# Australian High Court threatens net's liberty **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 10, 2002, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-high-court-threatens-nets-liberty/141810 "2002-12-10T18:35:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2002, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-high-court-threatens-nets-liberty/141810/1 "2002-12-10T18:35:17Z")
The Australian High Court just made a [ruling](http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,5655205%255E601,00.html) allowing overseas internet publishers to be sued in Australia. > [@](#): > > **High Court threatens net’s liberty** > By Benjamin Haslem, High Court correspondent > December 11, 2002 > THE High Court has dramatically widened the scope of Australia’s defamation laws by allowing overseas internet publishers to be sued here – a ruling media companies warn could seriously affect free speech. > > The precedent was set yesterday when the High Court unanimously ruled that mining entrepreneur Joe Gutnick could sue American multimedia giant Dow Jones in Victoria over material published on its US-based website. > > The world-first decision will have serious ramifications for media companies publishing articles online, with the possibility that countries operating in the English common law tradition could adopt the High Court’s position. Those countries include Britain, Canada, New Zealand, Malaysia and South Africa. This is obviously unfortunate from my POV. E.g., it means I could be sued in Australia for something I posted on this message board. :eek: This decision raises many questions, such as: – Will it be reversed on appeal? – Is it a legally correct decision? – Will similar decisions be made by other countries? – What impact will it have on internet usage? – What should be done about this ruling? E.g., an international agreement choosing a single venue for lawsuits? I recall an early porn star (Harry Reems?) being convicted of a crime in a state where his movie was shown, although he had never set foot in that state. It always seemed unfair. Since the World Wide Web is, well, world wide, this ruling means that anyone posting on the Web can be sued in Australia. If other countries make similar rulings, then the same would go for those countries as well. This seems unfair and counter-productive. I would like to see an agreement restricting suits to the country where the stuff was posted, but I am pessimistic. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2002, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-high-court-threatens-nets-liberty/141810/2 "2002-12-10T18:54:53Z")
**december:** _I would like to see an agreement restricting suits to the country where the stuff was posted, but I am pessimistic._ As your linked article points out, “the High Court said [defendant] Dow Jones wanted to overturn a 153-year-old legal principle that a defamation occurred where the material was read, heard or observed and the subject had a reputation to protect – not where the material was produced.” They sound unlikely to abandon that principle. The justices are apparently aware of the drawbacks, though: “justices Ian Callinan and Kirby acknowledged that the borderless nature of the internet meant a plaintiff could ‘forum shop’ and sue in a number of countries where they had a reputation.” International treaties are probably the only way to deal with these issues in the long run. ---
**Author:** ![SUPERKARLENE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/22d042/32.png) [@SUPERKARLENE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SUPERKARLENE)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2002, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-high-court-threatens-nets-liberty/141810/3 "2002-12-10T20:38:53Z")
> [@](#): > > – Will it be reversed on appeal? > – Is it a legally correct decision? > – Will similar decisions be made by other countries? > – What impact will it have on internet usage? > – What should be done about this ruling? E.g., an international agreement choosing a single venue for lawsuits? 1. I have no idea if it will be reversed on appeal. As an American, I have very little experience with the Australian legal system, and that also makes me a bit leery to post judgements about them. 2. Legally correct? The ruling raises freedom of speech issues all over the world, and that’s a heavy responsibility for any court to decide. When this case gets to the Victorian Court (as Dow Jones says it will), it will no doubt be considered very carefully. The decision is already getting worldwide scrutiny, as exemplified by your OP. (But will Australia feel compelled to prosecute any of _us_ for our Internet postings? I doubt it. Unless you’re making comments about how you plan to kill the Australian Prime Minister, I think you’re safe. ;)) 3. Other countries? I think that almost certainly sometime in the near future, governments the world over will have to consider legislation regarding the Internet - as the link you cited states: > [@](#): > > Justice Kirby said any change to defamation laws covering the internet should be left to parliaments, and that countries should try to reach some kind of agreement to prevent forum shopping. I also think one of the litigants believes he has done some good for internet-hooked humanity: > [@](#): > > Mr Gutnick said yesterday: “My purpose was not to make legal history but if this allows other people to bring actions after being defamed on the internet, then I’m very happy.” 1. Internet usage? Perhaps people will be made more responsible for their Internet behavior, given the possibility of Australian wrath! 2. If anything, I hope that this ruling facilitates the creation of some kind of international legal body for the open discussion of global issues. However, isn’t that what the UN is for? If this ruling really does end up ruffling feathers, I foresee debate among the UN representatives. ---
