Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government News Your Rights Online

Australian Court OKs International Net-Defamation Suit 365

Posted by timothy from the sue-you-sue-anybody dept.
Proud to be unAustralian writes: "Australian IT reports that a landmark court ruling puts Internet publishers around the world on notice that they can be sued under Australia's strict defamation laws -- and effectively in any of the 190 nations where defamation proceedings can be brought." entrippy contributes a link to another article on the case running at The Age.

Reader Diabolus notes that "it is unlikely that this same success would have occurred under American law. This occurred despite the site being hosted in America. It seems that RMS' nightmare 'Harm from the Hague' has come to pass even before that treaty is signed."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Australian Court OKs International Net-Defamation Suit More

Australian Court OKs International Net-Defamation Suit

Comments Filter:

  • Glad I left Australia (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I know people always talk about how things like the DMCA make them want to move as far away from the US as possible, but that often doesn't even compare to the situation with laws in Australia. As someone who has recently moved to the US, I can tell you very firmly that I have no interest in ever going back. Just something to think about.

  • Great. (Score:3, Funny)

    by spankfish ( 167192 ) on Wednesday August 29, 2001 @12:45PM (#2230490) Homepage
    I can see it now. The Taliban will come out suing millions of AOL users for showing their faces in public.
  • I admit that I haven't read the article yet, but would you have to be an Aussie to use this new law?

    I see this as a horrible thing for free speech in general, but a profitable issue for Austrailian lawyers. Now, a site in the US, or a tabloid site in the U.K. could have a predatory lawsuite filed against it in Oz, with only the claim that it somehow defames somebody. Troubling.

    -- Len
    • Important to note, though, that as far as I can tell, it's not actually a LAW. It's a legal precedent. If somebody in Oz tried to sue me (a private citizen) for defamation, I could probably just tell them to go to Hell. As long as I didn't ever want to go to Oz, that is. I doubt the US government (bastards, though they can be) would enforce such a ruling. I just sit in my nice cozy apartment and laugh at them. Their cops don't have jurisdiction in the US. So long as ours don't help out (seems unlikely...got to keep up pretences of free speech), I'm perfectly safe. Still sucks for large corporations who do business down there and have to be accountable.
      • Where you have many governments trying to impose their laws around the world, it seems that the only way webmasters and site-owners can protect themselves is to adopt elaborate license agreements like seen here [radiofreenation.com]. Part of this is includes:
        3.17 You warrant that your access to this site is not a violation of local laws and regulations in force at the location where you are accessing these Web Sites, and You agree to hold harmless these Web Sites, CyberKnowledge, and CyberKnowledge Staff and/or Authorized Agents for any actions by you that may be a violation of such local laws and regulations.

        3.18 You warrant that your access to these Web Sites is not a violation of local laws and regulations of the Country, province, state, county, city, town, or any other type of government jurisdiction of which you are a citizen and/or whose laws you are subject to; and You agree to hold harmless these Web Sites, CyberKnowledge, and CyberKnowledge Staff and/or Authorized Agents for any actions by you that may be a violation of such local laws and regulations.

        4.05 You agree that you shall indemnify and hold harmless these Web Sites, the Web Site Owner, and CyberKnowledge Staff and/or Authorized Agents from any claims that your Contributions infringes a third party's copyright or contains inaccurate, defamatory, libelous, or unlawful material.

        All of which throws the responsibilities back on the original author.
  • Once again it looks like life imitates parody.

    Check out this humorix article [i-want-a-website.com].

    Looks like ESR might be able to sue the Supreme Court--if he moved Down Under!

  • Australia, nearly a dictatorship? (Score:4, Informative)

    by Bodero ( 136806 ) on Wednesday August 29, 2001 @12:49PM (#2230530)
    The following is a quote from that site:

    "...elections in Australia are held under a system which does
    not allow you to freely express your will because you are required, by law,
    to attend a polling booth on election day and have your name marked off
    the electoral roll. There is no compulsory voting in Australia as you do not
    need to mark the ballot paper. You can put it, unmarked, into the ballot
    box. However, the fact that the parliament demands that you be
    somewhere on a chosen election day, under threat of fine or jail,
    demonstrates that they demand your obedience with menaces. That is
    not freedom that is dictatorship."
    --http://www.ozscan.net.au/mandate/

    1) "...you are required, by law, to attend a polling booth on election day
    and have your name marked off the electoral roll."

    Getting your name marked off the electoral roll is not only so the AEC can
    find out who voted and who didn't so it can fine the latter. It is also:

    a) to discourage electors from voting more than once; and
    b) to ensure that those who do vote in a particular electorate are
    qualified to do so

    (Without that precaution you might end up with the sort of stacking that
    goes on in the ALP. For example, busloads of the party faithful being
    whizzed in from outside a crucial marginal electorate to vote.)

    2) I'm not sure quite what you mean when you claim that being "required,
    by law, to attend a polling booth on election day" does "not allow you to
    freely express your will".

    In what way does requiring you to attend a polling booth inhibits you
    "freely express[ing] your will"?

    After all, the purpose of holding an election (or a referendum, for that
    matter) is to allow electors to cast a vote. That is where the "will" of
    the electorate is expressed. Compulsory attendance plays no roll in how
    that will is expressed.

