A Libel Suit May Establish E-Jurisdiction 187
BrianWCarver writes: "The NY Times (free registration blah blah...) is reporting that a libel suit may establish a precedent of allowing online publishers to be sued not in the jurisdiction where their servers reside, but in the jurisdiction of the complaintant. A warden at a Virginia jail didn't like the way he was portrayed by several Connecticut-based online news outlets so he sued in his home state of Virginia. "If the district court decision stands, online publishers could be sued for defamation in any state or country that an online article is read." The article goes on to worry that this will cause publishers to self-censor their online publishing to avoid offending anyone in any jurisdiction, whatsoever, which if carried to its logical conclusion, means online publishing would simply cease." This may remind you of an earlier case in which an Australian businessman sued Dow Jones for libel.
Update: 05/27 15:12 GMT by J : Jamie Love points out elsewhere that 60 countries, including the USA, are
negotiating a treaty
regarding Internet jurisdiction for libel and defamation.
Internet is not a paper (Score:3, Insightful)
Regards
Mikael
Freedom of the Press... (Score:3, Insightful)
There are some great ideas in the Constitution of the United States. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press may be the most important of all.
Re:Freedom of the Press... (Score:1)
Which is why the "Freedom of the Press" should be applied to internet publishing as well as paper. I believe that it was originally applied to pampheteers as well as as to newspaper publishers
Re:Freedom of the Press... (Score:2)
Do not be surprised that those in favor of centralized authority attempt to restrict the ability of others to communicate. It was ever so. The first ammendment was an attempt by some anti-centralists to tilt the balence in the direction they believed proper. It was nearly immediately followed by the "Alien and Sedition Acts". And this at a time when owning and running a press was expensive. Now
It's not surprising that the centralists are attempting through various methods to destroy the bill of rights. Disgusting, but not surprising. The problem that we face is "What is the most effective moral way to defeat them, and preserve the constitution?" I wish that I felt more optomistic, but our current government has felt rather free to run roughshod over several constitutional guarantees. I don't know how the courts will decide, but the recent history gives me small hope that they will act as a balence, and even if they (eventually) do it's likely to be a long time before even most of the most blatantly unconstitutional laws are thrown out. Unfortunately, the court is far from "non-political".
will they come to pick me up? (Score:3, Insightful)
Also.. it would be funny if, say, the Chinese Government will sue the US government for "talking about illegal things such as freedom", because those pages can be seen from China.
Or will this lead to country-based firewalls?
Re:will they come to pick me up? (Score:1, Insightful)
Would this be any foreigner? Any standards of law? Sharia?
or even (Score:2, Funny)
Re:or even (Score:2)
Or even more ironically the US attempts to sue the Russian newspaper, Pravda.
Re:will they come to pick me up? (Score:1)
-- "Yes, Your Honour, I beleive CNN has done permanent and irrepairable harm to my reputation"
Re:will they come to pick me up? (Score:2)
Presumably refering to the idea of Osama Bin Laden suing news agencies.
Claiming that the information is true is a possible defence. But the defendant would need to be able to demonstrate that they at least had good reason for believing it to be true. When it comes to Osama Bin Laden we have perported "evidence" and conspiracy theories with strong government and press backing.
Hardly real evidence of any of the claims made. Given an impartial court he'd probably win...
Re:will they come to pick me up? (Score:2)
The question is not whether Bin Laden could win but whether he could sue, and sue he certainly could and probably cause CNN massive costs in the process. There is actual precedent for this, the 'historian' David Irving recently sued a number of publications who labelled him a neo-Nazi sympathizers. While the jury decided against him the costs for the defence were enormous and will probably never be recovered.
The Times of London is currently fighting a libel battle against a Russian ogliarch arising from a story that was originally sourced from MI6 briefings. The BBC just paid a major settlement to officials of a mining company that the BBC reported as being linked to Al Quaeda on the basis of public statements by US officials.
When it comes to Osama Bin Laden we have perported "evidence" and conspiracy theories with strong government and press backing. Hardly real evidence of any of the claims made. Given an impartial court he'd probably win...
I somehow doubt it given the numerous statements Bin Laden has made in public, in particular the declaration of war against the US and the post 9-11 videos of him gloating.
However there are plenty of examples of the US and other powers making similar claims which later proved to be false, and in some cases turned out to have been deliberate lies. I don't think it is such a bad thing if the likes of CNN do not simply repeat unsubstantiated claims made by the administration. I for one have got somewhat suspicious of the fact that the announcement of possible terror alerts appears to coincide with criticism of the administration.
Re:will they come to pick me up? (Score:4, Informative)
I believe it's only a matter of time until all countries firewall their Intenet access. The US will likely be forced to if the various copy-control bills are passed, because it will be illegal for anyone to download almost anything that doesn't have copy control support built in. They'll also likely be built to keep hostile nations out. It won't be the Iron Curtain. It's be the Iron Firewall. News flash people. The Internet is as much of a place as anyplace else. It can and will be controlled by whomever has the political clout to do so. All this free-love wishful thinking of the past few years is finally starting to be brought down, and the Internet shown for what it really is, just another piece of land to be grabbed, squatted, exploited, fought over, died for, invaded, and buried in. It's landfill. An internal virtual moon built by many people the world over, who didn't change into anything else just because they logged on the Internet.
