Australia makes landmark net ruling -US paper sued for defamation of character in Austrailia

BBC News ^ | Tuesday, 10 December, 2002, 09:02 GMT | No byline

[weegee]

Australia's high court has ruled that the financial publishers Dow Jones can be sued in the Australian state of Victoria over an article that appeared on their website. The defamation case was brought by Melbourne mining magnate Joseph Gutnik, who argued that the article could be read on the internet by people who knew him in Melbourne.

Dow Jones had argued that publication of the article on its Barron's website took place in the United States and wanted the case to be heard there.

It is thought to be the first such decision in the high court of any country to consider the question of jurisdiction and the internet.

Media organisations fear the ruling could unleash a flood of litigation around the world and will force them to review the content of their internet sites.

Dow disappointed

Mr Gutnik was delighted by the ruling.

"It will certainly be re-established that the net is no different than a regular newspaper, that you have to be careful what you write and if you offend somebody or write malicious statements about people... then you can be subject to being prosecuted," he said.

Dow Jones had maintained that publication took place in New Jersey in the US and argued that courts in the State of Victoria had no jurisdiction.

Several international media companies who also made submissions to the court - such as Reuters, News International and Amazon.com - backed up that position.

Litigation laws in the US are less strict than those in Australia and publishers can also defend themselves with the First Amendment on freedom of speech.

"The result means that Dow Jones will defend those proceedings in a jurisdiction which is far removed from the country in which the article was prepared and where the vast bulk of Barron's readership resides," a statement from Dow Jones said.

'Spiderweb'

The decision opens the way for any international news organisation to be sued in the Australian courts, even by plaintiffs who are not resident in Australia.

The ruling is also likely to affect other areas such as contempt of court rulings.

Defamation lawyer Damian Sturzaker said it created "a spiderweb of potential litigation, where you have a single publisher in the centre and strands running to every jurisdiction that adopts this standard, each one a potential lawsuit with different standards of evidence and different defences".

"It would have a chilling effect because publishers would face potential liability everywhere the web reaches."

But the high court said that lawsuits would only be brought in places where the person bringing the case had a reputation to defend.

"In all except the most unusual of cases, identifying the person about whom material is to be published will readily identify the defamation law to which that person resorts," it said.

[wunderkind54]

This story will have interesting ramifications. Who's going to get their nose out of joint next?? How will prosecution take place?? Stay tuned.

[HiTech RedNeck]

How will prosecution take place??

Sadly, if the company has any business presence in Australia, that's who Australia will go after for things put on the internet in other countries. It will cause companies to simply pull out of Australia, to Australia's loss.

[lavaroise]

I think Australia is about to be put out of business by the net, and not the contrary. They do not know what they are attacking, a whole economy and freedom of communications that will flourish in America and not elsewhere.

[DonQ]

Let's not blame the Australians or peculiarities in Australian law for this. The same thing has happened in the US. About 25 years ago the Scientology Church managed to nickle-and-dime a German magazine beyond endurance by suing it in the US District Court in Washington, DC, simply because something like 3 copies of every month's issue were sent to a specialty newsstand in DC. The magazine had absolutely no staff, no operations, inside the US. The burden of hiring a lawyer, and then bringing witnesses and principals from Germany to DC, was intolerable, and that's why Scientology did it that way.

[knuthom]

"It will certainly be re-established that the net is no different than a regular newspaper, that you have to be careful what you write and if you offend somebody or write malicious statements about people... then you can be subject to being prosecuted," he said.

If you offend somebody...?

[tort_feasor]

I am actually happy about this. The U.S. Supreme Court gave the media a hunting license with no bag limit with its Sulivan v. New York Times ruling. The truth is an absolute defense to defamation cases. If the article is factual what do they have to worry about?

[rustbucket]

if you offend somebody or write malicious statements about people... then you can be subject to being prosecuted

a la Salman Rushdie? Islamic fundamentalists and the French get offended at everything American.

[Mamzelle]

re:Sadly, if the company has any business presence in Australia, that's who Australia will go after for things put on the internet in other countries. It will cause companies to simply pull out of Australia, to Australia's loss.)))

This is the first thing that occurred to me. But it'll hurt any American business in the Aussie market, too, if this goes where it looks like it will go.

[TennesseeProfessor]

Reread the article. The US company is being tried under Australian law, and our libel laws don't apply.