Dow Jones loses appeal against Gutnick's defamation suit
The Australian High Court has dismissed the Dow Jones appeal against Joseph Gutnick’s defamation lawsuit, and ordered the company to pay court costs. Gutnick sued Dow Jones in a Victorian court, over an article published by Barron’s magazine in New Jersey, on the grounds that the internet edition was available in Victoria. Dow was appealing to have the defamation case heard in the US, where the disputed article was published, rather than Victoria, where Gutnick lives. The court dismissed the notion that Victorian laws should not apply to an offshore web server operated by citizens of another country. Via Kim Weatherall.
[update: Here’s a purported copy of the Barron’s article that is the subject of the lawsuit: Unholy Gains (local copy). It may or may not be the real thing]
The appellant’s submission that publication occurs, or should henceforth be held to occur relevantly at one place, the place where the matter is provided, or first published, cannot withstand any reasonable test of certainty and fairness. 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.[...]
I agree with the respondent’s submission that what the appellant seeks to do, is to impose upon Australian residents for the purposes of this and many other cases, an American legal hegemony in relation to Internet publications. The consequence, if the appellant’s submission were to be accepted would be to confer upon one country, and one notably more benevolent to the commercial and other media than this one, an effective domain over the law of defamation, to the financial advantage of publishers in the United States, and the serious disadvantage of those unfortunate enough to be reputationally damaged outside the United States. A further consequence might be to place commercial publishers in this country at a disadvantage to commercial publishers in the United States.
– High Court of Australia, Dow Jones & Company Inc v Gutnick [2002] HCA 56 (10 December 2002).
See also:
The Age, Gutnick ‘delighted’ with winAAP, Gutnick wins landmark internet libel case
News Corp, Gutnick delight on Net ruling
Reuters, Australian court to hear Net case
The Age, Legal experts divided over internet case
Dow Jones, Dow Jones Says Will Fight Australian Defamation Action
BBC, US website ‘can be sued in Australia’