RSS
Twitter
Italy Extends Welcome To Internet Libel Suits
from the lawyers-without-borders dept
If somebody writes something about you that you don't like, go to Italy and read it there, because then, apparently you can have them prosecuted for defamation. Lance Armstrong will go on trial there next year, stemming from comments he made about Italian rival Filippo Simeoni to a French newspaper. Even though the comments in question were published outside the country, a judge determined the alleged act of defamation occured when Simeoni read the article online in Italy. The question of who has jurisdiction over content published online remains unanswered, with courts in some countries, such as Australia, asserting that something that can be read in their country is liable to their legal system. As we've noted before, these precedents open up anyone that puts content online to be sued anywhere in the world -- something that will lead to jurisdiction shopping. In fact, it wouldn't be hard to imagine countries building up Internet libel industries, with rules allowing people to sue anyone, anywhere and courts friendly to libel claims, much like some countries become corporate tax havens.
Reader Comments
(Flattened / Threaded)
Responsible
The gift of speech should be given only to real human beings. The ones that would be able to be accountable for what comes out of their mouths.
As a general rule, EVEN on the internet, one has (almost) free speech .. and he/she should accept the consequences that comes with that freedom.
Borders (physical or digital) should not impair the legality of a statement.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Nothing to do with the internet....
This is a defamation case. A case about damage to someone's reputation.
If the plaintif's reputation exists in Italy and was damaged in Italy. So the case should be heard in Italy.
Why should damaging and incorrect content be allowed just because they were published on the internet?
Why is the publishers' duty to ensure that content produced for profit is not accurate and legal, just because it is on the internet?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Nothing to do with the internet....
If the plaintif's reputation exists in Italy and was damaged in Italy. So the case should be heard in Italy.
But the market for the publication was in France.
The *problem* is that every country has different libel laws -- and by saying (as you do) that you need to obey the laws where anyone might feel their reputation was impugned, then you've suddenly made it so that the country who has the strictest laws now gets to enforce those laws across the rest of the globe.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Nothing to do with the internet....
True.
You must have a reputation in that country, prove it was damaged in that country and that the damaging content was untrue.
Ever heard of Filippo Simeoni before?
I haven't so I assume he would not have much of a reputation to damage in Australia (and so it would be costly and pointless suing here).
Your side of the coin is I can vindictivly destroy your reputation around the globe as long as I do it from the country with the slackest laws.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Nothing to do with the internet....
Your side of the coin is I can vindictivly destroy your reputation around the globe as long as I do it from the country with the slackest laws.
Well, there are two sides to the coin. One is whether or not libel laws really make sense these days, and you could makea pretty good argument that they don't -- but I'll leave that aside for now.
But, I think what you said is flat out wrong about what my opinion is. My side is *not* that you can vindictively destroy someones reputation and use the slackest laws. Actually, it's exactly the opposite. My point has been that the whole idea of being able to jurisdiction shop is a problem -- whether you're using the strictest or the slackest laws.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I don't understand your point
Mmmh, an Italian suing an American over an interview gone online in a French newspaper? Carlo, this is pesky matter however you look at it.
Assuming the defamation really happened (so there is real meat in the complaint), what should Simeoni have done? Sue Armstrong in France? Sue him in the US? Or sue him in each country for the quantity of damages he has received in that country? In this case, it only makes sense he sued him first (or only) in Italy, where he has the greatest reputation and where the damage has been the worst. And since this is a French newspaper, and possibly not widely read in Italy, the judge should try to assess the impact of the damaging text on Italian citizens only when evaluating the compensation. This is not unreasonable.
In fact, I assume that any reasonable judge will evaluate the merits of the libel only proportionally to the damage occurred in his country, and not globally in the world. If this is so, then the idea of jurisdiction shopping is not that likely or appealing anymore.
If on the other hand you are suggesting that I should sue for defamation according to the laws of the country where the text was put online, I guess this would create a mechanism for jurisdiction shopping: I could create my own libeling blog with jurisdiction in some far off island on the Pacific Ocean and happily produce unsubstantiated and embarassing claims on just anyone I don't like, safe from any kind of legal retaliation... would that be fair?
If, finally, you are suggesting that events that happen on a global scale should have global legislation, then I perfectly agree with you. But, until we have a world-wide parliament approving world-wide laws, what is a poor defamed guy supposed to do?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Internet libel "litigation havens"
Carlos' last sentence is an interesting prophecy/protection. But I don't think it would get that far. I also acknowledge his concern about jurisdiction shopping. Not withstanding, I think the greater good is served by implementing common sense laws that act as a deterrent to antisocial antagonists from practicing Internet libel and hiding behind anonymity, or jurisdictions that do not offer equitable relief for victims of libel.
As a victim of extreme Internet libel, I can state with some authority that people who have not experienced this 21st Century pandemic firsthand, simply cannot relate to the anguish it causes. It is absolutely debilitating to have your reputation smeared 24/7 through the amazing effectiveness of the Internet and search engines.
The Australian court ruling referred to by Carlos is in my opinion an excellent example of common sense, here is a snippet:
The Australian High Court explains this perfectly in a case called Dow Jones & Co. Inc. v Gutnick: "If people wish to do business in, or indeed travel to, or live in, or utilize the infrastructure of different countries, they can hardly expect to be absolved from compliance with the laws of those countries. The fact that publication might occur everywhere does not mean that it occurs nowhere." (per Callinan J at para 186)
AND
“ …the spectre which Dow Jones sought to conjure up in the present appeal, of a publisher forced to consider every article it publishes on the World Wide Web against the defamation laws of every country from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe is seen to be unreal when it is recalled that in all except the most unusual of cases, identifying the person about whom material is to be published will readily identify the defamation law to which that person may resort.”
Regards,
Michael Roberts of www.Rexxfield.com
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment