coroneos, said "Certain publishers, particularly those with global operations, are going to be feeling more exposed after today's decision." Dow Jones said in a statement the result meant the company would have to defend itself against Mr Gutnick's defamation proceedings "in a jurisdiction which is far removed from the country in which the article was prepared and where the vast bulk of Barron's readership resides". Mr Gutnick said he was delighted with the decision, which allows him to proceed with his suit in the Victorian Supreme Court. "It will certainly be reestablished that the net is no different than the regular newspaper," he said. Until yesterday, the Internet was everywhere and nowhere. Now, legally speaking, it is where you log on to your computer. Media law experts agreed that yesterday's High Court ruling destroyed the theory that online publications were all but immune from legal action. Its implications, they said, would be onerous for big publishing companies with websites. The ruling was "a chilling result for Web publishers all over the world", said media lawyer Peter Bartlett of Minter Ellison, "Publishers now need to be conscious of the defamation laws in a whole range of countries." John Swinson, of Mallesons Stephen Jaques, suggested Australia could become the location for all defamation actions involving the Internet. "If Mick Jagger is defamed on a Dutch publisher's website, he may choose to sue ... for defamation in Australia rather than England or Holland." http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/12/10/1039379835064.html
|
- FW: Web sites and the courts Karen Watters Cole
- RE: Web sites and the courts Lawrence DeBivort
- Cordell . Arthur
