Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Investment Chat Board Lawsuits -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: EL KABONG!!! who wrote (3969)	12/10/2002 6:55:31 PM
From: EL KABONG!!!	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12465

story.news.yahoo.com Dow Jones to Defend Action on Australian Web Defamation Tue Dec 10, 2:36 AM ET MELBOURNE (Dow Jones)--Business news publisher Dow Jones & Co. said Tuesday it was disappointed by the Australian High Court's decision to dismiss its appeal over a defamation case that will now be fought in the Supreme Court of Victoria. Melbourne businessman Joseph Gutnick has alleged he was defamed in an October 2000 article that appeared in Dow Jones's New York-based Barron's magazine and was also made available on the Internet. The High Court's decision on the jurisdiction in which the case will be heard has potential ramifications for Internet publishing world-wide. Dow Jones had appealed for the case to be heard in the U.S., claiming the article was published in New Jersey. But the High Court Tuesday upheld an earlier ruling that publication also occurred in the Australian state of Victoria, where it could be downloaded from the Internet. The decision allows Gutnick's action against Dow Jones to proceed in the state's Supreme Court. "The result means that Dow Jones will defend those proceedings in a jurisdiction which is far removed from the country in which the article was prepared and where the vast bulk of Barron's readership resides," Dow Jones said in a statement. But Dow Jones added that it was encouraged by the High Court recognizing "the unique challenges posed by Internet publication". "Mindful of these comments, as well as the long established principles endorsed by the High Court, Dow Jones will continue its defence of the action brought by Gutnick." The High Court made no findings on the merits of the defamation action itself. In addition to this and other newswires, Dow Jones publishes The Wall Street Journal and its international and interactive editions, as well as Barron's and other magazines. It co-owns CNBC financial television operations in Asia and Europe, and provides news content to CNBC in the U.S. -By Andrew Trounson, Dow Jones Newswires; 61-3-9614-2664; andrew.trounson@ dowjones.com Dow Jones Newswires 12-10-02 0236ET story.news.yahoo.com Court Rules Internet Case Can Be Heard in Australia Tue Dec 10, 1:08 AM ET By Belinda Goldsmith CANBERRA (Reuters) - Australia's highest court ruled Tuesday that a defamation case sparked by a story on a U.S Web site could be heard in Australia, opening a legal minefield for web publishers over which libel laws they must follow. The landmark ruling that an article published by Dow Jones & Co was subject to Australian law -- because it was downloaded in Australia -- is being watched by media firms as it could set a precedent for other cases. Dow Jones argued the case, brought by Australian mining magnate Joseph Gutnick for an Internet version of an article from Dow Jones' Barron's magazine, should be heard in the United States, where libel laws are considered relatively liberal. Debate centerd on whether an alleged defamation was published in the U.S. state of New Jersey, where Dow Jones's web servers are located, or in Victoria, where some readers saw the story. Gutnick, who has initiated defamation proceedings in his home state of Victoria in Australia, was delighted with the ruling. "They'll have to be very careful what they put on the net. The net is no different from a regular newspaper. You have to be careful what you write," he told Australian television. A disappointed Dow Jones said in a statement it would continue to defend the case brought by Gutnick. Two Victorian courts refused Dow Jones' application. The publisher then appealed to the High Court of Australia, the country's highest court, which unanimously dismissed its appeal. "The court was asked to determine where that article was published. It has made no findings on the merits of the defamation action itself," the court said in a statement. MEDIA WATCHING The ruling caught the eye of the media sector as it was believed to be the first time a country's highest court has defined where Internet publication takes place in a libel case. The court allowed 18 organizations to make submissions to the hearing, including AOL Time Warner Inc, Amazon.Com Inc, the Associated Press, Bloomberg LP, News Corporation Ltd., Reuters Group Plc and Yahoo! Inc. Dow Jones, which also publishes the Wall Street Journal, had argued that exposing Internet publishers to defamation suits in jurisdictions where material is downloaded could lead to claims all over the world and restrict freedom of speech. But the court dismissed Dow Jones' concerns of multiple defamation actions arising from one publication. It said a publisher could argue it should only have to defend itself once. The court said a claim could be brought only if the person had a reputation in the place where the material was published -- in this case, Gutnick's home town of Melbourne. Dow Jones said it was encouraged the court ruling recognized the "novel, complex and global" issues of Internet publication which the publisher said needed international discussion. The executive director of Australia's Internet Industry Association, Peter Coroneos, said the ramifications of the ruling were profound for anyone publishing content on the Internet. "However, the practicalities of bringing legal actions could ultimately prevent the mass of suits that some have feared," he said. KJC

To: EL KABONG!!! who wrote (3969)	12/15/2002 9:58:55 PM
From: Arcane Lore	Respond to of 12465

Court Throws Out Warden's Libel Suit By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS RICHMOND, Va., Dec. 14 — A federal appeals court threw out a Virginia prison warden's lawsuit against two Connecticut newspapers on Friday, saying articles posted on the Internet were not aimed at a Virginia audience. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed a lower court's ruling that the warden could sue in his home state because that is where he said his reputation was damaged. The warden, Stanley Young, claimed that The Hartford Courant and The New Haven Advocate had falsely depicted him as racist in articles that reported mistreatment of Connecticut inmates sent to Virginia to relieve prison crowding. The fact that the Internet postings could be viewed by Virginians was not enough to support filing the lawsuit in the federal court in Big Stone Gap, Va., the three-judge panel ruled. "The facts in this case establish that the newspapers' Web sites, as well as the articles in question, were aimed at a Connecticut audience," Judge M. Blane Michael wrote in the unanimous opinion. "The newspapers did not post materials on the Internet with the manifest intent of targeting Virginia readers." The decision came days after Australia's highest court ruled that an Australian businessman could sue Dow Jones over an article posted from New Jersey. Legal experts said they feared that ruling could restrict Internet communication. nytimes.com