**Author:** ![Azael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a8b319/32.png) [@Azael](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Azael)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2002, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-high-court-threatens-nets-liberty/141810/4 "2002-12-10T20:50:21Z")
> [@](#): > > International treaties are probably the only way to deal with these issues in the long run. One like this? [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE\_ID=23456](http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=23456) I can’t help but feel that future historians will look back on the turn of the century internet as we know it today and compare it to the “wild west.” Thing is, I kind of like it better the way it is. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2002, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-high-court-threatens-nets-liberty/141810/5 "2002-12-10T22:38:01Z")
Instapundit’s opinion [http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story\_page/0,5744,5653137%5E7583,00.html](http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,5653137%255E7583,00.html) > [@](#): > > IN the 1950s, before space travel was a reality, scholars worried about whether orbiting the Earth would even be legal. Under the law as it existed at that time, each nation’s sovereignty extended usque ad coelum – literally “to the heavens”. Each nation’s territory thus consisted of a wedge beginning at the Earth’s core and continuing infinitely upward and outward. > > This posed a number of absurdities, but the greatest difficulty was to orbiting spacecraft. Flying over a nation’s territory without permission was illegal, perhaps even an act of war. But although aircraft could change course to avoid passing over countries who desired to bar their way, spacecraft – their orbital paths fixed by the laws of physics – could not… > > Now another new technology – the internet – faces a similar problem. In the case of Dow Jones and Company v. Gutnick, the High Court of Australia, yesterday ruled that anyone who publishes on the internet should be liable to be sued in any country in which an individual believes that he or she has been defamed by that publication. This is so, even though the High Court admits that, much as spacecraft cannot control their orbits: “The nature of the web makes it impossible to ensure with complete effectiveness the isolation of any geographic area on the Earth’s surface from access to a particular website.” ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2002, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-high-court-threatens-nets-liberty/141810/6 "2002-12-10T23:11:56Z")
Without going into the substance or merits of the OP, I just want to say that as soon as I read the thread title I know who had posted it. Indeed I was right. Somehow I do not feel particularly threatened by the Australian authorities. In any case, if they want to get me, they’d have to pay my ticket to Aussieland which might be worth the while. ---
**Author:** ![TheLoadedDog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/35a633/32.png) [@TheLoadedDog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TheLoadedDog)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2002, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-high-court-threatens-nets-liberty/141810/7 "2002-12-10T23:46:51Z")
I can’t see much coming of this. I seem to recall another internet scare story a couple of years ago regarding French law. IIRC, in France individuals own their images in photographs. People then raised the possibility of cases like this: Lets say I take a photograph of another Australian, on Australian soil. I upload the photo to the internet. The person in the photograph then sues me _in France_ because I have made the image available online in that country, and have breached their (French) copyright. I don’t think that one was ever taken seriously either. ---
