From: John Larkin
Subject: Re: What's going on in Australia?
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 14:21:10 -0800
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
References: <3E08564F.F1FFF559@bigpond.net.au> <3E09530E.9308C136@bigpond.net.au>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.91/32.564
On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 09:14:02 +1100, Mike Harding
>On Thu, 26 Dec 2002 11:08:58 -0800, John Larkin
>>On Wed, 25 Dec 2002 06:41:50 GMT, onestone
>>>> So how is internet piblication "cowardly"?
>>>If they published in Australia they could and would be sued here. The
>>>same for any country they physically published in. What I consider
>>>cowardice is that by using the internet they assumed they could not be
>>>sued outside of the country where the publication was posted, ie the
>>>friendly and biased USA legal system. No case law existed before the
>>>Victorian court decision.
>>So, you contend that it is cowardly to host a web site in your own
>>country, and post items there in accordance with local law?
>>If an editorial in The London Times criticizes a genocidal tyrant in
>>an obscure tropical hellhole, is the tyrant entitled to collect
>>damages because the act is 'slander' in his own country?
>Surely the basic difference is that The Times is not published
>in said obscure tropical hell hole but when you publish on the
>net you publish right across the world.
But the Times is published on the web. The problem is that anyone in
the world can access web pages. If those pages are offensive or
illegal by local standards, the reader may have legal redress in his
country, even if the posting is perfectly legal in the country of
origin. The recent ElcomSoft case is a perfect example: a Russian
programmer wrote a program which was legal in Russia, but he was
nabbed and tried in the USA for violating the DMCA laws. Luckily, the
jury was smarter than the US Congress and found him innocent. But the
basic problem remains.