[LINK] Defamation *Everywhere* via the Net?

[Chirgwin, Richard]

If I'm wrong, correct me - wasn't the decision that Gutnick has the right to
continue with a suit? That doesn't guarantee success...

Richard

-----Original Message-----
From: Ralph Wallis [mailto:mischief@optushome.com.au]
Sent: Monday, 3 September 2001 14:05
To: Roger Clarke
Cc: link@www.anu.edu.au
Subject: Re: [LINK] Defamation *Everywhere* via the Net?


This decision is at odds with the decision in
Macquarie Bank & Anor v Berg (NSW Supreme Court 1999)
Discussed at length in
http://www.law.usyd.edu.au/~slr/v22/n1/Internet.pdf

(Several references in google to search "nsw macquarie bank injunction"
look worthy of further reading.)

You don't mention what court Gutnick's judgement is in, but
there is anecdotal evidence that lower US courts are happy
to make equally wide jurisdictional interpretations. EG Some
LINKers received notices relating to US court injunctions on
decss.

OTOH Simpson's rationale for the decision in Macquarie seems
very cautious. Gutnick's decision is the other extreme.

There is a precedent in UK of a fellow who was promoting his porn
site, targetting other UK citizens as customers. The court there
said the use of foreign web hosting was irrelevant, and the transaction
was between people exclusively in UK. I can't find the reference for
that.

On Friday, 31 Aug 2001 at 09:11, Roger Clarke <Roger.Clarke@xamax.com.au>
wrote:
> 
> The Herald Editorial above;  my comments on the Gutnick judgement below.
> 
> 
> The Sydney Morning Herald
> EDITORIAL
> Friday, 31 August 2001
> http://www.smh.com.au/news/0108/31/text/editorial.html
> The law online
> 
> "... Justice Hedigan upheld the argument of Mr Gutnick's lawyers that 
> the Internet version of an article ... had been published not only in 
> New Jersey, where it originated, but also in Victoria. Therefore, he 
> held that Mr Gutnick could sue the publisher in Victoria.
[etc]