**Author:** ![Tony\_Barber\_s\_Underwear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/58f4c7/32.png) [@Tony\_Barber\_s\_Underwear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tony_Barber_s_Underwear)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2002, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-high-court-threatens-nets-liberty/141810/8 "2002-12-10T23:55:40Z")
[Here](http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/2002/56.html) is the full text of the decision. Just from a glance at the text : [ul] [li]It is a decision of the full court of the High Court of Australia (“HCA”) - the equivalent to the US Supreme Court.[/li][li]The decision means that Mr Gutnick can go back to the Victorian Supreme Court (“VSC”) to pursue his defamation action.[/li][li]Dow Jones’s basic argument was that the articles in question were published in New Jersey, where the servers were located. Gleeson CJ at 20:[/li] > [@](#): > > Dow Jones submitted that it was preferable that the publisher of material on the World Wide Web be able to govern its conduct according only to the law of the place where it maintained its web servers, unless that place was merely adventitious or opportunistic. [li]Dow Jones was seeking the VSC proceedings be set aside, as it was not the correct jurisdiction.[/li] [li]Mr Gutnick made an undertaking not to sue in any other jurisdiction other than Victoria, his home state. He is only claiming for damages that occurred to his reputation in Victoria, and not in any other jurisdiction.[/li][/ul] I don’t have to much problem with this decision. “Diamond” Joe Gutnick is a pretty well known person in Australia, particularly in Victoria, where he was formerly president of the Melbourne Football Club. While Dow Jones likened the placement of the material on the internet to the placement of books on a library bookshelf, it was correctly determined that they were publishing the material in a variety of jurisdictions - all those jurisdictions where the material can be read. What may be more interesting is whether a plaintiff eventually seeks a defamation action in a wide variety of jurisdictions. Callinan J : > [@](#): > > Finally, Victoria is a clearly appropriate forum for the litigation of the respondent’s claim to vindicate his reputation which has been attacked in Victoria, as well, plainly as elsewhere. For myself I would see no immediate reason why, if a person has been defamed in more than one jurisdiction, he or she, if so advised might not litigate the case in each of those jurisdictions. - Bubba. PS. I note that Geoffrey Robertson QC appeared for Dow Jones. He is one of my favourite Barristers - he has done some awesome human rights work in his time. I highly recommend [The Justice Game](http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0099581914/ref=sr_aps_books_1_1/202-5767560-0954202) ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2002, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-high-court-threatens-nets-liberty/141810/9 "2002-12-11T00:12:50Z")
I haven’t had a chance to read this judgment yet, and I will comment more when I have, perhaps. But to answer the first of your questions, it will not be overturned on appeal. The Australian High Court is the equivalent of the Supreme Court of the US. There ain’t no appeal body beyond it. ---
**Author:** ![gazpacho](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6f9a4e/32.png) [@gazpacho](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gazpacho)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2002, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-high-court-threatens-nets-liberty/141810/10 "2002-12-11T00:17:21Z")
France ruled that Yahoo must adhere to some of the French laws even though the site was in English hosted in the US. I remember this getting a lot of press then. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/760782.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/760782.stm) I see that caved is probably to strong a word. They said they would cave but have not been very effective in getting rid of the auctions. [http://reason.com/sullum/120602.shtml](http://reason.com/sullum/120602.shtml) A US court ruled that the French law did not apply to the US. The ruling is in the appeal process. [http://www.detnews.com/2002/technology/0212/03/technology-26058.htm](http://www.detnews.com/2002/technology/0212/03/technology-26058.htm) ---
**Author:** ![robinc308](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b782af/32.png) [@robinc308](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robinc308)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2002, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-high-court-threatens-nets-liberty/141810/11 "2002-12-11T00:25:21Z")
OK, to respond to the questions. 1. It will not be reversed on appeal. The High Court is the highest court in the land. This was, I believe the third appeal in this case (all prior judgements going the same way). 2. Yes. As the decision upheld the current and longstanding interpretation of defamation law in Australia. The court also accepted submissions from other parties including AOL Time Warner, [Amazon.com](http://Amazon.com) and others. It was not a decision made in haste. 3. I don’t know. I would imagine that other common law countries would have similar laws to Australia, and therefore similar interpretations of said laws. 4. I doubt it. The only possible impact may be that people take more care when publishing certain information. 