Dow Jones to defend the action - smh.com.au: In a unanimous landmark decision that could have worldwide implications for internet publishers, the High Court dismissed an appeal related to Mr Gutnick's defamation case against Dow Jones. Dow Jones had appealed against a Victorian Supreme Court decision which allowed Mr Gutnick to sue Dow Jones in his home state, with the news group saying the place the material was put on the internet was the place to sue - in this case, the United States. But the court said a defamation action could be brought wherever the information was viewed. Other factors would limit the number of cases which could be brought.
So in other words, Mr Gutnick could, if he had the time and money, take planes to every nation in the world with internet access, find a computer, connect, and view the piece, and then charge defamation.
That doesn't even make sense.
I can understand Dow Jones' position that the actual information was placed online by a US company on a US-sited server, so therefore, the suit would need to be handled in the US. I can even understand, if not precisely agree with, the contention that because Mr Gutnick viewed the information in Australia, and was resident in Australia, that the defamation therefore took place in Australia and that's where the suit should be sited. That makes a certain amount of sense.
But anyone, anywhere? How on earth will you be able to say anything, ever? And if the person is not resident in the country, and doesn't have business or other interests that can be confiscated, in the jurisdiction where the suit is brought, how will you enforce judgement?
It will be interesting to see what happens during the actual defamation case itself. As I understand it, Australian libel laws are considerably more strict than those in the US.
Posted by iain at December 10, 2002 05:59 PMComments
