Michael Roberts Internet Libel Victim's Advocate’s Techdirt Profile

michaelrobertsrexxfield

About Michael Roberts Internet Libel Victim's Advocate




Michael Roberts Internet Libel Victim's Advocate’s Comments comment rss

  • Aug 7th, 2009 @ 12:50pm

    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

  • Aug 5th, 2009 @ 9:19am

    Well, the Internet libel does have universal exposure two all jurisdictions that are plugged in... (as Michael Roberts of the Rexxfield.com)

    The Internet is a good thing, justice is a good thing, all good things are subject to abuse, including both Internet and justice. I know just how debilitating and anguishing Internet smear campaigns and online libel can be because I help its victims are living. The Australian High Court ruling cited in this article is, I believe, one of the most common sense rulings I have read. the victim of libel was an Australian, the publication although originating in the United States was made available to Australians, the damage to the victim's reputation was sustained in Australia. The Australian High Court explains this perfectly in the case called Dow Jones & Co. Inc. v Gutnick: Here is a little snippet:
    "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

  • May 1st, 2009 @ 9:03pm

    MP3 defamation is still libel, not slander (as Michael Roberts (Rexxfield))

    Anonymous Coward, your comment was obviously tongue in cheek and quite funny. Notwithstanding, an MP3 recording of defamatory statements would still be considered libel. Slander is a form of defamation that is relatively fleeting, such as the spoken word or a radio transmission. Defamation in a more durable format is called libel, examples would be written words, Internet postings, digital media such as CDs and DVDs.