    You are not required to vote for a particualr candidate or to reveal who
    you voted for.

    What exactly do you mean?

    3) "...the fact that the parliament demands that you be somewhere on a
    chosen election day, under threat of fine or jail, demonstrates that they
    demand your obedience with menaces. That is not freedom that is
    dictatorship."

    Define "freedom" and "dictatorship".

    Kids within a certain age bracket have to attend school or face getting
    dragged there willy-nilly by the local truant officer. Why is that
    different from grownups being required to attend a polling booth?

    If you earn over a certain income threshold you are required to pay income
    tax. You might be able to reduce the amount you pay by making use of
    various deductions, tax shelters, and so forth, but if the tax office
    issues you with an assessment which requires you to pay a tax bill you
    have to pay that bill or risk court action--not to mention fines which are
    a good deal heftier and more onerous than the $20 fine you get from the
    AEC for not voting.

    4) "...under threat of fine or jail..."

    AFAIK there are no gaol terms for not attending.

    You might, of course, get tossed in gaol for contempt of court or being a
    repeat offender (ie you keep staying away, they keep fining you, and you
    keep not paying), but the same thing would happen if you treated speeding
    tickets, parking fines, or a bill from the tax office in a similarly
    cavalier fashion.

    BTW, the fine for not voting in federal elections is $20 ($50 if you get
    taken to court). If the threat of a $20 fine makes Australia a
    "dictatorship" you clearly have no idea what a real dictatorship is! :)
    • Refusal to vote can itself be a political statement. 48% of Americans didn't care enough to even vote in the last election, that says *something* about our political process.



      Me, I was in a state that was going to Bush no matter what, so I voted for the first time ever...for Nader.



      --Dave Rickey

    • In what way does requiring you to attend a polling booth inhibits you
      "freely express[ing] your will"?

      Your will might be that they have absolutely no control of you, your will might be that there be no foolish patriarchy to establish ludicrous laws that enroach daily further and further on individual freedom, in this case, forcing you to attend a polling booth on the assumption that you will vote (which is indeed what is assumed, the fine notice which you recieve is for "not voting" not "not having your name marked off on the electoral role" the secondary is merely a clever circumvention of the intent of the law to begin with. I know this, I got one of these fines)

      In case of the above it becomes rather clear why such a law is inhibiting you from expressing your will.

      3) "...the fact that the parliament demands that you be somewhere on a
      chosen election day, under threat of fine or jail, demonstrates that they
      demand your obedience with menaces. That is not freedom that is
      dictatorship."

      Define "freedom" and "dictatorship".

      freedom in this example would be fairly obvious, the freedom to not attend some ridiculous farcical attempt at an emulation of the flawed ideal of democracy.

      Dictatorship in this particular context of course is that terms are being dictated to you that you are obliged under threat of fine or gaol or violence or death to comply with, (if you refuse to pay the fine, they throw you in gaol, if you resist, they use violence, if you use it back, they will kill you if they cannot subdue you)

      Kids within a certain age bracket have to attend school or face getting
      dragged there willy-nilly by the local truant officer. Why is that
      different from grownups being required to attend a polling booth?

      It's no different, but as you try to make your example validate the previous instance, it in fact invalidates this specific instance, what right should the government have to appoint truant officers to throw children back in inefficient and fatally flawed compulsory education systems?

      The right, of course, is that is the government and it may do as it chooses, because it is in fact a dictatorship with smoke and mirrors in tow.

      If you earn over a certain income threshold you are required to pay income
      tax. You might be able to reduce the amount you pay by making use of
      various deductions, tax shelters, and so forth, but if the tax office
      issues you with an assessment which requires you to pay a tax bill you
      have to pay that bill or risk court action--not to mention fines which are
      a good deal heftier and more onerous than the $20 fine you get from the
      AEC for not voting.

      And once again you do not validate your claims by this example, you simply point out another example of blatant government extortion, the government of Australia taxes it's citizens at 48.5 percent over the minescule rate of 60,000$ per annum (that's about 30k USD, which is probably not far above the poverty line over there).

      It is blatantly extortionate, no better than an organised criminal syndicate involved in racketeering where you get to choose the wiseguy with the best pinstripe suit to fuck you over on a regular basis.

      AFAIK there are no gaol terms for not attending.

      The Fines act 1996 gives the government the authority to suspend drivers license in the event of non payment of any fines, *including* no vote fines, after six months they have the right to force community service, if you fail to participate they have the right to sentence you to gaol, if you resist, they will use violence to subdue you, if you use violence to respond, they will kill you. Being a sheep is not an option unless you would also be willing to submit your safety to a mugger in the street, the government has no more validity than that.

      BTW, the fine for not voting in federal elections is $20 ($50 if you get
      taken to court). If the threat of a $20 fine makes Australia a
      "dictatorship" you clearly have no idea what a real dictatorship is! :)

      Your information is inaccurate, the fine is 50$, if the SDRO is required to enforce the fine it is a further 50$, if further action is required as outlined in the above examples it is more money at each step along the garden path.

