View Full Version : Be Care What We Post?
mikeky
12-11-2002, 05:47 PM
Should we be careful what we post? Are extradition papers in anyone's future?
<a href="http://news.com.com/2100-1023-976630.html">Australian court to hear Net case </a>
CANBERRA, Australia--Australia's highest court ruled Tuesday that a defamation case sparked by a story on a U.S Web site could be heard in Australia, opening a legal minefield for Web publishers over which libel laws they must follow.
The landmark ruling that an article published by Dow Jones was subject to Australian law--because it was downloaded in Australia--is being watched by media companies, as it could set a precedent for other cases.
ethics
12-11-2002, 05:49 PM
I hear cases like this almost monthly. There's a lot of loud noises many times but there's only a few I keep my eye on.
ditch
12-13-2002, 05:39 AM
It was also defaming, or so he claims, an Australian, Joseph Gutnick. That must be one of the major determinants of where the case is held as he is domiciled here also.
jamming
12-13-2002, 07:09 AM
That's OK ditch, after your court awards him money our court can give the company relief.
ditch
12-14-2002, 01:40 AM
I find it strange that where the article was downloaded can have any bearing on where the case is heard. So what if was downloaded in the US, should the case be held there?
jamming
12-14-2002, 03:16 AM
If that is true then anything in this forum would have to be able to not defame any entity in anyplace it was downloaded on the web. I think the Australian Court now and French Courts that have done this are over-reaching. But hey its there lawyer's dime, I think the Dow Jones will have some deep pockets to spend this out till the subject is long gone. His real only hpe is to settle this under seal of the court and declare he is satisfied with the agreement, if he wants the appearence of a win.
ditch
12-14-2002, 06:53 AM
Originally posted by jamming
If that is true then anything in this forum would have to be able to not defame any entity in anyplace it was downloaded on the web. I think the Australian Court now and French Courts that have done this are over-reaching. But hey its there lawyer's dime, I think the Dow Jones will have some deep pockets to spend this out till the subject is long gone. His real only hpe is to settle this under seal of the court and declare he is satisfied with the agreement, if he wants the appearence of a win.
This ruling has set a dangerous precedent. To quote from the Parish Pump a posting from Ken Parish, a legal academic,
"The real concern of publishers is that the Aust approach to accepting local jusidiction in internet publication disputes will spread to other countries. If it really becomes a major problem for corporate publishers [which I doubt], they may pressure the US govt to push for an international treaty requiring other countries to adopt the American "single publication" rule. Just as pressure from the world's only economic superpower ensured almost universal adoption of the Copyright Convention and the GATT and WTO [trade] agreements, so a determined US push to protect internet publishers from multiple lawsuits would probably succeed too."
Another view from the UK's James Wallis sourced from MetaFilter online forum,
"The internet's a global medium; you can publish to the entire world with the press of a button. With great power should come at least some responsibility"