Re:will they come to pick me up? (Score:2)
Re:will they come to pick me up? (Score:2)
A single point of control is not a necessary feature of the internet. It was a design decision. It is an artificially created single point of failure. Similarly for the National NICs*. There was no reason for those to be designed in such a centralized manner. But it gave some one person control over a large amount of
It's always hard to separate intentions from effects. I couldn't say what the intentions of the people who designed this were. Perhaps they just grabbed the first workable design that they thought of. (Schools, armies, corporations
But the effects were to build centralized weaknesses into a system that was originally intended to be resistant to attack. And which originally was resistant. (DNS is an add-on to the original system. So is a centrallized TCP/IP # registry.)
* I'm not sure that "National NIC" is the correct term. I mean the central registry that associates TCP/IP #'s with their symbolic equivalents.
Re:will they come to pick me up? (Score:2)
No, the will send you an official letter, which you will then throw in the bin and forget about.
Re:will they come to pick me up? (Score:1)
Said this before (Score:3, Insightful)
About 15 years ago, I heard that Iran had contacted the US govt and demanded that they hand over Madonna and Michael Jackson so that they could be put to death on obscenity charges.
(For some reason, the US chose not to...)
Yet, the US feels free to nab Skylaroff and that kid in Norway for doing stuff legal where they live.
Here in Japan, it seems to be legal to publish photos and videos of young teenagers that would get you put away for years in the US, yet pornography that is legal in the US is quite illegal here. They even go as far as to sandpaper away the "naughty bits" from every copy of Playboy and Penthouse imported into Japan. Who's right?
Maybe the best thing is to have the equivalent of that little "Kosher" mark on websites like they have on food, then let the viewer filter as they like. Then limit access to the internet to adults.
But then again, the US will probably just force its standards upon the rest of the world like they always do.
Also... (Score:2)
Don't forget a certain President of Panama, still being held (technically as a prisoner of war, I believe).
Very Dangerous (Score:1)
Re:Very Dangerous (Score:3, Insightful)
Your crowds must be a bit wimpy (Score:1)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Very Dangerous (Score:2)
Believe what you like then, but if you ever decide to put that belief to the test, do not be surprised if things turn out badly. I do not think that even the likes of the ACLU would condone outright slander and defamation.
There are limits to freedom of expression, and I would go so far as to argue that there must be limits. Sure, we have to do distasteful things like permit the dumb-ass rednecks of the KKK to hold their marches and rallys, but we do so knowing that they are exposing their ignorance to the world. They are allowed to voice their opinions (however objectionable) as per the same laws that permit others to disagree with the government, the media, and other citizens.
However, I think it would be considered a crime if a private citizen were to publicly announce a bounty on the head of another person. In fact, I am pretty sure that it would be a crime if I privately offered to pay someone to kill another person. I doubt that this would be considered freedom of speech.
Sorry dude, but you can't say whatever you want...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Very Dangerous (Score:2)
Other speech can be considered to be under protection as well. The DECSS folks wrote a program that decrypts DVD's and that program, now that I think about it, could be considered damaging speech. Although I don't agree with that view of DeCSS...I think all the writers wanted to do was watch a DVD on a non blessed system....something that IMPROVES DVD sales, not hurt them. It's still uneconomical to copy DVD's. They have NOTHING to worry about there, plus DeCSS isn't necessary to copy a DVD if you just do it bit by bit.
Besides....the stuff I am talking about is just common sense. People say stuff all of the time without thinking...I won't be surprised if someone who thinks they are just joking with someone get's sued because of the "joke". The point is if I go talk to Joe's boss and say something like Joe tokes up a joint every day before work without proof and a keep saying it to people through the company...people will believe it and that's something the first amendment was never meant to protect.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Very Dangerous (Score:2)
Yes I am saying that it isn't protected if it turns to slander and gossip could very well do just that. The DMCA is a bad law and in my opinion has NOTHING to do with free speech (unless you say your speech is held back because you can't copy a movie or afford a DVD blank/burner because of the cost.....which is laughable.). You simply cannot go about saying stuff that is untrue without getting into trouble dude. Both with the law, and with the person. I say to you read the first amendment and thne THINK about what the authors went through. Even they had admitted that there can and should be limits (within reason). You impress me a slipery slope kind of person who says that once it happens once, it all goes down hill. I quite frankly never believed in the slippery slope. There is none. Our government was designed to prevent it. Also, I frankly DON'T agree with some of the anti terrorist things implemented since 9/11 and do believe they are unconstitutional. If the government would have actually had the manpower to actually enforce existing immigration laws, then 9/11 would never had happened or if it did have to happen, it may hve happened differently. Several of our high jackers were in the country illegally in the first place. If they were actually deported, sure, someone else may have done it or they may have done it a different way (like from a airline that is not US based), but the attacks would have been seen long before they happened and we may have had time to react.
