Australian Supreme Court to the Dow Jones: Drop Dead

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 10 December 2002 05:49 (twenty-two years ago)

So much for the internet fostering free speech, etc.

― James Blount (James Blount), Tuesday, 10 December 2002 05:51 (twenty-two years ago)

yes but defamation is defamation

― electric sound of jim (electricsound), Tuesday, 10 December 2002 05:53 (twenty-two years ago)

Just because jurisdiction is deemed proper doesn't mean that Dow has lost--the businessman still must prevail in the defamation trial. I have misgivings about allowing the suit, though. This precedent, if followed internationally, would allow for forum-shopping on a scale heretofor unknown, and would greatly increase the inherent cost of doing business on the internet. I hope other common law countries decline to follow Australia.

― webcrack (music=crack), Tuesday, 10 December 2002 06:58 (twenty-two years ago)

Australia - leading the world in justice fuckups since 1788

― Queen G (Queeng), Tuesday, 10 December 2002 09:10 (twenty-two years ago)

If this spreads, won't it mean rich people and organisations shopping around for countries that will treat their case most favourably? On the other hand, not allowing this would mean that a company could 'publish' their items in some country with really rubbish legislation on libel and the like, so it cuts both ways.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Tuesday, 10 December 2002 14:01 (twenty-two years ago)

i am thinking of registering my site in liberia

― Queen G (Queeng), Tuesday, 10 December 2002 18:00 (twenty-two years ago)

what was said about the businessman, exactly?

― Aaron Grossman (aajjgg), Tuesday, 10 December 2002 18:17 (twenty-two years ago)

I heard that he eats small children.

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Tuesday, 10 December 2002 19:13 (twenty-two years ago)

2002: Barriers come down!

― N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 10 December 2002 19:22 (twenty-two years ago)

This is also a logically unworkable concept of online publication, insofar as it requires that any material freely available on the web adhere to the legal standards of every jurisdiction from which it might be retrieved. (Watch what you post on ILX -- you could find yourself facing execution under Nigerian law!)

What all of these sorts of decisions amount to, so far as I can tell, is a weird general pressure to put "doors" on web publication, to force it into the shape of current legal jurisdictions. "Please log in," everything will say, "by pressing 'submit' you acknowledge that you have read our terms and conditions and that you are accessing this information from and pursuant to the laws of one of the following locations: ________."

― nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 10 December 2002 19:32 (twenty-two years ago)

TS oligarch vs. magazine for oligarchs

as for the pressure to force the web into the confines of political jurisdictions, well, good luck to them. I wonder how often this is going to happen. Maybe that international court wasn't such a bad idea, Mr. Bush.

― Aaron Grossman (aajjgg), Tuesday, 10 December 2002 20:35 (twenty-two years ago)

Amazing how money can be used to "boost" free speech: if this magnate was a regular Joe, the Dow Jones lawyers would have said, "Yer having a laugh!", and published anyway.

― Nichole Graham (Nichole Graham), Wednesday, 11 December 2002 16:57 (twenty-two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.