Australian Defamation Ruling Opens A Can of Internet Worms
by Ian McPherson

If you wanted to win a defamation case, and you had the choice between arguing the case in Australia or in the US, you would definitely choose Australia. Why? Because defamation law in Australia is far less liberal than the libel laws in the U.S., and has been regarded as a pot-of-gold for rich Australians for decades.

Politicians and ex-politicians, media magnates, mining magnates, real estate developers, convicted frauds, corrupt ex-police detectives, talk-show radio hosts, sports stars and more have won defamation cases in Australia. And, as it can cost many thousands of dollars to argue a case of this type to completion, only the well off can afford the litigation.

The latest ruling from the Australian High Court, however, is international in nature. The court ruled that Dow Jones could be sued in Australia for allegedly defamatory comments about Victorian businessman Joe Gutnick, which appeared in an online subscription of the publisher's Barrons title. A copy of the article is available here.

The court did not rule that "Diamond" Joe Gutnick, a Melbourne Rabbi/gold mining magnate, was actually defamed in the article, which would have to be decided in a separate case, but that information downloaded from the web in Australia is subject to Australian law.

Publishers now fear that, with this precedent, they will be exposed to more libel litigation, not just from Australia, but almost any country with less liberal libel laws than the U.S.

In Singapore, for instance, the defamation laws have been used to protect government ministers from criticism. A raft of defamation suits have been launched against opposition leaders in recent years, most of whom lose, are declared bankrupt, and become ineligible to sit in parliament.

With publishers now exposed to the possibility of both personal, business and politically-motivated defamation actions, from virtually anywhere in the world, they are faced with some tough decisions. Do they produce different versions of their on-line publications for varying countries, at a high cost? Or do they avoid investigative journalism, and/or overseas subscriptions, completely?

See you all in the next issue! 

Ian McPherson
DownUnder Editor