      It is a dictatorship, mild or otherwise, it doesn't matter, being shot with a 9mm or being shot with a 7.62mm bullet is still being shot.

      even if in this particular instance, the government of Australia does not deem it fit to bill the family of the deceased the cost of the bullet used to slay them. ;)
  • I can't wait to see what life is like when we are simultaneously under the rule of law of 190 vastly different countries. Will it be legal in all 190 countries for me to wear shorts as I go down the street to get milk? Wait, let me ask my global lawyer. Oops, in somethefuckwhereistan it's illegal to drink milk. Drat.

    I think we should break as many of these idiotic laws as we can. Hey, French Slashdot readers: NAZI PROPAGANDA! There, now you're all in trouble for reading this post and the French government is coming after Rob.
    • somethefuckwhereistan


      I've been there... It's just North of BFE, and a little west of the Middle of Nowhere.


      Seriously, though. There is currently an attempt to make a world court that would override the jurisdiction of any other country -- The US is opposing this, but the UN claims to only need 60 countries to sign on to affect the others.


      I'm really starting to think the Westphalian order is the way to go.

      • I'm serious, reading some of the things that the UN intends to do with the world scare me.

        A year ago I thought the UN was a good thing, but it's really starting to push the limits of it's charter. An organization started to defeat Nazism and Japanese Expansionism is starting to become a oppresive system it's self.

        I don't want to start a flame war, or US vs. The World, but the UN is getting out of hand.

        1. Expansion of the World Court's power.
        2. Limiting access to firearms
        3. Focusing the Anti-Racism Conference to an Anti-US, Anti-Israel Racism Conference.
        4. Refusing to take action in Rwanda, yet "king-making" in Somolia.

        Those are my big four right now about the UN.
        • Expansion of the World Court's power.

          So, you're in favour of letting US war criminals like Henry Kissinger get off scott free? Oh wait, you don't understand what I'm talking about do you - forget it.

          • Well, the term "war criminal" is getting thrown around pretty lightly these days.

            But if other "war criminals" get tossed in, sure lets throw some Americans in the can.

            Do I think Hitler was a War Criminal? Yep I sure do. What about "Bomber" Harris? That's a gray area, but yea. LeMay wasn't nor the boys that dropped the big ones on Japan. Was Tojo and the fellas that ordered the Nanking slaughter? Yes. Yamamoto, Dornitz, Rommel, the commanders of the German invasion of Russia wern't criminals. And the list goes on.

            People have forgotten that wars are governed by rules, if you violate those rules you are a war criminal. Kissinger didn't violate the rules of war, nor did Slobodan or even Saddam (until the invasion of Kuwait). The Serbs and Iraqi's dealt with internal matters, not international ones. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, then it became a war and was dealt with as such.

            War is a nasty thing to have happen, but it goes by it's own rules, as it has for thousands of years, and I don't think that the criminization of it by an outside body does any good.

            The United Kingdom has had it's share of "war criminals" by the new definition, so if you are going to cast stones at the United States, you should remeber that.
            • Content-type: text/rant

              War crimes mean one thing: if you were the enemy of the victor (with tie going to the more powerful survivor), you're a criminal. Simple as that. I maintain that the Nuremburg trials were a bad idea. Yes, hang the motherfuckers, but don't try to pretend that it was anything but vengeance, or that the trials were little more than Uncle Joe Stalin-esque show trials.


      • Of course the US government opposes a world court...

        "Bullsheeeet.. that's our f-ing job". -- anonymous politician

  • Oh No! (Score:1, Funny)

    by mESSDan ( 302670 )
    Now I have to think back to all of the flaming I've done in my internet history and start sending out "Just Kidding!" emails! Sheesh!

    On a serious side note, maybe I and the judge who ruled in favor of this should stop eating all that paint.

  • ...who's to force them to actually go to Australia to defend themselves? How can Australian law be applied to a US based company?

    Just another thing to convince me that anarchy is the only way... :)


    Kyle

    • I am also curious. I was always under the impression that if you broke the law in another country, the worst that could happen is you just could never go there, or else be arrested. Since this is a US based company, who is going to force them to pay up? It makes no sense to me...

      • It looks like what they're trying to do is to get my (or your) government to be obliged to prosecute things that are crimes in other countries, or at least enforce the judgement of the courts of other countries.

        This raises some interesting issues; the "offense" of printing the stuff occurred in the US but the "harm" caused by it occurred in Australia. It's like the question of shooting someone who is standing on the other side of an international border; what country does the crime occur in? If this had been a paper magazine and some Aussie bought it in the US and took it back to Oz, would the US publisher be liable under Australian law for the contents of the magazine? Hmm, this is not good.

        In this case though, if Dow Jones doesn't pay up, will the Australian govt seize their assets in Australia? Can they do that?
      • They thought the same thing about the DVD-CCA case in California (with the California Supremes deciding that anyone could be brought suit against in California's jurisdiction).

        Now the neat thing would be for someone named in one lawsuit to demand a change of venue to Australia :)
    • .. how can US law be applied to a Russian based individual.

      Ops it apparently does !!!!!
    • How can Australian law be applied to a US based company?

      Likely the same way American law can be applied to a Russian company.
    • Which is the same thing a lot of non-US citizens and companies have thought for years about US law.. -- Philip

    • Well, generally the US way is to level economic sanctions against the company. Just ask anyone that's done trade with Cuba in the last few years.

