Australian ruling on internet libel

Published on Sunday 22 December 2002 00:00

THE internet, that amorphous mass of wires and computers, connects 600 million people - a tenth of the world’s population - at the click of a mouse. We have worked its wonders into our lives to an extent that it has become a utility.

Its use in developed nations is becoming as commonplace as domestic heating and lighting (both miracles of their day). Yet every now and then an event occurs that reminds us that as a means of mass communication, we are only just beginning to comprehend the implications of its borderless reach.

A fortnight ago, Australia’s highest court ruled that a Melbourne businessman could bring a libel action against the owner of a US website in his own country. The judges did not decide whether mining magnate Joseph Gutnick had indeed been defamed - that matter will now be handled by the state of Victoria’s Supreme Court.

But the judges’ ruling against international news group Dow Jones set a historic precedent because it re-defined what legally constitutes "electronic publishing" and challenged the notion that national laws have no jurisdiction over cyberspace.

Dow Jones sought to have the libel case transferred to the US because the Barron’s financial news website containing the story that Gutnick complained of is part of The Wall Street Journal Online. Its servers - large computers that store the pages making up websites - are physically located in New Jersey.

Adding new pages to a website involves sending them, electronically, to the server. That process, argued Dow Jones, constitutes publication.

But the Australian High Court backed Gutnick’s assertion that an item of information is actually published on the internet whenever, and, crucially, wherever, a computer user clicks on a hypertext link. The judges ruled that plaintiffs could bring actions in jurisdictions where they had reputations to protect, and where defendants had assets that could be seized.

Their ruling has sent a shockwave through the media world. To avoid liability for defamation in multiple jurisdictions, international media players will now be forced to restrict access to some of their content, or amend it, so as to comply with every imaginable set of libel laws around the world. Either that, or remove sites altogether.

The internet’s reputation as the bastion of free expression is clearly endangered.