The case our group was assigned on page 56-57 was about an Australian businessman, Joseph Gutnick, who decided to file suit for libel(defamation) against Barron's which is owned by Dow Jones & Company. Barron's posted an online article accusing Gutnick of money laundering and tax evasion. Dow Jones & Company tried to have the trial held in
the United States since that is where the company is based and where
the article was published online. Mr. Gutnick argued that he should be
allowed to sue in Australia because that is where his reputation was
damaged.
The dilemma here is Dow Jones & Company argued that if they were allowed to be sued in Australia then Mr. Gutnick could then try and sue them in other countries that he read the article in. The High Court of Australia sided with Mr. Gutnick. The reason that they gave was that " is where the damage to his reputation of which he complains in his action is alleged to have occurred, for it is there that the publications of which he complains were comprehensible by readers." (Spinello, pg 56) Dow Jones & Company decided to settle out of court with Mr. Gutnick and issued a retraction.
Defamation:
The questions that we were faced with in this case are: do you agree with the ruling in this case? Why or why not? Are Dow Jones' fears unfounded or do they have some merit?
I think that weather or not you agree with the ruling in this case depends on from which perspective you view the case. From the perspective of Dow Jones & Company, I do not agree with the ruling. I say this because the company is based in the United States and that is where the article was conceived and published. The laws of the country in which the company resides should be the laws that govern what the company does. To have a company be held libel for the laws of all the countries in the world is unreasonable, especially when the company is an internet based company. But from the perspective of Mr. Gutnick, the ruling was the right ruling. I say that because Australia is not only the country in which he resides, but where his reputation would suffer the most damage from the article. If he were to have sued in the United States, Dow Jones & Company could have argued that his reputation wasn't damaged because he wasn't well known in the United Sates.
I believe that the Dow Jones' fears of being sued by Mr. Gutnick in different countries because of this same article are unfounded. But I do believe that it was reasonable for the company to fear that it could then be held libel for things that were said in their articles in other countries. Take for example if they were to post an online article about Kim Jong-un. And in the article they stated facts about him that are completely true, but the posting of such facts in North Korea, where he is the leader, were punishable by death. Should he be allowed to hold the author and publisher accountable in North Korea for his actions? Or should they be judged by the standards of the United States for libel, that the truth is a defense to libel? I know that this is a rather extreme example, but I state it to make a point.
Using the principle for justice, you can argue that the libel case Mr. Gutnick filed should have been held in the United States. The basic formal principle of justice is that: "Similar cases ought to be treated in similar ways."(Spinello, pg 25) This case would give precedence to other similar cases in other countries. It would then allow people from one country(plaintiff) to sue a company based in another country(defendant) based on the laws of the plaintiff's country
Conflicting views in group:
Yes I agree with the high court ruling, to allow him to be trialed within his own jurisdiction. It is clear in the article that Mr. Gutnick and his lawyers realize that it is best to complete the trial here due to the different laws. Unfortunately when things like this happen on the internet it is hard to decide as to which state or country the violation occurred. The internet allows access to the entire world. There for crimes can be committed and it can be unclear who is the responsible country or state.
The dilemma here is Dow Jones & Company argued that if they were allowed to be sued in Australia then Mr. Gutnick could then try and sue them in other countries that he read the article in. The High Court of Australia sided with Mr. Gutnick. The reason that they gave was that " is where the damage to his reputation of which he complains in his action is alleged to have occurred, for it is there that the publications of which he complains were comprehensible by readers." (Spinello, pg 56) Dow Jones & Company decided to settle out of court with Mr. Gutnick and issued a retraction.
Defamation:
The questions that we were faced with in this case are: do you agree with the ruling in this case? Why or why not? Are Dow Jones' fears unfounded or do they have some merit?
I think that weather or not you agree with the ruling in this case depends on from which perspective you view the case. From the perspective of Dow Jones & Company, I do not agree with the ruling. I say this because the company is based in the United States and that is where the article was conceived and published. The laws of the country in which the company resides should be the laws that govern what the company does. To have a company be held libel for the laws of all the countries in the world is unreasonable, especially when the company is an internet based company. But from the perspective of Mr. Gutnick, the ruling was the right ruling. I say that because Australia is not only the country in which he resides, but where his reputation would suffer the most damage from the article. If he were to have sued in the United States, Dow Jones & Company could have argued that his reputation wasn't damaged because he wasn't well known in the United Sates.