    • My guess is that Dow Jones actually does do some business in Australia. That means that they're accountable there. They probably have an office and actual tax standing and such. I suppose they could close all of their business in Oz and then tell the government to bugger off, but that'd probably cost them more money then the law suit.
  • The article states that the slander (or libel) was published first in NJ (USA) and the in Victoria. If a cacheing web search like Google happened to reside in Austrailia, would the existance of a site in its cache constitute publishing? I mean it would be available for anyone to read, and the data would be hosted locally in Australia.

    Food for thought.
    -- Len
    • The Australian court is saying that the data doesn't need to reside in Australia, it just need to be readable by someone in Australia. Thus, it doesn't matter where it's cached or even originally stored, it's considered published there if it shows up on an Australian's computer screen.

    • It sounds like the judge considered the act of downloading to be "publishing". Of course this means that the plaintiff is the one who actually published the defamatory material in Australia.

      Not that logic and law have anything to do with one another.

  • Jurisdictional treaties now! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by davey23sol ( 462701 ) on Wednesday August 29, 2001 @12:53PM (#2230570) Journal
    Okay.. with the Dmitry case and the French Nazi memorabilia case and now this case, I think it's time to make a big push for a new international treaty, akin to a geneva convention or time zone agreement. Everyone needs to get together and decide how and if certain laws apply in Internet situations. This is getting just plane out of hand. If we keep going in this direction, the Talliban is going to indict people because they write about premarital sex on their web pages or people will start getting arrested in China because they have written something anti-communist in the past.

    I don't understand why the "we're a sovereign nation" crowd, headed by lead blowhard Jesse Helms, isn't up in arms about this. This seems to the be ultimate internationalization of law...
    • No, then they'd actually be right for once. :-)

      And as a previous poster said, I think the UN is trying to create some sort of international treaty/convention for this. Problem is they're basically trying to say the same thing as the Aussies. And you will see the Taliban sending people to jail for having sex before marriage. The problem with stuff like that is it most affects the freer nations (US is still the best I know of, sad though that is).
      • The problem with stuff like that is it most affects the freer nations (US is still the best I know of, sad though that is).

        Do you still believe that? I'm a Canadian living in Europe, and I'd have to say that of the countries I'm familiar with (Canada, U.S., France, Germany, Finland) the U.S. comes in last as far as freedom and privacy are concerned.

        Granted there are lots of countries that are _much_ worse than the U.S., but "the leader of the free world" isn't nearly as free as it's citizens believe. In fact, even in a developing country like India individuals probably have more personal freedoms than Americans. Indians have lots of other problems, but they don't have to worry about being arrested for doing research.

    • I think it's time to make a big push for a new international treaty, akin to a geneva convention

      Our fundamental rights to freedom of expression, speech, freedom from search and seizure, etc. are under concerted attack from numerous directions at the state, federal, and international level. At the international level this is happening on at least two fronts, with multinational treaty groups/trade regions (think European Union and NAFTA) and global treaties (think WTO and WIPO). It is quite likely that a part of the strategy to get everyone to knuckle under the kind of draconian world-wide laws those whom WIPO and the WTO represent desire (i.e. the corporations of Earth) is to deliberately make the current situation so untenable that we will demand something, anything, to replace the current situation.

      How better to achieve that than to have every Tom, Dick, and Harry (e.g. California, France, and Australia) claim world-wide jurusdiction, such that the world's lowest common denominator (e.g. the Taliban) comes to impact each of our lives? Then a worldwide, standardized DMCA might look inviting ... even though the rules are draconian, at least then we know what they are. And thus we all fall right into their trap, giving up our rights for a little dubious certaintly and playing right into their hands. What is worse, from the way the US Constitution is written it is entirely possible that international agreements, once ratified by congress, may in fact supercede constitutional protections (this is a highly debated point, but alas not the cut-and-dried your rights are protected from such things most of us like to believe ... and reading the constitution doesn't shed much light on the issue, so in the end the interpretations of our increasingly unreliable Supreme Court will likely be all that stands between us and the Abyss).

      Farfetched? A couple of years ago, before the DeCSS and Dmitry cases I might have thought so. But in todays climate I not only find it a reasonably possible scenerio, but a likely one.

  • Start a new country (Score:3)

    by www.sorehands.com ( 142825 ) on Wednesday August 29, 2001 @12:55PM (#2230584) Homepage
    Based on this, one can start a new country with their own definition of defamation laws. This definition would permit anyone with deep pockets to bring suit (of course providing sufficient kickbacks to the government) in this new country and get a judgment.

    Set a standard for libel of it cannot be true under any possible circumstance and that there are no free speech rights. Make the court filing fee of $1,000,000 USD.

    • Based on this, one can start a new country with their own definition of defamation laws

      Wow, that sounds easy! I think I'll do it, anyone want to help out? We'll make it open source, call it GNU/Nation, and from the money we make sueing people for defamation we can donate to the "Free Dmitry" cause!

  • If you are publishing something on the internet which comes under the german law against "Volksverhetzung" you will be arrested on your next trip to germany.
    This had already happened, there was a lawsuit.

    However, this probably won't even apply to any non-troll slashdot readers 'cause "Volksverhetzung" are insults Nazi-propaganda style.