Believe what you must about the first amendment. I agree that 99 percent of speech can be and shoud be free, but that 1 percent would cause a whole lot of people greif. Also, go an try and test this in your own life. Go and start dropping tips on some upcoming stock IPO and see if the SEC doesn't come after you if they turn out to be false. Go and tell your boss your cube mate smokes pot everyday. You will see how fast you get smacked with a lawsuit. Oh and as for references, search for them yourself. The court records are public you know. Also, I found a good PDF that logically defends my position here at this [fas.org] URL. Here [csulb.edu] is another page covering it as well. I mean really alot of this is common sense and to say ALL SPEECH SHALL BE PROTECTED is irresponsible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Very Dangerous (Score:2)
This includes being able to recognise "gossip" even when it perports to be something else. Or is uttered by a "journalist" or politican.(Indeed especially from the latter.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Very Dangerous (Score:2, Funny)
It's worse then that. I once shouted it in a theater that was only half full. They got me anyway. Fascists.
Re:Very Dangerous (Score:2)
Libel cannot be a protected speech
Slander cannot be a protected speech
Defaming speech cannot be a protected speech.
Some can say that restricts speech....no it does not. Sure, you can say it, but you will face the consequences if it damages someone reputation beyond repair.
Re:Very Dangerous (Score:2)
Global censorship (Score:2, Informative)
Just have a look at what happend to Salman Rushdie.
Trip
Re:Global censorship (Score:1)
Just a minute (Score:1)
This isn't even larger than the states... how would it even carry any weight outside the US?
Re:Just a minute (Score:3, Insightful)
Plus, through in the fact that this is a civil case, not a criminal one. In a criminal case, you must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil case, the guilt only needs to be established by a preponderance of evidence. What that means is in a civil case, it has to be "more likely then not" that guilt is evident. (This is, btw, how OJ was liable for the deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman in a civil court, regardless of the fact that he had been found not guilty earlier in a criminal court.)
What this all boils down to is that _if_ this case goes through in Virginia, and _if_ the publisher is found guilty of libel, then it is possible that the decision may be used to affect other cases in other states. But there is also a good chance of this heading up to Appeals Court, and maybe even to the Supreme Court.
IANAL,
Kierthos
Re:Just a minute (Score:2)
Well, actually, the term comes from the Constitution
The reason for this principle was a feeling among the framers of the Constitution that a plaintiff should only have to win his suit one time.
in any country?? (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't understand this. Surely this just applies to the USA, not any country? Do they mean that, if, for instance, a UK publisher published something that was libellous under, say, Japanese law, then they could sue them in the USA? That would be most odd. Or do they mean that if something is libellous in any state of the USA, any pulisher in the world could be sued under USA law, even if they are not resident in that country? That would also seem strange. Or is this just an arrogant assumption that US laws apply everywhere else in the world?
Not any country - not yet (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not any country - not yet (Score:2)
They can. But (apart from the case of very large companies) what's the point? If I was found guilty in the USA of breaking USA law, all they could do is send me a letter telling me off. I don't have any assets in the USA, nor does my company. The only inconvenience for me personally would be that I wouldn't be able to travel to the USA whilst the convinction stood, which wouldn't be a big deal for the personally.
As a resident of the USA, would you really be that bothered if a court in Japan (for instance) found you guilty of breaking a Japanese law?
Re:Not any country - not yet (Score:2)
There is one exception, and that's commerce. If you do business with someone in another jurisdiction, you are subject to the commerce laws in that jurisdiction.
Of course, this is taken to stupid extremes, like the California court which was convinced that Matthew Pavlovich could be tried there in the DeCSS case because a lot of movies are made there and a lot of computers are made there, and so anything which involves computers and movies are fair game.
Re:Not any country - not yet (Score:2)
Unless, it appears, country B is the USA. e.g. the Skylaroff case.
There are also sound countries which attempt to apply their own laws to their citizens, whereever they may happen to be.
Re:in any country?? (Score:2)
Re:in any country?? (Score:1)
I think it would be ironic for a country claiming to be democratic. In a real democracy, people would vote against such a law being introduced. I'm sure the president has done things that would be considered illegal by other countries.
Re:in any country?? (Score:2)
Same situation except that what China calls freedom differs from my definition of freedom.
The sadest bit about this is that the President of the US needs to be more alert to what is going on in his own backyard. But he will not do anything because he is at "war" with terrorism. Not to downplay the necessity, but there are other problems in this world that need attention as well.
Re:in any country?? (Score:1)
Re:RTFA (Score:2)
You are so full of crap. What you've highlighted isn't even an opinion, it's a statement from a lawyer trying to defend his position by referring to USA law. You're treating it as if it is fact.
Re:RTFA (Score:2)
You are so full of crap. What you've highlighted isn't even an opinion, it's a statement from a lawyer trying to defend his position by referring to USA law. You're treating it as if it is fact.
Reading the original statement it is quite clear that the possibility 'could' exist. So the statement made is a literal fact, just as the statement 'Jimmy Carter could run again for a second term' is a litteral fact even though it is entirely unlikely that he will.
