Court rules Internet case can be heard in Australia

Court rules Internet case can be heard in Australia

Belinda Goldsmith
Reuters
Canberra

Australia's highest court ruled on 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 centered 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.

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.