Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


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

A Libel Suit May Establish E-Jurisdiction 187

Posted by timothy from the constructing-the-eye-of-the-needle dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

A Libel Suit May Establish E-Jurisdiction More

A Libel Suit May Establish E-Jurisdiction

Comments Filter:

  • Internet is not a paper (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mpawlo ( 260572 ) on Monday May 27, 2002 @08:42AM (#3590377) Homepage
    Liability for publishers is a very hard issue to deal with. The publisher of the leading Swedish daily Aftonbladet was held accountable [theregus.com] for hate speech published in one of its forums. I wrote a short comment on the case published by The Register [pawlo.com] on the caveats in running an online forum: 'If the media companies and their publishers are held accountable for everything published in their web forums we will soon face an Internet where the possibility of a widened debate has been seriously damaged by law. Let us grasp the uniqueness of the Internet before it is gone. The Internet is not a paper.'

    Regards

    Mikael
    • ... is great if you happen to be rich enough to own a printing press. The Internet changed that. Now, anyone, including me, can own a 'printing press'. If this decision stands, freedom of the press may be back exclusively in the hands of the powerful once again.

      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.
      • The Internet changed that. Now, anyone, including me, can own a 'printing press'.

        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

      • Well, if you have a printer, you do own a printing press. The problem is distribution. This is what the internet solves.

        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)

    by kipple ( 244681 ) on Monday May 27, 2002 @08:43AM (#3590380) Journal
    just wondering.. if I am sued for something I have said on a website I own, will they come to pick me up and bring be in the US to be judged?

    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)

      by Anonymous Coward
      From the article, quoting a lawyer: "'If you want to publish on the Internet material targeted to the reputation of a foreigner, you'd better have regard for the standards of law where the foreigner resides.'"

      Would this be any foreigner? Any standards of law? Sharia?

    • or even (Score:2, Funny)

      by MrFredBloggs ( 529276 )
      "US Government will sue the British government for "talking about illegal things such as freedom", because those pages can be seen from America"
      • "US Government will sue the British government for "talking about illegal things such as freedom", because those pages can be seen from America"

        Or even more ironically the US attempts to sue the Russian newspaper, Pravda.
    • Could Osama Bin Laden and his related organisations then sue virtually every newspaper worldwide for things they've been saying about him?

      -- "Yes, Your Honour, I beleive CNN has done permanent and irrepairable harm to my reputation"

    • Re:will they come to pick me up? (Score:4, Informative)

      by analog_line ( 465182 ) on Monday May 27, 2002 @09:44AM (#3590522)
      China already has a national firewall. See also Saudi Arabia, and probably many other nations. Where have you been?

      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.
      • I know that China already has a national firewall... it would be fun, though, to see those 'regulations' act against the US itself :)
      • This is probably why the government has supported ICANN, despite their blatantly poor management (to put the best possible face on it). It gives them a single point of control.

        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 ... stuff. This automatically creates a single point of failure. And this kind of design tends to condition people to accept a hierarchical system as natural. (That which is familiar is inherently more acceptable that that which is unfamiliar.)

        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 ... all ensure that a hierarchical system will come readily to mind as an analogy. So do most sports teams.)

        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.
    • just wondering.. if I am sued for something I have said on a website I own, will they come to pick me up and bring be in the US to be judged?

      No, the will send you an official letter, which you will then throw in the bin and forget about.

    • Said this before (Score:3, Insightful)

      by wirefarm ( 18470 )
      But it still fits -
      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.
  • This ia a very dangerous decision. It will affect all of free speech on US websites. I really think that sites that offer news, not opinions, should under the same rules as newspapers and magazines. But people with personal websites shouldn't be touched.

    • Re:Very Dangerous (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Chanc_Gorkon ( 94133 )
      Um....how is a libelious statement covered under free speech? Free speech is not totally free speech and can never be. You can't walk in to a crowded theater and shout fire and not expect to be arrested for inciting a riot that will insue after everyone starts to panic and rush out of the theature. I think the post is really taking to much for granted. People on so many websites and in so many forums are not wanting to be accountable for anything they say. The fact is you are accountable. You can go on a site and slander someone the same way you can't do it on TV. IANAL, but I think most lawyers would agree with my opinion. Free speech is a priviledge, not a right (it's only called a right under the constitution). If the populous continue's to make statements they don't want to be accountable for, well maybe free speech isn't a good idea. Don't get me wrong, I think mosty free speech is a good thing. I should be able to say anything I want about CmdrTaco, Hemos or Cowboy Neal without publicly slandering them. From what I gather about the Dow Jones case is soem guy in Australia is pissed he lost money because of what was said on their site. Well, then the person and the site who wrote that can be found libel for it! Could this establish an E-Jurisdiction? Well, sure it can. Just because we are on a World Wide Web doesn;t mean we can't be found libel for what we said! Does this mean that publishing will cease on the web? I doubt it. People and companies will just have to make sure they are careful what they say. Something they should already be doing.
      • We had actual fireworks thrown into a cinema I was at (filling the room with smoke) and after ducking everyone went back to their seats. Lots of people complained when the cinema stopped showing the film and told people to leave!

      • Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday May 27, 2002 @09:38AM (#3590502)
        Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • I do *not* have to be careful about what I say. Thats the whole friggin point. I can say anything.

          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...
      • You can't walk in to a crowded theater and shout fire

        It's worse then that. I once shouted it in a theater that was only half full. They got me anyway. Fascists.

  • Global censorship (Score:2, Informative)

    by triptolemeus ( 538604 )
    Wow, if this goes. We all have to live with the most opressive laws this world has seen. Just imagine our freedom of speech reduced to, for instance, what Iraque wants us to read.

    Just have a look at what happend to Salman Rushdie.

    Trip
    • After a statement such as "I was a lot angry," I'm impressed that Mr. Young could access the internet. I'd like to see an international libel accountability so that dubya may have to keep his mouth shut. No more Axis of Evil, no more berating of Saddam, and no more campaigning for his brudder Jed.
  • I have yet to read the whole article, but how do they extrapolate that a suit in virginia suing someone in conneticut would allow people from any country to sue a publisher in any other place?
    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)

      by Kierthos ( 225954 )
      I can't remember the exact legal term, but there is something where the decisions found in one state may be legally binding in all others. The key thing is is "may be". Some states have laws on the books that are violations of law in other states.

      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
      • ... but there is something where the decisions found in one state may be legally binding in all others ...

        Well, actually, the term comes from the Constitution ... "full faith and credit". And it's not "may be" binding. The judgments of the courts of one state are OWED full faith and credit by the courts of another state UNLESS that judgment violates the law of the state where enforcement is sought AND the law violated by the judgment is Constitutional under the federal Constitutional.

        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)

    by pubjames ( 468013 ) on Monday May 27, 2002 @08:51AM (#3590397)
    If the district court decision stands, online publishers could be sued for defamation in any state or country that an online article is read.

    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?
    • 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?
      This one I'd think, if it's "directed" at that jurisdiction. That was at least why they wanted DVD-Jon trialed under californian law, because they considered it an attack on the MPAA (residing in California).


      And yes, there's a definite possibility that other countries would enforce the same laws, should USA do so. If USA can trial persons outside their country, why can't everybody else?

      Kjella
      • And yes, there's a definite possibility that other countries would enforce the same laws, should USA do so. If USA can trial persons outside their country, why can't everybody else?

        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?
    • Well I think it would be interesting for a foreign court to convict a US citizen, and using US precident to show they have jurisdiction.
      • Interesting?

        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.
        • And this is where it gets interesting. Lets say that a person outside of the US gets sued and is supposed to be tried and jailed. So how does that differ from China clamping down on dissidents talking badly about China?

          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.
    • The way I read it, they are saying that regional publications will have to worry about being sued in other states and national publications will be open to law suits in "libel-friendly countries where their online articles can be read". The way they put it makes it a bilateral issue so I don't agree it's an arrogant assumption, they even focus on the possibility of American publishers being sued, not the opposite...

  • Related Links (Score:4, Insightful)

    by GigsVT ( 208848 ) on Monday May 27, 2002 @08:53AM (#3590400) Journal
    This libel suit is just one part of an ongoing battle, one between the police/prison industry, and the general public.

    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.

  • *sigh* (Score:3, Informative)

    by dalassa ( 204012 ) on Monday May 27, 2002 @08:53AM (#3590401) Journal
    Now comes the point: Defamation suits of any kind are nigh impossible to win. I don't see from what was presented in the article how the plantiff can win. The article was in fact reporting actual quotes. Truth is never libel, nor are opionions. Libel must have a specific intent to be injurious and must be a knowing falshood. How on earth this case doesn't fall under one of those I can't see.
    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.
    • Question: is it just wit to say "The greater the truth, the greater the libel!"?

