|
by Mr. Wizard
"The great enemy of clear language is insincerity."
- George Orwell
"For a creative writer possession of the truth is less
important than emotional sincerity."
- George Orwell
"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."
- Aldous Huxley
"That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history
is the most important of all the lessons of history."
- Aldous Huxley
December 13th, 2002
Quietly, it seems, there
have been three anti-defamation lawsuits since 2001 in which
courts declared that publishers can be sued for content posted
on their Web sites.
What makes this alarming
is that the suit can be filed in a court jurisdiction where
the business does not have a presence. What that means is if
a particular county has a particular law that forbids something
in particular, and your Web site is in violationof the law,
you may be target of a lawsuit because you broke that law -
even though you have nothing to do with the county.
This is the nature of the third lawsuit, which
puts the High Court of Australia against Dow Jones. Apparently,
Dow Jones published an article (in Barron's magazine) in October,
2000, entitled "Unholy Gains." This raised an alarm
in Australia, and they are suing Dow Jones for defamation.
A few interesting court rulings have made things
potentially dangerous for Internet publishers:
- The U.S. District Court for the Western District
of West Virginia observed that "information ... posted
on the Internet ... is offered to a worldwide audience, as
the use of the Internet defies all geographic boundaries"
- which is a fine argument. But they then go on to say, "a
newspaper article published and circulated on the Internet
can essentially be physically 'present' in different locations
at one time and subjected to multi-state jurisdiction."
That means there are no legal boundaries for an Internet publication.
- The Supreme Court of Victoria (Australia)
essentially decided that publication of an article happens
when it is downloaded, not posted, on a Web site. That means
that the legal boundary is wherever you are when you download
the Web page.
It may sound crazy, but this stuff has bite,
and it's implications are monstrous. By effectively saying there
are no legal boundaries for Internet content, you are opening
up some interesting possibilities:
- Content providers may need to be wary of all
legal ramifications worldwide.
- Content providers may consider restricting
the ability to view content based on geographic locations.
- Say goodbye to just about every site with
the slightest immoral, unethical, or off-the-wall content.
- Lawyers will get richer, and courts
will get more crowded.
In my opinion (and to me, that's what counts!),
if these judgements stick, then it's as if a newspaper article
printed in New York, which is sent to a library in Zaire on
microfiche, falls under the legal juristiction of Zaire only
when someone reads it. Otherwise, there is no legal juristiction.
Which is like saying a newspaper in Zaire doesn't break the
law until you read it. Or something like that.
The same logic works with all media - television
(especially satellite), radio, magazines, and so forth. The
law of the reader/listener/viewer's locality takes precedence?
That's insane.
But then again, that's just my opinion, which,
with $1.50, gets me on the bus in New York (unless the transit
workers go on strike - which is another story, which I won't
get in to here!).
References:
Computerworld: U.S. Web site may face defamation suit in Australia
From Barbara Wartelle Wall: Legal Watch
i.t. matters by Jovi Tañada Yam
E Law: The Expanding Web of Defamation: Gutnick v Dow Jones
|
