It's something I've been ranting about over long lunches for the past few years-that at some stage big business will attempt to corral the free-wheeling days of the Internet-and that it will happen in 2 ways-through libel actions and corporate 'gateways'-IE: governments will give corporations the ability to block your access to the Internet by granting the right to charge for fast access..and free access will be extremely slow-a bit like the old dial-up Internet.
But do you listen ??...nooo. Others scoff ( hello Hedda !) and call me mad..which I am indeed..quite balmy..but always and every time-correct.
Following on from the very famous but little known Joseph Gutnick case-which established that an Internet board could be sued in any country , although one needs very deep pockets and Gutnick is a multi-millionaire Australian mining magnate..comes another case that will rock the net to it's core..and oddly enough from Australia again ( home of Billy/wx40afp !)
**************************************************
There is a legal case unfolding in Queensland that every blogger should keep a watching brief over as it could set an unpleasant precedent for freedom of speech.
The case suggests that lawyers are beginning to circumvent the new uniform defamation code by resorting to the civil tort of "injurious falsehood" as a way of seeking big payouts from media companies for their corporate clients.
The case has been initiated by a software company called 2Clix against Simon Wright, the host of a popular IT blogsite called Whirlpool.
The case is likely to clarify how moderators are meant to behave when hosting forums in which contributors say defamatory things and, specifically, it should establish whether a website that posts derogatory comments by contributors is acting maliciously тАУ an important test for proving injurious falsehood.
In its statement of claim, lodged on Monday, 2Clix cited around 30 postings on Whirlpool that were critical of its products. It claims the comments were both "false and malicious" and that the website refused to remove them after the company complained. It is seeking damages of $150,000 for each month that the comments remain on the website and wants two "forum threads" removed from the site.
Under AustraliaтАЩs new uniform defamation code -- which came into force at the beginning of last year -- corporations are not allowed to sue. Only companies with less that 10 employees or not-for-profit groups can take action for defamation, although individuals within companies can sue if they allege that they have been personally defamed.
So instead, 2Clix, and its solicitor, Stephen Baldwin of Turnbull and Company, took the unusual path of suing under the little-used tort of injurious falsehood. The test for injurious falsehood is considered higher than defamation as plaintiffs have to prove the statements were untrue and that there was malice on the part of the defendant.
http://www.crikey.com.au/Media-Arts-and ... ehood.html
*********************************************
for those who have the patience to plow through legal papers-the Gutnick case can be read in full here:
http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v ... _text.html
*********************************************
Furthermore: and this again happened in Australia which may be leading the way (backwards) about the freedom to post anything you feel on Internet boards.
And it happened to a very good friend of mine who received in settlement-from the delightful News Ltd organization ( owned by the charming Rupert Murdoch), the sum of $40,000 , as did 14 others who were subject to a barrage of insults on a website from posters, after they tendered to a court, references for a man who was convicted on what the newspaper called a 'heinous sex crime". The newspaper's website allowed posters to rant to their hearts content on their blog.
Unfortunately for them-those who the contributors called every name under the sun included High Court judges , barristers and my friend-one of the world's leading lecturers in French.
But not only did they receive an instant settlement from the newspaper of the 40 grand each-they are all still free to sue for libel !
Reply With Quote
