In a message dated 12/11/02 9:07:42 AM Eastern Standard Time, [log in to unmask] writes:
I sent off my previous reply to soon. here are other links that discuss the Dow Jones v Gutnick libel case. The first link contains additional links
to the case transcripts
http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/II/Gutnick.html
This link is from a Dec 2001 article
http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v8n4/nicholson84.html
Dear Colleagues:
This is a most important case with enormous potential implications for the future. Basically it would increase the risk and potential liability of anyone publishing on the WWW (or Internet for that matter) to the legal systems with the most restrictive or repressive freedom-of-speech laws anywhere in the world. At the one end of the spectrum, we have the US 1st Amendment that gives the maximum freedom-of-press rights to the media and to individuals both for free-speech reasons and as a means of helping to ensure accountability in government and the private sector. At the other end of the spectrum, are the legal systems (if you can call them that) of any number of repressive governments around the world. In between, somewhere, is the British system (followed to one extent or another by other Commonwealth countries such as Australia) with the Official Secrets Act that permits the exercise of much more government control in preventing the publication of specific stories by the !
private press/media. If this goes through in Australia, and a precedent is thereby set, we might anticipate suits against authors and media firms by individuals in courts of the most oppressive governments in the world.
This is something not to be taken lightly by the archives community, as we move (and should move) more and more toward making archival assets directly accessible on line, such as is being done in the UK and US national archives and elsewhere as we speak. We could very well be on the receiving end of this case in a most regressive manner. It could really put the brakes on international information sharing or otherwise create the kind of draconian licensing requirements to use such information resources as we already have in software usage licenses.
There is an excellent article on the topic in today's Washington Post:
"Internet Libel Fence Falls: Court in Australia Says U.S. Publisher Can Be Sued There"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37437-2002Dec10.html
Regards,
Rick Barry
www.mybestdocs.com
