Defamation, Free Speech, Jurisdiction and the Net? 349
An anonymous reader asks: "I'm writing a legal article on jurisdiction and defamation via the web. There seems to be a trend in various national courts (eg the UK, Australia, Malaysia) to treat the place where a web-page is *read* (ie browsed) as the place of publication of its contents, regardless of where the page or the server serving it are located. This has far-reaching ramifications, as it opens up anyone publishing anything on a web-site (and also Usenet)
in America to the more restrictive domestic laws of other countries -- not just for slander/libel/defamation, but also treason, lese-majestie, hate speech and general censorship laws (think Yahoo and France). Does anyone have personal, practical experience of being threatened by foreign governments or government bodies for material put up on the Net? Or is it just an inevitable consequence, to be overcome by geographical tagging of a browser's location (think icravetv.com) or similar measures?"
"Many people assert that informed Netizens see this as a way of fragmenting the Net, of imposing geographic boundaries and destroying part of the fundamental location-agnostic nature of the web and the Net -- ie, that it's a Bad Thing. Is this really so? Does anyone see this as a good, or at least a neutral, thing?"
Sorry theyre WRONG (Score:3, Interesting)
Its crap, If I shout slanders from France to Germany say can I be sued in Germany NO,
If I dance Naked in ??? and you can see me from ??? (Alright bad example as you would most certainly be blind at that point) and its legal to dance naked where I am , can I be sued for indecent exposure where you are ?
I tell you this I some worthless Aussie tried to sue me here I go over there and show the boy what "Down Under" really means.........
Broadcast mediums and other countries? (Score:3, Interesting)
What are the laws like covering broadcasts and how are they enforced? With the right medium (satellite, etc.) you should be able to reach many parts of the world where various broadcasts are deemed illegal. For example, pornography and some countries in the Middle East. How are these handled? I would have thought political broadcasts by one country might be deemed illegal in other countries with differing views.
extradition (Score:3, Interesting)
It could be just fine (Score:2, Interesting)
That's just a hope though, realistically it'll probably just be the US throwing it's weight around trying to impose it's views on the world.
Non-U.S. laws more restrictive? (Score:5, Interesting)
mind you, i think your assumption was true a decade ago, and i'd like to see it be true again...
personal, practical experience (Score:1, Interesting)
Cheers...
But is it enforceable... (Score:2, Interesting)
I suppose it will take a trial case pursued by the EFF or somebody similar to actually show that the jurisdiction cannot work in this fashion. This will be especially obvious as soon as someone tries to extradite a US citizen to some muslim country where people cannot view "indecently clad" women in pictures, or say things "against Islam." Imagine someone in Afghanistan 6 months ago sueing the Baptist or Catholic or whatever church because their site contained information about Christianity.
Re:So . . . (Score:2, Interesting)
draw your own conclusions
EULA (Score:4, Interesting)
In using my website, you agree to be bound by the laws of the United States and that you agree to accept any responsibility for any violations of local laws or treaties that using my website may cause. Further, you agree that you will hold the grantor of this license free from any responsibility should you find the material licensed to you to be libelous or in any other way offensive.
This EULA is not transferable.
Blah, blah, blah....
Oh and by the way, IANAL.
It's just what the U.S.A. has been doing all along (Score:1, Interesting)
Now the shoe is on the other foot. cphack [sooke.bc.ca], anyone?
Re:geolocation is a tool (Score:2, Interesting)
Preamble
The purpose of human life is to prosper and live happily. The function of society is to guarantee those conditions that allow all individuals to fulfill their purpose. Those conditions can be guaranteed through a constitution that forbids the use of initiatory force or coercion by any person or group against any individual:
The Constitution
Article 1: No person, group of persons, or government may initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against any individual's self or property.
Article 2: Force may be morally and legally used only in defense against those who violate Article 1.
Article 3: No exceptions shall ever exist to Articles 1 and 2.
Most claims come from US and are aimed at US ISP's (Score:1, Interesting)
letters claim everything under the sun that is
applicable to the US legal system. Even if it
doesn't apply at all, such as DMCA threats,
federal trademarks, or the amount in which one
can use material under fair use conditions.
The most ridicilous ofcourse, I encountered while
defending clients with Scientology criticism
L.A.
More Importantly... (Score:3, Interesting)
Twoflower
Re:IP treaties may threaten our free speech in USA (Score:3, Interesting)
And what about the 5th amendment, in part: "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
What happens when the principle of free speech collides with the principle of just compensation?
If the government doesn't protect copyright, for example, aren't they essentially allowing public use of a creative work without just compensation?
A Mini HowTo: Pleasing Malaysia Court (Score:3, Interesting)
A MiniHowTo on Pleasing Malaysia Court -
1. Get A Lot Of Money.
2. Donate The Money To The Prime Minister Of Malaysia, or, Give A Sizeable Chunk Of Your Company (in terms of shares / ownership) to One Or More Sons Of The Prime Minister. In Other Words, Bribe The Guy, Or Bribe His Family.
3. Get To Know The Judges - who are appointed by the Prime Minister - through the Prime Minister himeself.
4. Before You File A Defamation Suit, Tell The Prime Minister About It. Make Sure That The Judges *Are* Informed Of Your Up And Coming Suit.
5. From Then Onwards, Everything Is Arranged For You. You Can Ask For Whatever Amount. You Victory Is Guaranteed Even If YOur Evidence Is Extra-Ordinarily Flimsy.
6. If You Can't Collect The Judgement - If The Losing Side Don't Have The Money - You Can Sue Again, And Make Those Bastards Pay For "Defaming You". The Court System Of Malaysia Will Throw Your Enemies Into Jail, Because No Justice In Malaysia Will Dare To Make The "Friends Of Prime Minister" Look Bad.
End Of MiniHowTo
Re:Unpopular View (Score:1, Interesting)
At the risk of paraphrasing, you're saying "When I put up a web page, I know it can go to every country in the world, therefore, I should be aware of what is acceptable in every part of the world.
That's not logical or practical.
The fact that the web is international isn't particularly my problem. If some country doesn't like my web site, then its too damned bad.
And while you may not like what I have to say on my web site, if I'm not a citizen of your country, then you have to recognize that as an adult you ignore it because it not in your domain to change.
The fact that some country (Australia) would like to make popular culture boring, mindless pap is great. But don't make me be part of it simply because you're too delicate to deal with reality.
Re:Unpopular View (Score:1, Interesting)
What is "free reign". If I criticize the government is that "free reign" or am I exercising an inalienable right.
Do you believe in free speech? I do. I happen to believe I have the inalienable right to utter things that will make you angry. I think I have the right to make fun of your ancestry. I think I have the right to belittle your elected officials.
So if I put a web site from my small home in Smalltown USA that criticizes Belgians because they smell and they should be banished to Poland, you can bet I'll piss off a lot of Belgians and Poles.
But should they be able to sue me or throw me in jail in those countries because they don't like my web site? Is that the "free reign" you're afraid of?
My friend, freedom is nothing if you can't use it. Its one thing to say "Well there's free speech, but there are limits". What you'e saying is "I don't believe in free speech. I belive in the lowest common denominator".
Please don't beat around the bush...you are simply for censorship because in your heart, you believe freedom is dangerous and must always be held in check.
if only we had a rocket and a place to go...I understand why the Europeans left for a new world without people and thinking like you who are are afraid of life and thought. Who want someone to tell them and their neighbors what is right and wrong. You need a nanny to tell you how and when to do "stuff".
I weep for the world.