5. What to do is a complex question. I agree that some measures need to be taken to avoid jurisdiction shopping, but I also think that there needs to be protection for individuals or corporations against being defamed. That the vehicle for the defamation was the internet is irrelevant. One of the key things that I found (not having read all the judgement in detail and not being a lawyer) was that it was found that Joe Gutnick lives in Victoria, is based in Victoria and has a reputation in Victoria. Therefore given that the material was obtained and read in Victoria, it may have damaged his reputation. One of the major arguments put forward by Dow Jones was about jurisdiction shopping, and it would be impossible to apply every possible law in every jurisdiction with internet access around the world to something published. In the ruling, it was said that jurisdiction would be limited to those where the litigant had a reputation, and that should be obvious from the person you publish information about. If someone published something defamatory about me on the internet, then the only jurisdiction I could sue them in would be Victoria, Australia, because that’s the only place where I have a reputation. If I had a reputation in Germany but not Australia, then I couldn’t sue in Australia under Australian law, I would have to sue from Germany under German law. I don’t think it’s a blow for liberty on the internet, but it is saying that just because you publish it on the web, doesn’t mean it’s above the law, and you can’t just go to some other country with more liberal laws to avoid responsibility for what you publish. ---
**Author:** ![gazpacho](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6f9a4e/32.png) [@gazpacho](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gazpacho)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2002, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-high-court-threatens-nets-liberty/141810/12 "2002-12-11T00:28:55Z")
My post was poorly edited. I blame society, specifically the insidious influence of the Australian courts. Perhaps I should sue. What I meant by Yahoo caving is that they basically said they would comply with the French order and not publish Nazi material. One of the articles said that they are not doing a good job of keeping the offending material from the French. ---
**Author:** ![gazpacho](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6f9a4e/32.png) [@gazpacho](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gazpacho)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2002, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-high-court-threatens-nets-liberty/141810/13 "2002-12-11T00:40:22Z")
> [@](#): > > I don’t think it’s a blow for liberty on the internet, but it is saying that just because you publish it on the web, doesn’t mean it’s above the law, and you can’t just go to some other country with more liberal laws to avoid responsibility for what you publish. Dow Jones did not just go to another country. They stayed in the country that they are from. I think that it is a huge blow for liberty on the internet. Basically it is saying that anything you put on the Web must adhere to the laws of every country that is on the web. I am not sure if that is even possible given large disparity in laws from country to country. ---
**Author:** ![robinc308](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b782af/32.png) [@robinc308](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robinc308)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2002, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-high-court-threatens-nets-liberty/141810/14 "2002-12-11T01:10:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by gazpacho \* > \*\*Dow Jones did not just go to another country. They stayed in the country that they are from. \*\* True. But they published with full knowledge that the information would be accessed in other countries. I have been reading through the judgement at the link posted by **foxyboxer**. Probably one of the most key things I have read is this: > [@](#): > > In defamation, the same considerations that require rejection of locating the tort by reference only to the publisher’s conduct, lead to the conclusion that, **ordinarily, defamation is to be located at the place where the damage to reputation occurs.** Ordinarily that will be where the material which is alleged to be defamatory is available in comprehensible form **assuming, of course, that the person defamed has in that place a reputation which is thereby damaged.** It’s saying that under Australian law, defamation is about the damage caused by certain information rather than publishing it. If it’s published and never viewed - it wouldn’t be defamatory in Australia. Further to that, the place where the defamation is said to occur is the place where the dammage occurs. It naturally follows that: 1. You must have a reputation that can be damaged 2. The defamatory information must be consumed in the place where you have the reputation (a defamor can’t act alone - a third party must consume the information for it to become defamatory) 3. The information must cause damage to your reputation Acording to the judgement: > [@](#): > > Mr Gutnick has sought to confine his claim in the Supreme Court of Victoria to the damage he alleges was caused to _his reputation in Victoria_ as a consequence of the _publication that occurred in that State_ He’s confining his tort to what happened in Victoria only. He’s not suing for any damage to his reputation in the US, or even in any other Australian states, but only for that damage done in Victoria. The judgement goes on to say that it would be a more difficult proposition if he had brought the action for defamation in multiple jurisdictions, even if those were multiple states of Australia, let alone multiple countries. The judgement has also said that it’s not opening everything up to every possible jurisdiction: > [@](#): > > the spectre which Dow Jones sought to conjure up in the present appeal, of a publisher forced to consider every article it publishes on the World Wide Web against the defamation laws of every country from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe is seen to be unreal when it is recalled that **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 may resort.