Non-US courts have repeatedly asserted extra-territorial jurisdiction over US citizens, the Us has little room to complain in this respect however since the US has passed more laws claiming extra-territorial jurisdiction than any other. The infamous Helm-Burton act attempts to prosecute foreign companies for doing business with Cuba. But extra-terriroial law can be justifiable Osama Bin-Laden was charged with 'conspiring to murder US citizens abroad'. The US civil courts have recognised extra-territorial claims arrising out of the Holocaust.
Extra-territorial judgements are a primary source of what is called international law. However before getting steamed up, consider the fact that most countries court systems are over-loaded and so they tend to attempt to minimise their scope. So for example when a copule of US citizens tried to bring a libel action in the UK against a US company over an Internet publication the case was rejected on the grounds that the plaintifs had recourse in another jurisdiction that was more appropriate. On the other hand a Greek PM was able to bring a libel suit against a Greek newspaper with a tiny UK circulation as in that case Greek law did not permit a case to be brought.
There is however a much closer relationship between the law in the UK (except Scotland), the US and Australia, all are based on English common law and precedents in one jurisdiction may be raised in another. Such precedents are not binding, in much the same way that a judgement in the 1st Federal circuit is not binding on the 5th but can certainly be introduced and may carry weight. The whole point of common law is that the law should not be capricious and should be as predictable as possible so it is not a good thing if courts in one common law jurisdiction takes a different approach to another in the same circumstances.
I do not see the rulling haveing any effect on non-US courts however as the principle that a citizen can sue a US company in their local over a publication made on the Internet is already well established in most jurisdictions. I suspect that the rulling is more significant when it comes to enforcing a judgement. At the moment there is little point in bringing a suit in the UK against a US resident as the US resident can effectively resist collection through the US courts for an indefinite period.
Related Links (Score:4, Insightful)
If you are interested in Virginia's prison problem, including the so-called "supermax" prisions, and the insane shit that goes down at one of them, check out the following sites.
Committee to end the lockdown at Marion (old) [umass.edu]
Drugsense [drugsense.org]
Human Rights Watch [hrw.org]
November.org [november.org]
In Virginia, prison is a big business, we import criminals to fill our prisons, and it's used as a source of revenue. On-duty cops are paid state funds to lobby the state legislature for harsher laws. Police, as a organized group, should not have a political voice, they are supposed to enforce the laws, not create them.
I'm no liberal, I believe in strict enforcement of sane laws. But when you have police writing the laws, to protect and expand their own industry, it does not serve the public's best interest.
Same in California (Score:2)
*sigh* (Score:3, Informative)
If this case is won or even if the jurisdiction is accepted and upheld it does present a grave danger to free expression on the web. Not all countries have the same standard for libel/slander.
As for other countries sueing America. Remember this is America. We never listen to international law when it doesn't suit us, but that is another discussion.
Re:*sigh* (Score:1)
Publishing "the truth" about someone has not usually been enough of a defense. I think (but IsureANAL) that you also have to establish that it's "in the public interest". But again, my high school social studies class is a long time in the past...
Be good if some lawyers could post on this....
Re:*sigh* (Score:1)
Re:*sigh* (Score:2)
This is the era that the above saying comes from.
Re:*sigh* (Score:2)
This allows me to say the following
"George W Bush is a 2 dimenitonal carracter who takes orders from a sock"
UK citizens who watch 2DTV will know what I'm talking about.
However, I've probably blown any chance of seeing my brother in the US this year
Re:*sigh* (Score:2)
"You have the right to remain silent, if you give up that right, anything you say can an will be misquoted and then used agianst you.
Thankfully, nothing like that would ever happen here on Slahdot.
Oh, wait.
.
Re:*sigh* (Score:1, Flamebait)
This is oft repeated, but is not true. Libel is defamation of character, not lies about somebody. It is perfectly possible to libel someone with the truth. One way is omission - saying about somebody "She attends the sexually transmitted diseases clinic daily." may well be truthful, but leaving out the fact that she is a nurse there makes it defamatory, and hence potentially libellous.
In some juristictions (such as the UK) there are classes of statements that, while true, are automatically considered defametory and therefore libellous - these are statements made about people with "spent" criminal convictions. Under the rehabilitation of offenders act it is libel to mention to any unqualified body about certain criminal offencese in a persons past. There are usually minor crimes, and they become spent after five years.
Libel must have a specific intent to be injurious
No intent is necessary, although presence of intent obviously influences damages.
must be a knowing falshood
Obviously not, in light of the previous answer. Neglecting that it is still not true. There is also recklessness: if you publish something with a disregard for whether it is true or not then you can be guilty of libel if it is false even if you didn't know it was false at the time.
Re:*sigh* (Score:2)
Internet Jurisdiction section on FindLaw (Score:4, Informative)
For example: http://profs.lp.findlaw.com/netjuris/netjuris_1.ht ml [findlaw.com]
(emphasis added)
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) [sethf.com]
huh? (Score:1, Interesting)
I seem to recall that here in the UK demon internet wasn't held to account for a posting on one of it's websites/forums, but the user that posted was. There was also a similar case regarding the friendsreunited.co.uk website where the poster was sued, not the publisher.
