Talk:Dow Jones & Co. Inc. v Gutnick
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Dow Jones & Co. Inc. v Gutnick is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. | ||
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian law. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
Great article, but the last paragraphs read like a position paper rather than an NPOV encyclopedia article:
- Such statements are dramatic and, for the most part, wrong. The Gutnick case was decided under Australian law. Although it is true that most legal systems provide for jurisdiction in relation to damages suffered within the forum, the outcome of this case cannot reasonably be seen as a valid indication of how the courts in 190 other nations will decide similar disputes. Further, if this judgment appears frightening for those who “values freedom of expression”, a judgment in favour of Dow Jones would presumably appear equally frightening to those who values the right of reputation? – another basic human right widely considered just as important as freedom of expression. It is also imperative to remember that criminal cases, like the arrest of a journalist in Zimbabwe, are treated completely differently than civil cases, like the Gutnick case. The suggestion that “dictators everywhere” would be more inclined to exercise jurisdiction over Internet activities after the High Court’s decision in the Gutnick case is ridiculous. For example, the rules of private international law in the People’s Republic of China already allows for jurisdictional claims over a situation like the one in the Gutnick case. Indeed, most states’ rules do so, including the American rules. There was no dramatic increase of jurisdictional claims after the Yahoo! decision in France, and there will most likely not be any such increase after the Gutnick case either.
Perhaps the issue here is that you've selected a single, isolated example with which to argue the entire opposing side (the arrest of a journalist.) Most opponents that I've heard argue about the economic consequences caused by increased legal exposure, rather than (as you point out) irrelevant criminal arrests made by a dictator.
Furthermore, you compare the Yahoo case with this one, without explaining the major difference, which make this case so interesting: a lack of a business presence within the jurisdiction. Dachshund 17:21 21 May 2003 (UTC)
I have removed much of the material from this page, as a result of an unintentional infringement of copyright - I thought I had permission to reprint it. Please do not restore the page. - David Stewart
The outrage this decision prompted in the US is ironic considering the way the US has been involved in expanding the reach of domestic criminal law into other countries. See the case of Babar Ahmed who the US are trying to extradite on terrorist charges from the UK -he has never been to the US but is claimed to have raised money for terrorism via the internet. So the US reasons our criminal law covers the internet but foreigners are not allowed to apply their civil laws.
[edit] Re my 06:12, 5 January 2007 edit
I came on this article via a wikilink from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander_and_libel#Australian_law, strictly as a matter of passing interest. I noted that the settlement figure mentioned here differs from a figure mentioned by Barrons, so I added a {{fact}}. I also added an External link to the relevent Barrons page.
While browsing around, I came across some interesting further discussion of this case which raised an interesting point not currently mentioned in this article. The article says, The High Court's ruling effectively allows defamation plaintiffs in Australia to sue for defamation on the internet against any defendant irrespective of their location. As I understand the further discussion, going back to 1849 English precedent Duke of Brunswick v. Harmer (1849) 14 Q.B. 185, suit is also allowed to be brought without time limit since delivery of each copy of a defamatory item constitutes a separate publication. See http://paulwatson.blogspot.com/2002_12_08_archive.html#85827687 and pages linked from there. -- Boracay Bill 22:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