      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....
      • Publishing "the truth" about someone has not usually been enough of a defense.
        In the United States, truth is an absolute defense against a claim of defamation (libel or slander). See, e.g., Restatement (Second) of Torts, sec. 581A: "One who publishes a defamatory statement of fact is not subject to liability for defamation if the statement is true." The Institute notes:
        See, in support of the rule stated in this Section, that there can be no recovery in defamation for a true statement, regardless of defendant's motive, McCuddin v. Dickinson, 230 Iowa 1141, 300 N.W. 308 (1941); Castle v. Houston, 19 Kan. 417, 27 Am.Rep. 127 (1877); Herald Pub. Co. v. Feltner, 158 Ky. 35, 164 S.W. 370 (1914); Picard v. Brennan, 307 A.2d 833 (Me.1973); Montgomery Ward Cochrane v. Wittbold, 359 Mich. 402, 102 N.W.2d 459 (1960); Lancaster v. Hamburger, 70 Ohio St. 156, 71 N.E. 289 (1904); Craig v. Wright, 182 Okl. 68, 76 P.2d 248 (1938); Corabi v. Curtis Pub. Co., 441 Pa. 432, 273 A.2d 899 (1971); Lathan v. Journal Co., 30 Wis.2d 146, 140 N.E.2d 417 (1966).
        IAAL, but you aren't my client, this isn't legal advice, etc.
        • However, the notion of truth being a defense to libel dates back to, IIRC, the late 18th/early 19th century. Prior to this, even true statements that defamed one's character could support liability.

          This is the era that the above saying comes from.
      • UK Law :- If its true then it's not Libel

        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 :-)

    • Heh, reminds me of that quote from faisal.com:

      "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)

      by pmc ( 40532 )
      Truth is never libel

      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.
    • They may be impossible to win, but they cost time, effort, money, and nervous exhaustion to defend against.

  • Internet Jurisdiction section on FindLaw (Score:4, Informative)

    by Seth Finkelstein ( 90154 ) on Monday May 27, 2002 @08:58AM (#3590406) Homepage Journal
    This is an oft-discussed topic. Consider FindLaw - Internet Juridiction [findlaw.com]

    Internet Jurisdiction

    The Internet is an interstate and international medium. But does operating a Web Site mean that the operator is subject to personal jurisdiction in courts wherever the Site is accessible? The answer obviously is no. This outline describes the types of activity that likely will permit a court to exercise personal jurisdiction over an Internet actor, consistent with the due process clause of the United States Constitution.

    For example: http://profs.lp.findlaw.com/netjuris/netjuris_1.ht ml [findlaw.com] (emphasis added)

    Courts generally have declined to assert personal jurisdiction solely on the basis of Web Site advertising. However, courts have exercised jurisdiction over Web Site operation where additional and more active contacts with the forum took place, such as Internet sales to the forum residents, conducting business in the forum state through numerous contacts, or entering into specific dealings with forum residents

    Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) [sethf.com]

  • huh? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    this is fine and dandy in the states - but wouldn't it only apply in another country if *THAT* country had set a similar president?

    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
    • 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.

      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!
      • Demon was sued by a teacher

      • Re:huh? (Score:3, Informative)

        by pmc ( 40532 )
        Unfortuantely you're wrong.

        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.
    • wouldn't it only apply in another country if *THAT* country had set a similar president?

      You mean there's more than one George W.??

  • Death of on-line publication? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mccalli ( 323026 ) on Monday May 27, 2002 @08:59AM (#3590409) Homepage
    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.

    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.

    • 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)

    by Rogerborg ( 306625 ) on Monday May 27, 2002 @09:02AM (#3590416) Homepage

    ...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.

  • A least Malda won't have to worry. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 27, 2002 @09:04AM (#3590422)
    Lord knows, nothing libelous ever appears on Slashdot.

  • Controlling the internet? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ShwAsasin ( 120187 ) on Monday May 27, 2002 @09:06AM (#3590430) Journal
    Well once again the US Government decides to try and attempt to control the internet from "free speech" which is the 1st amendment.

    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.
  • The server lives in one state, the offended party lives in another but asks that the content be delivered outside state lines. How can they possibly think that it's fair?

    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.
  • It would seem that the notion that the defendant's reputation is being defamed in his home state would make sense. No one in CT is going to care about some prison warden in particular, but the people where he is from very well may.