I believe that the Dow Jones' fears of being sued by Mr. Gutnick in different countries because of this same article are unfounded. But I do believe that it was reasonable for the company to fear that it could then be held libel for things that were said in their articles in other countries. Take for example if they were to post an online article about Kim Jong-un. And in the article they stated facts about him that are completely true, but the posting of such facts in North Korea, where he is the leader, were punishable by death. Should he be allowed to hold the author and publisher accountable in North Korea for his actions? Or should they be judged by the standards of the United States for libel, that the truth is a defense to libel? I know that this is a rather extreme example, but I state it to make a point.
Using the principle for justice, you can argue that the libel case Mr. Gutnick filed should have been held in the United States. The basic formal principle of justice is that: "Similar cases ought to be treated in similar ways."(Spinello, pg 25) This case would give precedence to other similar cases in other countries. It would then allow people from one country(plaintiff) to sue a company based in another country(defendant) based on the laws of the plaintiff's country
Conflicting views in group:
Yes I agree with the high court ruling, to allow him to be trialed within his own jurisdiction. It is clear in the article that Mr. Gutnick and his lawyers realize that it is best to complete the trial here due to the different laws. Unfortunately when things like this happen on the internet it is hard to decide as to which state or country the violation occurred. The internet allows access to the entire world. There for crimes can be committed and it can be unclear who is the responsible country or state.
Spinello, R. (2000). Cyberethics: Morality and law in cyberspace. (5 ed., p. 57). burlington main: jones and bartlett learning.
I agree in that the suit should be held in America, the claims against Mr. Gutnick was made in the United States and was distributed in America. To me it is just like the law in where if a murder happens in 1 country, it will be tried by the country where the crime happened.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteUsing the principle for justice, you can argue that the libel case Mr. Gutnick filed should have been held in the United States. Laws change all over the world, and for one to held libel for something published in the United States and was held accountable in another country is unreasonable.
DeleteI don't think it really makes any difference where the law suit is taking place. In the end would it really make any difference? I don't think so!
ReplyDeleteIt does, countries have different rules. Like in the book in Australia it is up to the defendant to prove their is no case, while in America the plaintiff must prove their is a case and then the defendant has to defend themselves, and that can be a big difference depending on the circumstances.
DeleteIt actually does make quite a difference as said already because different places have different laws so the consequences in the end would reflect the laws of the country where the hearing is held.
DeleteGroup 2, good analysis of this libel case, do you think that the principle of justice is the only principle that can be applied to this case?
ReplyDeleteDo you think for example that if we were to apple the principle of nonmaleficence that we could argue that Barron's shouldn't have taken the risk of publishing libel in the first place?
Or do you think, alternatively, that if we applied the principle of autonomy that we could say that Barron's can publish whatever they want--libel or otherwise--because we should trust rational readers to investigate for themselves whether what is published is true or not?
I don't think the nonmaleficence principle could be argued that well because in the text it stated Australian libel laws are much more strict than in the United States where we value freedom of speech more. Barron's may not have taken into account how what was posted online here can be read in other countries and violate laws there that may not be so unlawful here. I think the autonomy principle could be argued though because anybody can post anything on the internet so you never know if it true and sometimes it should be up to the reader to do their own research if doubtful.
DeleteBased on the facts of this incident only, it could be argued that Barron's shouldn't have taken the risk of publishing libel in the first place. But when I was researching this case, I found many many other articles detailing all of Mr. Gutnick's shady dealings. I think that if your going to post something that could hurt someone's reputation then you better have the proof to back it up.
DeleteI feel that whom ever breaks the laws or violates the terms linked to the use of a company should be held accountable in that state or country. There may different laws and punishments in those states or countries which is not fair to the rest of the users.
ReplyDeleteI think the case should of been held in American where the article was published. I do realize how complicated it could be to decide what jurisdiction it should fall in.
ReplyDeleteI also believe the case should have been heard in the United States as it is where the company is based and where the article was published. What if the person suing lives in a country that has stricter laws regarding libel and as such wants to have the case heard in the country where the information was published, based on this case that should not be allowed but what is to prevent it from happening?
ReplyDeleteKayla,
DeleteThat is precisely what happened in this case. In America, libel laws put the burden of proof on the person that is claiming the defamation, not the person that supposedly did the defaming. Whereas in Australia the burden of proof is on the person that made the libelous claims, in this case Barron's. That would mean that Barron's would have to produce evidence that supported their accusations and Mr. Gutnick would only have to prove that his reputation was hurt.
I also believe the case should have been heard in the United States where the company is based and where the article was published. This would not benefit a person who live in a country where the laws would be in their favor.
ReplyDeleteI think the case should of been heard in America where the company is based. It only makes sense to be able to sue where the company is physically located.
ReplyDelete