** It’s not a blow for liberty. The law has been upheld as it has always applied in Victoria. The Internet has thrown up some interesting challenges and difficulties for the law, and these are acknowleged in the judgement, but it seems to me that the initial tort brought my Mr Gutnick was narrowly enough construed that it fell well within the existing law. ---
**Author:** ![Tony\_Barber\_s\_Underwear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/58f4c7/32.png) [@Tony\_Barber\_s\_Underwear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tony_Barber_s_Underwear)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2002, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-high-court-threatens-nets-liberty/141810/15 "2002-12-11T01:26:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by gazpacho \* > \*\*Dow Jones did not just go to another country. They stayed in the country that they are from. > I think that it is a huge blow for liberty on the internet. Basically it is saying that anything you put on the Web must adhere to the laws of every country that is on the web. > \*\* I think that Justice Callinan made an important point : > [@](#): > > A publisher, particularly one carrying on the business of publishing, does not act to put matter on the Internet in order for it to reach a small target. It is its ubiquity which is one of the main attractions to users of it. And any person who gains access to the Internet does so by taking an initiative to gain access to it in a manner analogous to the purchase or other acquisition of a newspaper, in order to read it. > > The appellant contends that the Internet is not “pushed” into any particular jurisdiction. The contention ignores the commercial and social realities that greater publication produces both greater profit and broader persuasion. Indeed, the appellant’s arguments would suggest that all of its objectives were exclusively high-minded. Revenues from increased advertising and circulation, and the word “profit” never passed the appellant’s advocate’s lips. It may well be that “firewalls” to deny access to the unintended or non-subscribing reader are at present perhaps imperfect. So be it. Publishers are not obliged to publish on the Internet. If the potential reach is uncontrollable then the greater the need to exercise care in publication. Dow Jones published material that was potentially defamatory in a jurisdiction where Joe Gutnick has a strong business and personal reputation. Determining that material is published only in the jursidiction that the servers are located would lead to chaos. Callinan J again : > [@](#): > > If it were accepted, publishers would be free to manipulate the uploading and location of data so as to insulate themselves from liability in Australia, or elsewhere: for example, by using a web server in a “defamation free jurisdiction” or, one in which the defamation laws are tilted decidedly towards defendants. Why would publishers, owing duties to their shareholders, to maximise profits, do otherwise? The place of “uploading” to a web server may have little or no relationship with the place where the matter is investigated, compiled or edited. I really don’t think that there is much to worry about based on this decision, especially for the individual. - Bubba. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2002, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-high-court-threatens-nets-liberty/141810/16 "2002-12-11T01:37:56Z")
Well Gazpacho that is not quite correct. As Robinc308 says, this decision does not mean you have to adhere to the laws of every country. It just means that if a country adopts this decision, you will have to avoid defaming people who have a reputation in that country. In other words, if I was to make negative comments about Joe UScitizen on the internet which would not actionable under US defamation law, but which would be actionable under Australia’s tighter defamation law, he would not be able to access the Australian courts unless he has a reputation in Australia which was damaged in Australia. TLD I think that this impact may well have more impact than the French/Nazi brouhaha. The problem that the French anti-nazi groups have had is that although they received favourable decisions from the French courts, they are having great difficulty enforcing those decisions. I expect that if Gutnick’s case is successful (and of course the substantive issue of whether he has been defamed is yet to be decided) he _will_ be able to enforce any monetary judgment against Dow Jones. It is a large company with (I should think) a wide spread of assets, and Gutnick will be able to find at least one country with both Dow Jones assets against which to find leverage, and a court system that is willing to enforce an Australian judgment. In other words, I suspect that this decision _will_ impact on substantial companies whose assets are vulnerable to attack who publish on the internet and defame Australians. ---