The US is certainly the 3rd largest country in the world - and is the strongest ecconomic power, but that doesn't mean that the rest of the world follows it's dumb-ass legal system.
---
P.S. I didn't post this - a big boy did it and ran away
Re:huh? (Score:2)
Unfortuantely you're wrong. The case you are referring to I think is one in which Demon was used by a teacher because some kids had posted libellous things (relating to the teacher's holiday to Bangkok) and the teacher thought that Demon should remove them. The court ruled against Demon, partly because the company did not remove the material when the teacher asked them to.
However, I agree that it's a good thing the rest of the world doesn't have laws like in the USA. I don't think laws allowing the ownership of firearms, not being allowed to drink until you're 21, and having to drive at ridiculously slow speeds on highways would be very popular in most of Europe!
Re:huh? - typo (Score:2)
Re:huh? (Score:3, Informative)
And so are you. This is the case of Lawrence Godfrey vs Demon Internet. The case was that somebody had posted a message that was forged to look like it came from Dr Godfrey, and was defamatory of him. This much all the parties agreed on.
Dr Godfrey faxed several ISPs and news providers in the UK and asked them to remove the posting form their newsspools (a mostly futile act it has to be said). Most complied but Demon, presumably thinking he was a usenet kook, didn't. Dr Godfrey followed up with several more faxes requesting action, but Demon refused to comply. So he sued demon for libel, as they were publishing the message in question. After much legal bickering (including the novel argument of "he was asking for it") Demon lost. A good account can be found at cyberrights [cyber-rights.org].
Dr Godfrey is a University lecturer BTW.
Re:huh? (Score:1)
You mean there's more than one George W.??
Death of on-line publication? (Score:3, Insightful)
Surely the above paragraph could also be applied to national newspapers, national broadcast news, national magazines...basically anything created in one place but available everywhere.
The fact that nationally-available media is still created and published probably means that online media would also still be created and published.
Cheers,
Ian
Disclaimer: Not only am I not a lawyer but I'm British, which means I have no idea about American laws in these circumstances.
The Common Denominator Effect (Score:3, Insightful)
This is to be expected. Whenever you try to plug dissimilar systems :^).
together you get the common denominator effect. Recall the old
cross-platform applications back when there were legitimately
multiple available operating systems
But seriously, The solution to this is a uniform set of laws
internationally and a uniform set of constitutional rights.
Since national sovereignty isn't going away anytime soon we have
an impasse. So common denominator effect rules and there isn't
much you can do about it. Hiding behind sovereignty will only
last a while since economic dependencies will eventually
override this last wall of defense.
Expect things to get allot worse before they get any better since
the people who can effect the needed changes have to answer to
constituents who won't stand for dilution of their rights or
ill-gotten privileges.
The Internet was to bring us all together - what we didn't realise
is that we don't really all LIKE each other, but the genie is out of
the bottle so hang on it's gonna get rough.
Isn't this just yet another reason... (Score:5, Interesting)
...for international businesses to not have a US subsidiary that can be sequestered in these cases? Remember that in many countries, courts habitually award legal fees to the winner, so frivilous lawsuits are less tempting. Not so in the US, where you have to pay to defend yourself, then pay to launch a counter suit to recover your fees, and it's much easier to use litigation to silence those who can't afford to defend themselves. Bottom feeders like $cientology Inc will be watching this case with great interest, I suspect.
Re:Isn't this just yet another reason... (Score:2)
A least Malda won't have to worry. (Score:5, Funny)
Controlling the internet? (Score:3, Interesting)
So what would happen if I wrote something that defamated a US citizen? I live in Canada and US laws don't apply here. I'll give the one finger salute to the FBI, or what US agency that comes a knocking at my door.
Re:Controlling the internet? (Score:1)
Oh man... they just don't get it. (Score:1)
Consider this: What if this silly idea is allowed? If they decide that a state can claim jurisdiction over a web site because any ammount of content is delivered there, what's to stop them from claiming that they're owed income tax on the profits reaped for ad placement on pages delivered to that state or, for that matter, a "fair" portion of taxes paid because they now consider them to be doing business in that state?
To further muddy the waters, consider a company like AOL, they have a large number of caches scattered around the country, where does jurisdiction lie?
If this silly idea is allowed to fly, it would be a huge can of worms. There's no way this can possibly stand in any reasonable court.
I might have to agree here (Score:1)
If I can read an online article online then I would have to agree that it *is* being published in my juristiction. I think a simple way around this is creating generic registrations which require a user to log-in. There is no need to specify a name or anything, but a user could specify their country. If they want to lie, go ahead, but at least then they can't sue anywhere but in the juristiction that they specified.
IMO if you are writing an article about someone somewhere else, you still need to be accountable for what you write. Just because they may live half-way around the world doesn't mean you can say whatever you please. If the DJ article wasnt' meant to be read in Australia, then don't allow Australians to read it. Obviously the article was meant to be published in Austratlia (they say the ship print copies there) so they should be accountable for what they say about someone there.