    • There's a difference (Score:4, Insightful)

      by j7953 ( 457666 ) on Wednesday August 29, 2001 @01:51PM (#2230943)

      As a German, I'd like to comment on this. First, I know about the arrest you mentioned, and I think it was wrong. There are laws in Germany that regulate if and when foreign citizens can be arrested in Germany. It is for example possible for you to be arrested in Germany when you've been involved in planning a military attack against Germany, which I think sounds reasonable, as such action threatens Germany's "national security". I suppose the US have similar laws. I don't know if those "foreigner arrest laws" can also be applied to publishers of nazi propaganda. From my reading of the law, it should not be possible, but IANAL.

      But either way, there is a difference. Not only is racism definitely worse than calling someone a "devious businessman", most foreign publishers of nazi propanga also specifically leave Germany in order to publish in more free countries. They still publish German texts, and generally target a German audience. They know that if they did publish in Germany, they'd be considered criminals. One might even say that such propaganda threatens the national security of Germany (for example if it encourages terrorist activities against politicians or foreigners living in Germany).

      The article discussed in this Australian lawcase, on the other hand, was not targeted specifically to an Australian audience. It was also not published in the US in order to circumvent Australia's laws. And probably the publishers didn't even know it would be a criminal offense to publish the material in Australia. It certainly did in no way threaten Australia's national security.

      Don't get me wrong, I do not think the German court's judgement was a wise decision. You should fight fascism, but doing so with methods that aren't democratic is the wrong way. But this Australian judgement, IMHO, takes things a huge step further and is a much greater danger to free publishing on the internet.

  • How can an Austrelian court jule that it can extend it's own jurisdiction to non-citizens, who are not even present on Austrelian soil and may have never set foot on Austrelian soil in their lives? Wouldn't this require the cooperation of the national government of the defendant's country of origin?
    I guess I have to do some research or can someone clear this up for me...

    --CTH
    • The suit is against a corporation. Presumably, the corporation does business in Australia; hence, it has assets there, which can be seized to enforce a verdict.

      At the moment, corporations are pretty much the only ones at risk, for that very reason. (Although an indvidual may eventually find their possibilities for international travel somewhat limited.) That's the scary part of the Hague treaty. If it's passed, the foreign verdict CAN be enforced in your home country.
      • That's the scary part of the Hague treaty. If it's passed, the foreign verdict CAN be enforced in your home country.

        If you are living in another Common law jurisdiction (Canada, UK, etc.) then getting the judgement enforced is possible but not exactly easy. The exception is the US where the courts routinely refuse enforcement of foreign libel judgements, particularly those originating in the UK.

    • In a word it can't. If you say use the internet to rob a bank in Australia they might get the US government to put you on a plane so they can try you. (Hell extradition happens all the time) However the US government has a lot of discression on how they do that.

      But if we are talking about a civil suit there is not much they can do unless you have some assets in Australia.
    • Courts all over the world have exhibited signs of being on crack when it comes to juristiction in Internet cases. There needs to be a uniform way of determining juristiction in these cases but I'm sure that whatever they come up with with be viewed as wrong and stupid by those of us in the know on the net. Your average government official trying to make laws with reguards to net usage is rather like me trying to represent someone in a legal case, with my only experience being dozens of episodes of "Ally MacBeal." All lawyers have unisex bathrooms and take moments in court, right?
  • Everyone watch out!

    For those of you who are going to flame Justice John Hedigan (Who made this ruling) should think twice! He just might read it and decide to sue you!

    On the other hand, sometimes you just have to call a puddinghead a puddinghead. What a wanker.

    • Here ya go. Justice John Hedigan is an ASSHOLE moron. He sucks donkey dick and licks dog butt. Australians are all wife-beaters, pedophiles, criminals, and idiots.


      Hopefully I have just defamed about everyone in Australia in addition to the shitface, turd-lapping Justice John Hedigan. Sue me. C'mon. I want to say "fuck you" loud and clear and then defame you again for good measure.

  • You think Aussies don't read this? You think word of this discussion won't reach some hungry lawyer in Australian looking to get a high-profile case under his belt? I fully expect someone at Slashdot getting a summons to appear in court in Australia.

    I expect the eventual outcome of this will be a national Australian firewall, where if you don't kowtow to hte Australian court, the entire nation is blocked from accessing your site.
  • After reading both those articles, I must say that the guy "defending" himself against defamation seems like a slimy bugger indeed.

    Here's why. He's suing a US-based publication. His lawyer(s) must know that Australian defamation laws are a bit tougher than US laws, so they concoct this idea that since someone in Australia has in fact read it, that the article containing the defaming remarks is published in Australia! Why? So they have more of a chance of a successful defamation case! That's pretty bloody slimy.

    What hogwash. I can get on a plane and go to china, buy a chinese magazine, and come home and read it. Doesn't mean that the magazine was published in my home. I maintain that the publishing takes place where the physical web server resides.

    God, what a can of worms this is gonna open up.
  • Mr Gutnick is a devious businessman going after a US company in an Austrailian court like that.

  • So if I'm reading the article correctly, it also means that if I buy a paper copy of the Washington Post in Washington and take it to Australia then they can sue from Australia because it ended up over there?

    I must be missing something. The Barons Journal was published on a US server and viewed in Australia. What's the difference between that and my first statement?

    Publications have been crossing borders for years and now they want to change the rules just because it's electronic?

