Hide Techdirt is off for the long weekend! We'll be back with our regular posts tomorrow.

Australian Supreme Court Says It Has Jurisdiction Over A New Jersey Server

from the jurisdiction-rears-its-ugly-head...-again dept

It seems the issue of legal jurisdiction and the internet is appearing once again. A defamation suit against Dow Jones is going to proceed in Australia, despite the story being published on a website in New Jersey. Dow Jones has argued that the case should be tried in the US, seeing as how they published the article in the US. However, the Australian Supreme Court says that since the artice was available on the web in Australia, it’s as if they had published it in Australia as well. This question of internet jurisdiction keeps coming up, and I’d say this is a terrible ruling. It means that, technically, anyone who publishes anything on the internet could face charges anywhere in the world. If people followed that, it would be nearly impossible to publish anything online.

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Australian Supreme Court Says It Has Jurisdiction Over A New Jersey Server”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Mike (profile) says:

Re: Hey, the US is doing it to Russia...

Indeed. I didn’t mean to imply that the US was any better at this. I was just pointing out that the question is going to keep coming up, until some sort of agreement is reached.

It seems that all countries seem to want to believe that the laws of their own country apply to the internet as a whole. That’s a recipe for disaster (or a reason to head back to law school).

TechNoFear (profile) says:

This is a defamation case

Sorry about the late reply but this article is linked to a current one…

This was a defamation case, as such the claimant must prove his reputation was damaged (and that the damage has cost them).

The news item was viewable in Australia and Australia is where the claimant has a reputation to be damaged (not in the US).

So if you are going to publish on-line content about Australians’ then you should ensure that it is factual and legal (in Australia).

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...