Just my 2 cents CDN (about 1 cent USD)
Any country? (Score:1)
How can a District Court decision affect what is considered to be right or wrong in Another Country? Not living in America, there is no rational or logical reason for what someone in a disctrict court that I've never heard of to punish me for something I've published on my web server in Another Country. If they want to sue me, they should come to my country and do so. What if I was to buy alcohol when I'm under 21? That's illegal in some states. Would they try to fine me even if I was consuming it in another country? This just seems silly to me.
Re:Any country? (Score:1)
Apart from idealistic arguments (I personally believe that the great success of the Internet is due to is anarchistic character), this is just plain scary. One can't possibly know every country's law concerning a piece of content, so it may well be illegal in another country (especially because some countries do not have freedom of expression, and even in countries that do there usually are limitations). But not only the poster, also the hosting provider (although they usually have some sort of disclaimer in their Terms of Use), and even merely linking to sites that offer ``illegal'' content has been reason enough to fine site operators, which is a great threat to search engines like Google, who just index everything there is.
For those who don't know yet... (Score:1)
"I AM the Law" (Score:1)
Hague Convention (Score:4, Informative)
I was pretty surprised that Carl Kaplan did not mention the fact that 60 countries are negotiating a treaty that may set international jurisdiction rules for libel and defamation cases. The NYT continues to ignore this treaty, and here the omission is really pretty stark.
[cptech.org]
http://www.cptech.org/ecom/jurisdiction/hague.h
Re:Hague Convention (Score:2)
(Actually, the update indicates that this treaty was mentioned, but appearantly it's quite easy to overlook.)
I need a lawyer to answer these questions (Score:2)
The suit is being filed in federal court. Is this normal for cases of libel? Does the federal government provide remedies for someone being called a racist? If it is normal, then it would be right for the case to be held close to the person supposedly grieved.
Second, why does this not apply to dead tree news or broadcast news? The article mentioned some bull about no paper circulation. I imagine that 99.99% of all PCs in the area don't get this newspaper either. You would think that anyone anywhere can "access" any form of news.
The sky is falling hte sky is falling! (Score:2, Insightful)
If a publisher is sure that their stories are well researched and the reporters have sufficient evidence to back up their stories, then there it doesn't matter what state you get sued in. The publisher wins. I think the problem comes when publishers (and other media for that matter) that have in the past published blatant lies, but are protected by a certain states week libel laws.
Isn't it a good thing that the press can be called to the mat for their untruths? I remember at one time the NY times oft quoted as "All the news that fitted to print". Yes inded, they WERE that bad (late 70's early 80s) After a change at the head of that ship, the NY times has redeemed much of it's former reputation. I believe a few law suits helped it along it's way.
Get a grip chicken little, the sky isn't falling.
cluge
Umm... The Sky *really* is falling (Score:2)
The KEY controversy isn't about libel and the 1st amendment, it's about jurisdiction. I suspect you may have picked that up, but your post didn't convince me you did.
I think the problem comes when publishers (and other media for that matter) that have in the past published blatant lies, but are protected by a certain states week libel laws.
I have a problem with states with vague and overbroad libel laws that can be easily exploited. How about you keep your libel laws in your state, and I'll keep my libel laws in my state. For good faith, I won't publish anything in your state, so I can enjoy the freedoms in my state.
Broadcasters and Newspapers are able to selectively publish and air to specific regions (large regions, but selective) if they want to avoid jurisdictional problems with specific broadcasts, if they choose.
This isn't the case with the Internet, how do you restrict which states can view your website and which can't?
The part that makes this a "The Sky is falling" scenerio is that a precident like this doesn't limit itself to libel, and opens itself up for exploitation from ambitious states who might want to silence more than just libel with thier own loose definitions in thier laws.
Forget speech for a moment, this type of jurisdiction ambiguity is practically inviting a state to legislate it's own tyrannical version of the DMCA and enforce it everywhere in the US because by being on the Internet, it's being trafficked in that State.
I'm not suggesting my scenerio will happen, it's too brash and understood by too many. Smart politicians like to legislate laws that seem harmless enough and are difficult to explain, but are effective for whoever bought them.
I can understand the urge to go against the Slashdot crowd, as they're great at trivializing issues like this with trite and obtuse interpretations, just try to resist turning it into a knee jerk reaction.
Why this suit goes forth (& why it doesn't mat (Score:2, Insightful)
Now, let's throw all of that out the window, because it doesn't apply in the least to the case in question.
If the newspaper in this suit sells even one subscription or newsstand copy in the state the suit is being filed (which it does) then it's established what is called "minimum contacts." If it sells papers in Virginia, it can be sued in Virginia. That the questionable material was seen on the internet as opposed to in black & white is competely irrelevant -- the company is doing business in Virginia. So, while the slippery slope can certainly exist, it doesn't exist here.
Move along, people, nothing to see here.
Happend in The Netherlands already (Score:1)
Don't believe the FUD (Score:5, Interesting)
1) This is not a "new" idea, nor is it limited to the Internet. Believe it or not, there are parallels that can be drawn between the internet and the off-line world. This case seems not too different from the (in)famous Hustler case, in which Hustler Magazine was sued in New Hampshire, despite the fact that very few of its magazines were sold there.
2) Jurisdiction does not equal liability. Just because the VA court found personal jurisdiction over the defendants, does not mean they will be found guilty. As someone points out below, it is very very difficult to win an libel suit against a Media defendant. Several doctrines have been developed over the years that apply equally to the print and online worlds. This case sounds very similar to the facts in New York Times v. Sullivan, which sets the bar very high for public officials who sue newspapers.
3) On the flip side, just because I publish on the internet should not be license to dispense with all modicum of responsible reporting. Although I do not know the facts of this case, it sounds like the defendants will probably win, since they are reporting on the opinions of others. However, one of the ongoing complaints around the world (including here in the USA) about the American press is that they don't always report stories fairly. (Ask the Palestinians for instance). The basic (and difficult to establish) doctrine of liability for libel and defamation is a minimum check against irresponsible reporting.
3) Believe it or not, bad reporting can be very damaging to people who don't necessarily deserve to be pilloried. The number of cases of people who have been tarred and feathered in the press is too many to count. There are standards of reporting, and there is good practice in journalism. Reporters should be held to them whether they print online or on the bathroom walls.
4) This case is in Federal Court for a reason. One of the fundamental rights (Article III of the U.S. Const.) is that citizens of different states can sue each other in the federal courts; it's called "diversity" jurisdiction. The purpose is to ensure that, for instance, a Connecticut reporter doesn't find his fate entirely in the hands of an elected Virginia State judge. The federal courts (don't laugh) are expected to be somewhat more even-keeled than the unpredictable state courts. With a few notable exceptions (DeCSS, Napster) that actually tends to be true.
5) Jurisdiction does not equal liability II: Another issue often overlooked by non-lawyers is the law applied (i.e. the "Choice of law"). Even if the defendants win their motion to have the case dismissed or transferred to Connecticut, the plaintiff can still sue them, they would just have to do it in Connecticut. However, the law of libel, and Choice of law doctrine in 90% of the states says that, when an interstate libel occurs, you apply the law of the state where the most harm occurred. Since the defendant's reputation is largely in Virginia, you would apply Virginia law...even if you are in Connecticut state court (or federal court in Conn, which is where you would be under diversity jurisdiction).
6) The advantage that people are clamoring for here is that online defendants should be allowed to snipe from their home jurisdictions across the internet at whatever target is convenient. If the target of a possibly unjustified, and unfair, attack wants to do anything to defend themselves, they have to do so at great expense in a distant jurisdiction. Think about that, who does that really hurt? It hurts the little guy who can't afford to take his grievance a long way away. Large corporations can litigate anywhere, but individuals cannot. It is exactly this type of jurisdiction limiting that large corporations fight for, and usually sneak into contracts with their customers, so that they can avoid the majority of suits that would be brought against them. (For instance, "I would sue XYZ Corp. for their crappy product, but the license agreement says that all suits have to be brought in California, and I live in New York... I just can't afford it.")
In short, don't jump to conclusions just because the defendant happens to use the internet and the plaintiff appears to be some 18th century small-town southern lawman. People who know how to use the internet can be bad too, and when they are, the law should apply to them equally.
And IAAL.
Flame away,
automan
Re:Don't believe the FUD (Score:1)
automan
Re:Don't believe the FUD (Score:2)
- It does appear that this could benefit the little guy, except that not having to travel to file suit is cold comfort when one goes up against a multi-billion dollar corporation that can literally make the plaintiff's life hell, dig up his past, harass him/her and family, etc.
- Does your liking for this concept extend over national boundaries? I understand (from my study of law on Usenet <grin>) that Great Britain has libel laws that essentially make one liable if one hurts the plaintiff's feelings. I know I certainly don't want to a judgement in GB on behalf of some prick physicist (purely hypothetically speaking, of course, not being acquainted with any British physicists, mind you) who was offended because of a flamewar or something.
- IANAL, but couldn't this be contorted by judges to allow the country (or other jurisdiction) with the most repressive laws to make the rules for the entire Internet? (This argument should look familiar; it's one of the ones used against the CDA.)
Thanks for the nice writeup!
Re:Don't believe the FUD (Score:2, Interesting)
I think you will find that U.S. Courts don't pay much attention to what courts in other nations are doing. IIRC, there was a recent decision by a U.S. court to not enforce a British libel judgement because the U.S. Court found it repugnant to the U.S. Constitution.
What people should remember in the international context is that a Court in another country can say anything it wants, it doesn't mean that it has the power to enforce it. (Think of Salman Rushdie who was given a death sentence by the "courts" of Iran...it doesn't mean that Britain or the U.S. agreed to enforce that).
The concept of jurisdiction is directly equatable to the power of a court to compel (appearance, payment, incarceration etc.).
A person overseas may sue me in their own country (say, GB or Australia), but in order to actually collect (provided I don't voluntarily go to Australia or GB, or have assets there), they would have to bring that judgment to an Americancourt to enforce -- providing me with ample opportunity to argue under U.S. law. One of the main reasons a U.S. court will choose not to enforce a foreign judgment is if it believes the foreign court did not have jurisdiction to render the judgment. Thus, if the American court doesn' think the Australian court had jurisdiction, it won't enforce the judgment. What the Australian court will do with an American judgment is up to the Australians (I can't comment on that).
