Damn good question, gex gex.
Two things: First, I should have explicitly stated that I think the decision in this particular case was the right one. It was a bad situation, but Dow was clearly trying to overturn something that was well established, and in this instance it didn’t make sense to do so. (So really, I apologize for making it appear as if I’m opposing this case per se.) The point I had was more in relation to the overall argument that had crept up in this thread: ie, the concept of people being defamed in other jurisdictions having an innate right to sue in general when it comes to the Internet. I posed it here because it seems that the issue of international defamation “ups the ante”; defamation cases targeted strategically (in other words, with an intent to harass, not to be won in court) at foreign individuals would be even more troublesome than the ones I cited, and therefore probably more likely to be attempted (since the point of these suits is to be more trouble than they’re worth to fight in court). Traveling to NY from South Carolina to fight a case is troublesome, traveling to (let’s say) the UK from the US might be impossible for most people.
Second, I do believe this is unique to the Internet. On the internet, everything is “broadcast” to the whole world all the time, by everyone. This isn’t a case of Howard Stern saying something and getting sued in NJ, it’s the case of someone saying “I thought so and so’s product wasn’t very good” on a limited distribution mailing list and getting sued in a country where it’s not feasible for them to fight it. You can argue that it’s the “right” of someone to sue in this case, but I’m arguing that this going to result in supression of speech on the internet. It’s a consideration I don’t think is trivial, because it’s not a matter of “what the court will decide” in each case. Once credibility to these lawsuits is established (once the public believes they’re possible and enforceable), this could become quite a problem.
I’m not sure the answer would be to overturn this decision, even if it were possible. But there are a lot of ugly ramifications to this that I’m worried aren’t being considered.