    It sounds like any lawyer worth a hill of beans should be able to shoot that one down.

    Steve

  • This whole issue of politcal borders and the Internet leads me to worry that someday political borders may become a reality. I'm talking about having to cross an Information border to access anything over the Internet from outside your country.

    This dystopian Internet would have regulations on what you can see based on where you view it. It's already hapening in China. Perhaps a digital visa would be needed to access anything from outside your country.

    I bring this issue up because clearly countries will never agree on international laws for free speech. This is a big world full of religions and ideologies dividing us into moral groups.

    Being a Canadian, I'm not too worried...unless the CRTC forces 30% Canadian content down my throat! (Ever heard a Canadian radio station...they're all awful!)

  • I hearby move that two new moderation categories be added to the choices for moderation. The categories I would like to see are FUD (-1) and BULLSHIT (also -1).
  • Will cross-border prodecution stop at defamation law, or can we (or at least Austrelians) sue the Chinese for copyright violations? Perhaps this is a good thing. Then maybe the RIAA [riaa.com] and the BSA [bsa.org] would move their base of operations to Austrelia. Good ridence....

  • A Closet Full of Suits? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Sir Tristam ( 139543 ) on Wednesday August 29, 2001 @01:08PM (#2230670)
    This article leaves open one interesting point. Say that Barrons printed an article that mentioned me in an unfavorable manner. Although I live in the US, and Dow Jones is based in the US, could I sue them under Australian defamation laws in Australian court? After all, the article can be retrieved in Australia. Heck with just that; I should file suit in every country that has an internet connection.

    There definately needs to be some international agreements working out this sort of thing.

    Chris Beckenbach

    The above post is wholely created and housed in the United States of America (USA). By exporting the above post outside the borders of the USA the exporter agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the author from any suits arising from act of exporting or the contents of the above post, and further agrees to vigorously defend the author from and assume all liability under all suits of law that arise outside the USA from the act of exporting or the contents of the above post.

  • Crocodile Dundee is going come to my home, rip my hands off my keyboard and carry me back to aussie land on his back.

    I thought after the Olympics and Survivor we wouldn't have to hear about that giant Texas they call a continent.

    oops... am i in trouble now?

  • OH no the foreigners are at it again -- how dare they sue a US comapny for maliciously printing falsehoods about a prominant australian business man ??????

    This is no different to the jursidictions being claimed by US courts in many civil cases under DMCA, Trade Secrets .....

    Freedom of speech should not include knowingly printing false and scandalous (presented as fact) stories for commercial gain.

    I make no judgment on the facts of the case but this is what is being alleged and they should answer for it.

    Publishers have a lot of power with that power should come some responsibility - if tomorrow morning you woke up to a news story claiming falsely that (for example) you are a child molester- wouldn't you want to sue somebody ???
  • Don't worry, I'd expect the punishment would only be a booting. Mad Max style.
  • Ok, so how do we block everyone in Australia from accessing our websites? The only thing I can think of is to terminate their net access completely. But they could come in through some other country. So we'd have to block all other countries. Turning the international internet into a national network. Any country accessing "our" network would have to agree that any legal actions must be in U.S. courts under U.S. law at the least, perhaps even having to pay a hefty access fee.

    There are only two other (semi-reasonable without resorting to violence) options I see: a world government or UN court type oversight, or a treaty that prevents this crap.

  • Justice John Hedigan is a pederast. He is also well known for his having sex parties involving goats. He is quite flexible and can suck his own dick. He prefers little boys to men or women.


    So...sue me.

  • IMHO (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Auckerman ( 223266 ) on Wednesday August 29, 2001 @01:26PM (#2230760)
    The natural recourse is to cease all business in Australia and ignore the law suit. Problem is, as we see with the US attitude with countries like China, profit takes precidence over ethics. It's just profitable to limit your speech in places with Draconian laws.

    • Right (Score:1, Flamebait)

      by wiredog ( 43288 )
      It's not like we do much business with them anyway. Besides, they're all French anyway. Wait, that's those sneaky Canadians. The Aussies are all descended from criminals, and us True Amurrken types have Zero Tolerance for criminals! Especially ones who pirate [cnn.com] ships.
  • I bet the guys in Monty Python are in trouble now. (Of course, they'll have to exhume Graham Chapman, assuming he wasn't cremated, but a little thing like taste or common sense wouldn't stop a lawyer.)

    Rules for entering the Australian legal profession:

    #1: No Pooftahs ...

  • The old addage - 'Common sense isn't very common' is ringing very true right now.
    Could someone just drop a big fricking rock on us all and put us all out of our collective missery?

  • Mark one "DoH!" for the Justice... (Score:3)

    by thrillbert ( 146343 ) on Wednesday August 29, 2001 @01:31PM (#2230794) Homepage
    It seems to me that Justice John Hedigan has just opened a can of worms that even he does not understand. Given that Australians can sue people in the US for defamation now, I guess this would mean that people in the US can sue people in Australia for voilating our 1st amendment rights.

    Last I checked, I am still allowed my opinion here in the US, and if I say that in my opinion John Hedigan is a clueless moron, and he tries to prevent me from expressing my opinion, then he is violating *MY* rights.