    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)

  • "If the district court decision stands, online publishers could be sued for defamation in any state or country that an online article is read."

    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.
    • I don't see this point either. Apparently, if it's prohibited in one country, website operators can get sued over it. Known examples are the Germans taking down websites all over the world for posting or even linking to content that is illegal in Germany, and the French government sueing I believe Yahoo! over offering items that are politically incorrect in France via their online auction system.

      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.
  • Login to NYTimes without registering by clicking here [majcher.com], and then just click Register and Go.
  • Isn't it just striking that a jail warden is actually pulling this off ? How many suits have been futzed because of jurisdiction issues ? Now all it took is for this guy to call a few contacts to pull some strings in the system. What if the offended person was I, Billco, joe average office worker ? I'd be flat on my ass, still pissed as hell at the online agencies, but with no recourse because I don't have friends in the legal 'business'.

  • Hague Convention (Score:4, Informative)

    by jplove ( 7155 ) on Monday May 27, 2002 @09:37AM (#3590501) Homepage

    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.ht m
    • And I wonder who this will be written to benefit?

      (Actually, the update indicates that this treaty was mentioned, but appearantly it's quite easy to overlook.)
  • It's hard to trust the NYT article, because they obviously have a dog in the fight. I'd like more information about two things.

    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.

  • Got to love the author of this article. The case here involves someone suing libel. Slander, and not telling the truth are not protected under the first amendment. The statement that all on-line publishing may go away because of this case is so chicken little one has to wonder if the author has feathers!

    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
    • The case here involves someone suing libel. Slander, and not telling the truth are not protected under the first amendment.

      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.
  • Let me say, I can understand why people are concerned. Defamation suits are hard to win in this country. The burden to meet is much less severe in other countries, including our good buddy GB. If federal (not international, but our very own) precedent is set allowing suits to be held in the jurisdiction of the person bring suit, then the theory goes that we're one step away from extending that to an international scale. Next thing you know, the AP is out $30M cause they called Castro a dictator.

    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.

  • For those able to read Dutch, read Karin Spaink's(famous for her Church of Scientology clashes) story on how she got sued in Belgium for an article she wrote in a Dutch newspaper [spaink.net].

  • Don't believe the FUD (Score:5, Interesting)

    by automandc ( 196618 ) on Monday May 27, 2002 @10:01AM (#3590579)
    This will almost certainly be modded down by those who enjoy proclaiming the evil of the American Court system, but I will try anyway.

    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

    • Oh, and I realize there are two "3"'s. I can't count, that's why IAAL! :-P

      automan

    • I'm not sure whether I agree with whether someone being able to "snipe" from their home jurisdiction is a good thing or not yet.

      - 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!

      • My previous comments are directed only toward U.S. Courts applying U.S. Law.

        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

    • Well I agree, you should not sit in a far away jurisdiction to attack someone else.
      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.
  • The law as it is generally interpreted makes sense to Mr. Young, the warden. "I've never been to Connecticut in my life," he said. "These articles came to Virginia. These articles came to my community." How did the articles come to Virginia? To his community? He accessed the website and brought them to Virginia. If I called a friend to get a newspaper and mail to me, then I transported them, not the orginal pubisher. jackb
  • If the material is true, a reasonable parody/satire of truth, or an expressly-stated personal opinion, then it should be absolutely guaranteed protected status, regardless of what it is.


    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)

    by LazyDawg ( 519783 ) <`lazydawg' `at' `hotmail.com'> on Monday May 27, 2002 @11:14AM (#3590779) Homepage
    IANAL, but... This case could provide a legal precedent for any content, online or on paper, that can be read extra-jurisdictionally.

    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.
  • President Mbutu v. the whole frickin' world
  • Soon you'll have to put an EULA on your site to protect yourself against the laws of every other state and country. Something that reads: "By entering this site you agree that any claims against this site will be litigated in my country / my state."

    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 for the plaintiff:

    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, as currently written, are nothing more than a tool used by the powerful to silence those less powerful. They are completely and utterly without merit. Want proof? When was the last time a libel suit was filed against Jesse Jackson, or Al Sharpton? These are individuals who certainly knowingly engage in destroying people's reputations for political gain. The reason lawsuits aren't filed against them is because they're rich, and the defendants are (relatively) poor.

    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.

Slashdot Top Deals

Understanding is always the understanding of a smaller problem in relation to a bigger problem. -- P.D. Ouspensky

Close