|
|
The Internet is not a defamation-free zone |
A landmark decision regarding defamation and the Internet was handed down recently in the Victorian Supreme Court: Gutnick v Dow Jones & Co Inc. |
In this case Joseph Gutnick sought to bring proceedings against Dow Jones, a media giant in the USA, alleging that its article "Unholy Gains" defamed him by claiming he was the biggest customer of convicted money-launderer and tax-evader Nachum Goldberg. |
The article was published on Dow Jones' website in the US, but was available via the internet in permanent article form to all Victorian internet users who subscribed to the service and held the correct password. |
Aiming to keep the law apace with today's modern technological world, the Court rejected the argument made by Dow Jones that the World Wide Web was a system unlike any other and thus 'defies' traditional analysis. |
The Court held that the publication of the alleged defamatory material was in Victoria, where it was downloaded, even though the web server was located in the USA. Thus the defamation case could be heard in Victoria and not USA (where the likelihood of the claim failing was much greater). |
Justice Hedigan drew a distinction between Internet publications (access limited to subscribers who paid fees and held the appropriate passwords) and World Wide Web publications, with the decision applying only to the former. |
The decision was upheld in the Court of Appeal. |