    It would be a fun thing to be a lawyer and just for kicks, start a class action lawsuit against the Justice and the entire Justice System of Australia for violating our right to free speech. Wouldn't all American residents be qualified to join this lawsuit?

    --
    This .sig censored by Australian laws.
  • I have two things to state based upon my first and gut reaction to the article.

    1.) IMHO international law in such a case is ludicris! Imagine all the things that don't culturally click. Moral differences are strongly evident in the cultural histories. We as Americans used to strongly believe that white males are superior moral agents and all other iterations of our species are inferior casted patients who at best could only benefit from rights alike those that we (as the upstanding white males) alotted for ourselves. If we don't scoff away the silly practice of permitting such law that at worst could make libel on the internet illegal, we could have a sticky situation on our hands. Australia is a lesser powerful country, they can't enforce such laws, but imagine if China, a powerful country that outright censors the internet adopts such practices... Well that's all I have to say about that!

    2.) All libertarians can agree on what John Stuart Mill would say to such legal practices. This is a blatant case of "sticks and stones" since there is never any REAL harm that is done by the practice of defamation on the internet. Unless we can direcly correlate the practice of libel on the internet with DIRECT and DISTINCT harm, we have no moral grounds for passing on such censorship.

    I better stop before I go off the wall and make myself flamebait BUT! I must last add that some sort of protest, ban, etc. ought be practiced to prevent such measures of censorship from happening.
  • This post has been censored thanks to the Australian defamation law.

  • It's very easy to say "well, I can sue you in my country."

    It's quite another to enforce it and deal with all the implications of said enforcement.

    Though I am concerned about countries trying to pass draconian laws that affect people in other countries, though I am concerned about the DMCA-type legislation considered in other countries, enforcement is still the sticking point.

    Sometimes, I visualize the future where the internet leads to the governments of the world arguing over whose laws apply where, who should turn whom over to whom, and so forth. This person violated this law, but we don't recognize your law, but this guy violated OUR law, so . . .

    Maybe while they argue we can get something productive done . . .

    • t's very easy to say "well, I can sue you in my country."

      It's quite another to enforce it and deal with all the implications of said enforcement.

      This is precisely why the 2nd Amendment, the right to bear arms, is so important to protecting our 1st Amendment rights. If we are to protect not only our country's rights, but our own individual, God-given rights, we need to be able to project our force, in defense of those rights. Our founding fathers realized this, and made sure it got included in the Bill of Rights. We won our freedom from taxation without representation, and a generally opressive rule of the colonies of the America's from the Britain government, partly due to the fact that most settler's possessed and were trained in the use of firearms. Therefore, when British soldiers tried to demand everyday colonists to quarter them and provide them with supplies against their will, the colonists had the ability (in mass) to resist.

      Now, while it can be argued that certain people should no longer be allowed such freedoms (convicted felons, small children, dogs, etc.) due to their higher potential for mishandling such a 'freedom', we should realize that we cannot do away with our ability to project force on an individual level (not just trusting government to take care of it for us) without reaping the consequences eventually. This is precisely why I see no need for further 'gun laws' in America. The world is still a dangerous place, and rulings like this from Australia, while it has not come to actual armed conflict, are the reasons why you cannot disarm everyone and expect those in authority positions to not abuse their power.

  • Ask Manuel Noriega about cross border rights. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Mowgli ( 21977 ) on Wednesday August 29, 2001 @02:02PM (#2231016)
    The ability of one nation to impose its laws on non citizens living outside its borders is directly proportional to its ability to project force. In the case of Noriega, it was the United States ability to project our military force to Panama that allowed the forced extradition of Noriega to an American court of law. I am not sure what kind of force the Australian government is prepared to use to impose its laws, but I don't see Aussi commandos raiding the geek compound anytime soon ;-D
  • For an Australian Court to rule [news.com.au] that a message posted upon a website operated in the United States, by an American company, and directed at readers almost exclusively in the U.S., is, merely because it can be read by someone in Australia, now subject to the jurisdiction of Australian Courts, the start of a dangerous precedent.

    If someone imports a copy from the U.S. of the Wall Street Journal into Australia, does that make the publisher liable in Australia for alleged libel on a story in the newspaper?

    Perhaps there are assets of Dow Jones & Company [dowjones.com] somewhere in Australia which the plaintiff in this particular case can attach, but, if not, they would have to come to someplace - most likely the U.S. - and then they'd have to convince an American Court (or whatever country they think they can find assets to attach) to accept the judgement as valid, not necessarily all that easy if the defendant fights it claiming that the courts in Australia have overstepped their jurisdiction.

    The issue is even stronger if it was someone who had no presence outside the U.S., who decided not to try and defend what to them was a ridiculous lawsuit and the other party were trying to enforce a default judgement where the website operator didn't show up. The party suing might even be held liable for damages if the suit is considered frivolous or unreasonable.

    It is this sort of relatively stupid attempt at an overly Draconian long-arm statute law that will eventually destroy respect for the judiciary and could conceivably backfire.

    If the Australian Courts can impose in personam jurisdiction upon someone outside of the country merely because they put something up on a website outside of the country but can be read in their country, then those who publish elsewhere could do the same thing to impose in personam jurisdiction upon someone outside of the country who attempts to sue or respond to their content.