In another words, so long as you are in your own country (i.e., under the protection of your sovereign), no foreign court can do anything to you without your own government's permission (manifested through the Court System in the U.S.).
So even if the Courts of e.g. Iraq decide they have jurisdiction over me, I don't really care, so long as Baghdad isn't on my current vacation itinerary.
Also, I think that, while it is true that large corporations have the power/ability to make individual's lives hell, there are a lot of reasons this will not happen except in the unfortunate (and punishable) rare instance. Many states are adopting so-called SLAPP statutes to penalize plaintiffs who bring frivolous libel suits. Also, corporations (or any litigant) who abuses the court system (including the discovery process) to harrass their opponent faces stiff penalties. (And they are enforced). There are disturbing trends recently of corporations attempting to silence websites that are critical of them, but those efforts are mainly through the way-messed up Trademark line of attack. IP law in general is inimical of free speech. You won't get any argument from me that the IP laws are messed up and need overhaul. Also, the creation of WIPO and other "international" arbitration mechanisms screws up the balance of the courts.
I won't defend ICANN or WIPO.
automan
Sniping (Score:2)
Hoever me sitting in my little area, saying something that is legal and appropriate should not be prosecuted under the laws of some other far away land.
I feel a person should be judged by the laws under which they live, not the victim. For the internet this could be either the location where the content was created, or the location where the content was distributed from. The content only reached the 'victim' by his explicit request, like going to a newstand buying a paper and carrying it home.
This can be taken to either extreme.
Being prosecuted for supporting equal rights for women.
Being let off on murder.
How is true? (Score:2)
It should depend on the material (Score:2)
If the material is false, intended to deceive or mislead, or intended to destroy the reputation of a person, then it should have absolutely no protection whatsoever.
There is a grey area, but only if you are really reaching. "Reasonable satire", for example, would cover any emphasis of an existing, REAL trait. That is what satire is all about. In fact, it's what all classical art is about, too!
Its worse than that (Score:3, Interesting)
This generation of judges might treat computers as if they're magical and a special case to the death, but in a few hundred years, when these ones have all died off, we'll end up with case law that will restrict the behavior of smarter judges, who get that print is print, wherever it occurs.
Coming soon to a courthouse near you... (Score:2)
Soon you'll have to put an EULA on your site... (Score:2)
Of course, probably only the EULA on a website will be upheld for a big corporation. Any run of the mill webmaster will probably be screwed since they can't afford teams of lawyers.
Good news/bad news (Score:2)
Defamation is always a matter of state law, which the federal courts are required to follow. In every single state I'm aware of, the proper venue (as opposed to jurisdiction) for suits in defamation is the district where the plaintiff resides. The reason for this is that the damage to the plaintiff's reputation (if any) is presumed to have occurred where he lives.
Bad news for the plaintiff:
The courts where he lives may have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit, but may not be able to obtain jurisdiction over the person of the defendant (this is the issue of "minimum contacts" mentioned in the article). This is the reason why so many experienced lawyers will file suit in the jurisdiction where the defendant resides even though it is generally more convenient to litigate at home. Doing so also greatly simplifies collecting any judgment you may receive.
REALLY bad news for the plaintiff:
Unless something REALLY radical happened in this case, the merits are still governed by New York Times v, Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), which held that before a media defendant could be held liable in defamation, "The constitutional guarantees require, we think, a federal rule that prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with "actual malice"--that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." Sullivan, at 279-280. In short (and I only know of ONE case (Carol Burnett v. The National Enquirer) where "actual malice" was successfully shown (Sullivan applies to celebrities too)) when you sue a newspaper or news magazine in defamation, you lose.
Libel Laws: The Silencing Tool of the Powerful (Score:2)
Libel laws should be completely redrafted, as should all civil law. For one thing, we should receive the SAME protections under civil law as we receive under criminal law. The plaintiff should have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. The logic behind why proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required for a criminal case, but not a civil one...is ludicrous. Someone losing millions of dollars is just as severe as them being sent to jail for years.
But as for libel laws in particular, it should have to be proven that the person knowingly and maliciously destroyed a (wo)man's reputation, when the defendant knew that (wo)man hadn't done what they allege.
As for this particular case, the idea that a court in one state has jurisdiction over a man in another who's never even visited that state is absurd. Certainly, even if a judgement is made, there's no way the court can exact the payment of the verdict, as it has no authority to order the impoundment of finances in another state.
Certainly, no person/organization in the US should ever be held liable for violating the IP/libel laws in another nation. US courts should be very clear that they will NOT enforce any decisions made by non-US courts within the US. I also think that its ludacrous that people in one state should be held liable according to the laws of another. Someone in CA should not have to worry about libel laws in FL. If I publish a newspaper here in NY, I shouldn't have to worry about the libel laws in FL; that should certainly be the same for if I publish it on the Internet. Otherwise, publishing something on the internet makes a US citizen liable to the laws of every state in the nation: that's fucking absurd.