**Author:** ![gazpacho](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6f9a4e/32.png) [@gazpacho](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gazpacho)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2002, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-high-court-threatens-nets-liberty/141810/17 "2002-12-11T01:39:44Z")
> [@](#): > > Dow Jones published material that was potentially defamatory in a jurisdiction where Joe Gutnick has a strong business and personal reputation. Well that basically means you cannot publish material that could be libelous in any country on the internet. Which I find a huge blow to internet publishing. Does anybody know if this material would be considered libelous in the states? I have heard that England and the US have different laws on the subject. Articles in English tabloids have been considered libelous that if published in the States would not be considered libelous. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2002, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-high-court-threatens-nets-liberty/141810/18 "2002-12-11T01:50:04Z")
Gazpacho you continue to overstate the case. The decision (if it is widely adopted) will mean that when you comment upon someone, you have to consider whether what you say would be defamatory of them in the places they have a reputation. Given that you know who you are commenting on and where they live and so on, the considerations you will have to make to avoid defamation are not utterly open ended. ---
**Author:** ![Tony\_Barber\_s\_Underwear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/58f4c7/32.png) [@Tony\_Barber\_s\_Underwear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tony_Barber_s_Underwear)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2002, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-high-court-threatens-nets-liberty/141810/19 "2002-12-11T02:48:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by gazpacho \* > \*\*Well that basically means you cannot publish material that could be libelous in any country on the internet. Which I find a huge blow to internet publishing. > \*\* Think of it this way, **gazpacho**. Let’s say you place an article on your website that makes a number of claims about John Doe of Bumblefuck, Idaho. Now, assume that these claims are protected under US/Idaho laws of free speech, and are not actionable there. There isn’t really any way that John Doe can start an action against you using the tighter laws in an Australian jurisdiction unless he has a valid claim that his reputation in that jurisdiction was damaged. If we further presume that : [ul] [li]John Doe spends some time in Brisbane[/li][li]he has a solid reputation in Brisbane[/li][li]the article was read by people in Brisbane[/li][li]the article potentially damaged his reputation in Brisbane[/li][/ul] then John may have grounds for a claim against you. Whether there is any way that he can actually follow through on his claim with you in the US is another matter. People who are making claims on the internet, just as with any other media, should consider their ‘victim’s’ reputation, and which places their victim’s have a reputation that could be damaged by the claims. - Bubba ---
**Author:** ![gazpacho](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6f9a4e/32.png) [@gazpacho](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gazpacho)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2002, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-high-court-threatens-nets-liberty/141810/20 "2002-12-11T03:29:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Princhester \* > \*\*Gazpacho you continue to overstate the case. The decision (if it is widely adopted) will mean that when you comment upon someone, you have to consider whether what you say would be defamatory of them in the places they have a reputation. Given that you know who you are commenting on and where they live and so on, the considerations you will have to make to avoid defamation are not utterly open ended. \*\* There are countries that have laws against publishing things that are critical of the government. News organizations that publish articles critical of those governments could be punished if these sorts of judgements get to be widely enforceable. I really don’t see how anyone can look at this case and not think that publishing news on the web is now greatly complicated. From foxyboxer’s quote of the judgement. > [@](#): > > Publishers are not obliged to publish on the Internet. People are getting more and more of their news on the Internet. To say that a news organization has other outlets to publish things so they should not publish what in their own country is perfectly acceptable is to my mind just ridiculous. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-high-court-threatens-nets-liberty/141810.md?page=2)