Hard Mode 7: The Case of the Libelled Australian

"However broad may be the reach of any particular means of communication, those who make information accessible by a particular method do so knowing of the reach that their information may have. In particular, those who post information on the World Wide Web do so knowing that the information they make available is available to all and sundry without any geographic restriction."

Ruling of the High Court of Australia in the case of Dow Jones, Inc. v. Gutnick [2002] HCA 56.

This week's scholar's reaction to the above-quoted ruling is represented by the picture to the right, which roughly depicts a facepalm. By the way, the dude in the picture is Joseph Gutnick, the plaintiff in the said case.

Gutnick, a resident of Australia, sued Dow Jones (yes, the stock exchange, and based in NYC) in an Australian court for publishing an article in the online version of its Wall Street Journal, which alleged that Gutnick had business dealings with a convicted money-launderer.

In its defense, Dow Jones mainly argued that the Australian court cannot possibly have jurisdiction over the case. First, it was a New York-based corporation. And second, the articles were also "published" in New York, with its servers located in the same place. Furthermore, the online Wall Street Journal, which was a pay-to-subscribe service, could not have such a public status within Australia, since its Australian subscribers were so few.

The High Court took jurisdiction over the case and ruled as quoted above. Basically the court said that Dow Jones intended its articles to be published worldwide through the Internet, and hence, the requirement of publication has been satisfied.

Dan Svantesson, in his article Jurisdictional Issues in Cyberspace, commented that the ruling represented a too simplistic and antiquated way of thinking. He argues that when one posts information in the Internet, whether through a blog or an online news service, that person does so with a limited audience in mind.

That makes sense. After all, we do post entries with the expectation that only our professors and our classmates will ever read it. So, was the High Court of Australia correct in assuming jurisdiction? Or are you safe in ranting, raving, and exposing in the Internet the vile blackness of that douchebag you met?