    The website publisher could include language in their right to use clause of their website, perhaps with a click-thru agreement in order to get to it, possibly even via a law similar to UCITA and using that to require someone who has a complaint to use arbitration in a specific city of their choosing, or to sue them only in a specific court, perhaps tossing it back on them and requiring anyone using the site to submit to in personam jurisdiction in their area and agreeing to accept service by mail, and requiring they not sue the website operator in any other place or agreeing to automatic liquidated damages of three times the amount of the judgement and agreeing to allow the website operator to submit the automatic judgement to the local court in the city where the publisher operates and allow it to be collected anywhere in the world without trial, and, waiving any defenses and any other requirements which might be available elsewhere.

    Imposing 'long arm' jurisdiction over the Internet for communications or use where the other party has no physical presence is conceivably a two-edged sword and it cuts both ways.

  • Lets just say we put in a new tag like this:

    <meta noread=".au, .fr, compaq.com">

    In other words, we need an /etc/hosts.deny for HTML on a per-file basis instead of .htaccess, independent of the server software. Of course, such a mechanism could be defeated by removing the host's reverse DNS entry, but the intent of the publisher regarding locale of publication could be easily discerned.

    Then after the Australian government attacks the web again, the major sites can just shut them off for a few days to convey the world's collective displeasure.

    I hear that the Aussies have a tremendous society, but their internet legislation over the past few years has left something to be desired.

  • So when a country's judges make stupid decisions like this, everyone else to just totally block all access to their site from any of that country's IP addresses. I.E. Prevent that entire country from accessing any other's country's content.

    Yes, I know that the users in that country could use a special server in another country to get access to the material, but you would not be 'publishing' in that country and should be able to fight this better.

    Yahoo should have done this with France...

    Eventually the judges may reconsider their rulings...

    • I fully expect that if things keep going the way they are (i.e. "badly" for freedom and free speech) that all significant websites will end up having a sign in process like the Wall Street Journal does now.

      You will be required to fill out a form saying you are not from Australia, Afghanistan, France, Germany, the U.K., the United States, or whatever (depends on what's on the website).... your IP will be checked and logged, and then you will be given access... maybe.

      Big companies would like this, actually, as it would be such a pain that all the "little players" would either be forced off the net or have very boring content.

      Damn. I'm so depressed about the future of the net - Dimitry was indited last night, now this, seems like every week there's some new stupidity. I'd support Freenet, but right now it's mostly child porn from what I hear, so I won't even run a server for it. But really, we need something like Freenet, but better organized - kind of a parallel, "underground" internet where national laws can't be applied, but where people can still link, surf, put up content and tell people about it...

  • I've said it before [slashdot.org], and I'll paraphase it again.

    What this means is that by publishing my web page, I'm opening myself to prosecution in any country with an internet connection. Right now, I can't see anything too objectionable on my site, but what if I post a section from the Bible that some Islamic fundamentalist government has outlawed? What if I post the Declaration of Independance and China outlaws that? What if I print something not "nice" and Lichetenstein decides to pass a no "not nice" libel policy?

    A decision like this is more than overbroad, it's overboard. In a questionable attempt to make enforce Australian libel standards, this decision would quell Constitutionally-protected speech in America because even though it's protected within our borders, you'd be prosecuted on your first step onto foreign land. This decision also creates an absurd legal fiction that a person is everywhere at once. Posting something to a server in Boondocks, IA from Bumblefart, MN shouldn't subject you to Austrialian, Etheopian, or even Californian jurisdiction. It's bad law.

    Why would you speak (or publish on the internet) if you'd get arrested when you traveled abroad? (The similarities to the Skylarov case are very much in mind here.)

    I don't mind too much if corporations want to lock their customers into "their" internet, and I don't care if the government attempt to regulate because they'll fail for a variety of reasons. I'm much more concerned about the rights issues. While decisions like this won't kill the internet(no, there's no immenient demise of the internet), but it will surely make it a less interesting place. -sk

  • Still room for appeal (Score:3, Informative)

    by Goonie ( 8651 ) <robert.merkel@b[ ... g ['ena' in gap]> on Wednesday August 29, 2001 @09:24PM (#2233169) Homepage
    Before everyone gets too excited, I should point out that there are still several things that will happen before this stupid ruling actually means anything:
    • The ruling was in the Victorian Supreme Court. There is a higher state court to appeal to - the Court of Appeal, in which instead of one Supreme Court judge you get five (I think it's five, certainly it's more than one) of them and a majority decision is reached. An appeal here seems likely.
    • After that, there is the national High Court, which like the US Supreme Court rules on constitutional issues. IANAL, but I suspect that an inventive lawyer could find constitutional issues (related to the power of the Federal vs. the State government to control international commerce, and free trade between states) that might be ground for a High Court appeal.
    • After all that, you have to remember that it's case law interpreting an Act of Parliament, not the constitution or anything (even if it was, the Victorian state constitution doesn't require a referendum to amend, just Parliament). There's nothing stopping the State Government amending the legislation, and if this ruling is left to stand they will come under fairly substantial pressure to do so.

    This ruling has had a fair bit mainstream press attention, and most of it is well aware of the potential damage the decision could do. Anyway, don't panic quite yet. There's still a way to go before we really have to worry about this piece of judicial stupidity.

Slashdot Top Deals

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." - Bert Lantz

Close