Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-06-19/Brad Patrick

Could we have a clarification about what "top 100 software companies" means? Fortune 100, maybe, or something else? Anville 00:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC).

Internet libel
The [London] Court of Appeal this month confirmed the boxing promoter Don King's right to sue Lennox Lewis US-based lawyer in the UK for defamation in respect of allegations made over the Internet.

Allegations were made by Judd Burstein, Lennox Lewis's New York lawyer, concerning Mr King on two websites which are both based in the US. Mr Justice Eady found that the English courts had jurisdiction to hear the claim. On appeal from this judgment Burstein argued that the New York courts were the more appropriate forum to hear the claim and the English Court should therefore decline jurisdiction.

According to Ian De Freitas, a partner at Berwin Leighton Paisner specialising in defamation and intellectual property rights pertaining to the internet, said that the case illustrated the approach of English and other commonwealth countries to Internet defamation. "The reach of English defamation law over Internet publications can again be seen in a case involving parties who are all substantially based in the United States where the publication emanated from the United States," he commented.

In rejecting Burstein's appeal, the Court of Appeal laid down four basic principles stemming from case law derived from the leading authority in this area, Spiliada Maritime Corp. v Cansulex Limited.

Firstly, in tort cases, as with defamation, there was a presumption that England was the appropriate forum because that is the place where the tort has been committed. English law treats the publication of an Internet posting as taking place where it is downloaded.

Secondly, this presumption was only a starting point. The court must also consider the extent of publication abroad and the nature of the claimant's connections with England. The more tenuous the connections and the more substantial the publication abroad, the weaker the presumption that England is the appropriate forum based upon the place where the tort is committed.

Thirdly, where someone chooses to publish on the Internet to the whole world, they cannot be too particular about where they find themselves being sued for defamation as a result.

The Appeal judges followed the Australian case of Gutnick v Dow Jones in rejecting a "single publication rule" applied in the United States which presumes that you sue in the place of first publication. Finally, the Court affirmed the approach that the court's role is first to ascertain where the more appropriate forum is, and only if this is overseas to then take into account any legal or procedural advantages in bringing the claim in England to decide that the proceedings should remain in England in any event.

However, the UK Defamation Act 1996 settled the law on the liability of a site owner or internet service provider.

By remaining vigilant and removing offensive postings, they can take advantage of a defence which protects anyone but a publisher, author or editor from libel claims, and which is explicitly framed to apply to electronic service providers. 81.131.117.171 10:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)