Thoughts on Gutnick decision
The Australian High Court's decision to allow Joseph Gutnick to sue Dow Jones, an American publisher, in a court in Australia over alleged defamation is received with anger worldwide. Obviously, if such decisions are made in courts around the world, there is no end to what a publisher, small or large, can risk by putting his or her words on the Internet. This may especially hurt smaller publishers, who do not have resources to fight lawsuits overseas, and chill free speech also in areas which do not have the strict libel laws of Australia.
Furthermore, what is to prevent courts in applying local standards on any legal challenge to a published article. Standards for what is considered 'obscene', 'indencent', 'infalmmatory' or 'blasphemic' vary from place to place. This blog, for example, is routinely all of the above somewhere.
It is becoming painfully obvious that the court systems are relics from ancient times, and that the old saying about lawyers 'their minds are being made sharp by being made narrow' is very true. There are checks on the executive and legislative powers, but the checks on the judicial system are proving inefficient as long as the courts are creating their own laws as they go.
Courts are becoming more and more intrusive in private affairs, in politics (e.g. how Bush became president) and in business and technology (e.g. Microsoft lawsuits; DMA, Napster, and as a counterpoint: CDA). There is simply no check on the legal power. Once the laws are in the books, no matter the motivations behind them, the courts are essentially free to do as they please.
At least this case has given us an explanation of the expression 'kangaroo court.'
2:13:12 AM
|