# libel, Prince Chaz, internet (moderators pls read) **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 10, 2003, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libel-prince-chaz-internet-moderators-pls-read/212471 "2003-11-10T20:53:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![drhess](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/94ad74/32.png) [@drhess](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drhess)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2003, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libel-prince-chaz-internet-moderators-pls-read/212471/1 "2003-11-10T20:53:03Z")
Ok. I think we can read between the lines and get an idea as to what the rumors about HRH Charles are. Foreign newspapers that are reporting the rumor were not distributed on Sunday in the UK. Does that mean websites that talk about it that are readable in the UK can be sued for libel? Can we ask what the heck Prince Charles is said to have done on the Striaght Dope? Or will wigged barristers come after us? :eek: :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2003, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libel-prince-chaz-internet-moderators-pls-read/212471/2 "2003-11-10T21:15:19Z")
It remains to be seen. Last year, the Australian High Court upheld an exercise of jurisdiction over Dow Jones regarding a libel action brought in the state of Victoria. Dow Jones & Co. v. Gutnick, Austl., 2002 H.C.A. 56, 12/10/02). > [@](#): > > The court emphasized that the very nature of a defamation action takes into account the activities of at least three people–the publisher, the plaintiff who claims that his reputation has been harmed, and a third person in whose eyes the plaintiff’s reputation has been damaged. > > * * * > > The court also extensively addressed the nature of the Internet, acknowledging that it was very different from other forms of communication and therefore it would be appropriate to give due consideration to how these differences should be addressed by law. > > * * * > > However, the court rejected the argument that the Internet was uniquely global and that failure to adopt the defendant’s argument would uniquely hamper Internet publishers. > “It must be recognised … that satellite broadcasting now permits very wide dissemination of radio and television and it may, therefore, be doubted that it is right to say that the World Wide Web has a uniquely broad reach,” the court said. > > * * * > > “However broad may be the reach of any particular means of communication, those who make information accessible by a particular method do so knowing of the reach that their information may have,” the court said. “In particular, those who post information on the World Wide Web do so knowing that the information they make available is available to all and sundry without any geographic restriction.” One issue is, of course, that if the defendant has no presence or assets in the country where the action is brought, the plaintiff is going to have a lot of trouble enforcing any judgment. It’s extremely unlikely that an American court would enforce any such judgement (on First Amendment grounds). ---
**Author:** ![Dogface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@Dogface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dogface)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2003, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libel-prince-chaz-internet-moderators-pls-read/212471/3 "2003-11-10T21:22:42Z")
Prince Charles is alleged to have had ongoing sexual relations with Mr. Fawcett, a palace flunky. Likewise, it is alleged that Prince Charles has had something to do with suppressing charges of rape made by former male palace flunkies against other male palace flunkies. Allegedly, Diana is on videotape talking about the former, possibly the latter. There. Those are the allegations. They are just allegations. ---
**Author:** ![drhess](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/94ad74/32.png) [@drhess](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drhess)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2003, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libel-prince-chaz-internet-moderators-pls-read/212471/4 "2003-11-10T21:23:07Z")
Well, we do have libel laws, albeit liberal ones, and if the award was big enough, why not go for it? ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2003, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libel-prince-chaz-internet-moderators-pls-read/212471/5 "2003-11-10T21:38:34Z")
> [@](#): > > why not go for it? You mean, even if you’re likely to lose? Or at least be unable to collect on a judgment? ---
**Author:** ![Celyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9dc877/32.png) [@Celyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Celyn)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2003, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libel-prince-chaz-internet-moderators-pls-read/212471/6 "2003-11-10T21:49:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by drhess \* > \*\*Ok. I think we can read between the lines and get an idea as to what the rumors about HRH Charles are. Foreign newspapers that are reporting the rumor were not distributed on Sunday in the UK. Does that mean websites that talk about it that are readable in the UK can be sued for libel? > > Can we ask what the heck Prince Charles is said to have done on the Striaght Dope? Or will wigged barristers come after us? :eek: :dubious: \*\* Well, there seems to be significant doubt as to the validity of that injunction in some parts of the U.K. 🙂 [http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/4259.html](http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/4259.html) Methinks m’learned friends could have a field day, or mightt bee wise not to!