RE: more on the defamation case

["Ang Peng Hwa (Assoc Prof)" <TPHANG@ntu.edu.sg>]

Well, this is a significant case because it raises the issues that everyone has been asking:
1. Can the internet alone create defamation liability (14 copies of the magazine, Barron's, were sold in Victoria but they had 300 online subscribers)? Most people had thought you could not and in fact, at least one suit involving a Singapore newspaper was aborted on that ground.
2. Where should one sue?  What law and what standard of defamation should apply? The successful (and reported) suits had been between plaintiffs and defendants in one country. 
3. What of the peculiarities of the web?
 
But as the news reports is revealing, the sky has not fallen.
 
In the arguments in court, everyone is trying to confine the facts and reasons for the decision of the case to Melbourne. The plaintiff says his reputation has been besmirched in his own home town. It's therefore only fair: when someone is hurt, whoever has caused the hurt should pay.
 
The outcome is similar to the "end-run" used by US celebrities to sue US magazines in the UK. When US celebrities cannot sue in the US, they try (and often succeed in) the UK.
 
The Aussie judges have also cited the single publication rule from the US--you can sue only once in one place for one article. This is one reply to the question of whether the internet deserves some special consideration. 
 
But it should be noted that this is just a hearing about jurisdiction of the case. The hearing on the merits of the case has not yet taken place.
 
The case is fitting in a way as Australia was the location of the first reported successful libel suit concerning the Net Rhindos v Hardwick. 
 
Regards,
Peng Hwa Ang

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: David Goldstein [mailto:goldstein_david@yahoo.com.au] 
	Sent: Tue 12/10/2002 11:31 AM 
	To: Alfa-Redi Mailing List; APPLe Mailing List; Derecho-Informatico Mailing List; Internet News Mailing List 
	Cc: 
	Subject: more on the defamation case
	
	

	Net association says it's a risk but not Armageddon
	Australia's internet industry today said a High Court
	ruling today would make some people think twice before
	publishing material on the web.
	 http://smh.com.au/articles/2002/12/10/1039379822749.html
	
	http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,5650162%5E15306%5E%5Enbv%5E,00.html
	The full judgement
	
	http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/2002/56.html
	
	Aust High Court ruling hits Internet worldwide
	The High Court of Australia has, in a decision with global
	ramifications, ruled that an article on the Internet is
	considered to be published at the point it is read, rather
	than the point it originated.
	
	The decision upholds a previous ruling by the Supreme Court
	of Victoria which held that an online article is published
	in the jurisdiction where it is downloaded, regardless of
	where it was uploaded or where the publishers server
	resides. It is expected to influence decisions in
	jurisdictions worldwide.
	
	"It's not binding on any other country, but other
	jurisdictions might consider it to be of persuasive value,
	or might adopt similar arguments," Brendan Scott, a lawyer
	with Gilbert and Tobin, told ZDNet Australia.
	
	...
	
	According to Scott, publishers residing in relatively
	liberal publication regimes are more likely to be affected
	by this judgement. "For example, in the US there is a
	constitutional protection of freedom of speech, which is
	absent in Australia," he said. "So the same statement can
	be legal in the US but illegal in Australia."
	
	 http://www.zdnet.com.au/newstech/ebusiness/story/0,2000024981,20270565,00.htm
	
	=====
	David Goldstein
	 email: Goldstein_David@yahoo.com.au
	 phone: +61 418 228 605 - mobile; +61 2 9665 0015 - home
	
	http://greetings.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Greetings
	- Send your seasons greetings online this year!
	_______________________________________________
	apple mailing list
	apple@lists.apnic.net
	http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apple