Merlin
12-11-2002, 06:20 AM
Saw this in today's Financial Times and thought some might find it interesting...
Australia court gives landmark ruling on internet law
By Nikki Tait in London and Patti Waldmeir in Washington
Financial Times; Dec 11, 2002
----------------------------------------------------------------
Australia's highest court shook up internet law yesterday with a landmark ruling that an Australian mining entrepreneur could sue Dow Jones, the US-based news group, locally for defamation over an article on a website.
The ruling is believed to be the first in which the highest court in any country has ruled on the jurisdiction issue in a defamation case involving internet-based publication.
Some lawyers suggested it might also be the first by a court at that level involving international jurisdiction and the internet generally.
Its implications could be significant for US-based publishers because many countries, including Australia and the UK, are viewed as having much more stringent libel and defamation laws than the US itself. Freedom of speech enjoys constitutional protection there - making defamation actions less likely to succeed.
Legal experts said the ruling could expose US publishers to greater liability worldwide. "This ruling has enormous importance," said Michael Geist, an expert on internet jurisdiction at the University of Ottawa. "It is bound to have a significant impact not just in Australia but worldwide."
In London, Rod Dadak, at the Lewis Silkin law firm, also described the ruling as "very important".
The case involved Joseph Gutnick, a Melbourne-based businessman, who alleges that he was defamed in an article posted on the WSJ.com website, run by Dow Jones, and including "Barron's Online". Mr Gutnick said that he wanted to have his reputation in the Australian state of Victoria, where he lives, vindicated.
Dow Jones argued that articles published in Barron's Online were actually published in New Jersey, when they became available on the servers which the news group maintains there.
It argued that it was preferable that a publisher of material on the web be able to govern its conduct according to the law of the place where it maintained its web servers, unless that place was merely "adventitious or opportunistic". If not, the news group argued, a publisher would be bound to take account of the law of every country. Media and internet commerce companies also contributed their views.
But the High Court of Australia said the defamation was ordinarily to be located at the place where the damage to reputation occured - and where the information was available in comprehensible form. "Ordinarily, then, that will be the place where the tort of defamation occurs," ruled one of the judges. The court did not decide on the merits of Mr Gutnick's defamation claim.
Lawyers in London said that this was in line with the general principle that publication occurred at the point where an article was read or an email opened, say. Defamation would normally occur at that point, provided an individual had a reputation in the jurisdication to defend.
Margaret Stewart, part of a team of legal academics which published a recent report on internet jurisdiction for the American Bar Association, also said that the ruling was in line with US Supreme Court precedent in libel cases.
The court has ruled that a Califonian woman could sue a Florida author for an article which she claimed libelled her even though the Florida man had never set foot in California.
Australia court gives landmark ruling on internet law
Australia court gives landmark ruling on internet law
By Nikki Tait in London and Patti Waldmeir in Washington
Financial Times; Dec 11, 2002
----------------------------------------------------------------
Australia's highest court shook up internet law yesterday with a landmark ruling that an Australian mining entrepreneur could sue Dow Jones, the US-based news group, locally for defamation over an article on a website.
The ruling is believed to be the first in which the highest court in any country has ruled on the jurisdiction issue in a defamation case involving internet-based publication.
Some lawyers suggested it might also be the first by a court at that level involving international jurisdiction and the internet generally.
Its implications could be significant for US-based publishers because many countries, including Australia and the UK, are viewed as having much more stringent libel and defamation laws than the US itself. Freedom of speech enjoys constitutional protection there - making defamation actions less likely to succeed.
Legal experts said the ruling could expose US publishers to greater liability worldwide. "This ruling has enormous importance," said Michael Geist, an expert on internet jurisdiction at the University of Ottawa. "It is bound to have a significant impact not just in Australia but worldwide."
In London, Rod Dadak, at the Lewis Silkin law firm, also described the ruling as "very important".
The case involved Joseph Gutnick, a Melbourne-based businessman, who alleges that he was defamed in an article posted on the WSJ.com website, run by Dow Jones, and including "Barron's Online". Mr Gutnick said that he wanted to have his reputation in the Australian state of Victoria, where he lives, vindicated.
Dow Jones argued that articles published in Barron's Online were actually published in New Jersey, when they became available on the servers which the news group maintains there.
It argued that it was preferable that a publisher of material on the web be able to govern its conduct according to the law of the place where it maintained its web servers, unless that place was merely "adventitious or opportunistic". If not, the news group argued, a publisher would be bound to take account of the law of every country. Media and internet commerce companies also contributed their views.
But the High Court of Australia said the defamation was ordinarily to be located at the place where the damage to reputation occured - and where the information was available in comprehensible form. "Ordinarily, then, that will be the place where the tort of defamation occurs," ruled one of the judges. The court did not decide on the merits of Mr Gutnick's defamation claim.
Lawyers in London said that this was in line with the general principle that publication occurred at the point where an article was read or an email opened, say. Defamation would normally occur at that point, provided an individual had a reputation in the jurisdication to defend.
Margaret Stewart, part of a team of legal academics which published a recent report on internet jurisdiction for the American Bar Association, also said that the ruling was in line with US Supreme Court precedent in libel cases.
The court has ruled that a Califonian woman could sue a Florida author for an article which she claimed libelled her even though the Florida man had never set foot in California.
Australia court gives landmark ruling on internet law