Wednesday, November 19, 2003
Losing Liberty: First Amendment
Foreign Courts Threaten Free Press on Internet
Proposed treaty on cyberspace law would protect Americans' hard-won
First Amendment rights
By The Detroit News
Last in a series
Free speech on the Internet is being threatened by foreign courts
claiming jurisdiction over American web sites.
Ideas leap oceans on the web, but the borderless nature of cyberspace
also lets overseas judges set harsh rules that wouldn't fly in the
United States. Still, these rules could affect the flow of information
to Americans.
Alarms were sounded last year when Australia's highest court extended
its reach to include a magazine story uploaded to the Internet from
New Jersey.
In that case, Australian businessman Joseph Gutnick took issue with an
article in Barron's Magazine published online. He filed a lawsuit
claiming he was defamed, and the Australian court upheld his right to
do so.
That means that, in effect, Australia claims jurisdiction over all
Internet content on the grounds it can be downloaded by readers on the
Down Under continent.
Gutnick said he sued in Australia because his reputation had been
damaged there through downloading. Not coincidentally, Australia also
has much stricter libel laws than the United States.
The lawsuit rocked publishers and posed a knotty question. If speech
originates in one part of the world and is downloaded minutes later a
continent or two away, whose free speech rules prevail? International
law and treaties have not caught up with the explosive use of the
Internet. As they are entitled to do, countries are setting their own
restrictive online standards.
But from an American point of view, that's a step backwards. As
expression and activities tolerated under U.S. law come under court
scrutiny overseas, it promises to diminish the overall flow of data
enjoyed by all users of the Internet, including Americans.
Yahoo, a commercial Internet site, was hammered in France by human
rights activists who criticized it for selling Nazi collectibles.
A French court took the case against Yahoo President Timothy Koogle,
who faced five years in jail if convicted. After a year of legal
hassle in the French courts, the charges were thrown out.
But in another court in another country, such charges might stick.
To First Amendment advocates, the Gutnick decision in Australia means
U.S. publishers might voluntarily censor online stories intended for
U.S. consumption simply because they can be downloaded elsewhere in
the world.
Dow Jones, which publishes Barron's, says the proper jurisdiction for
the Gutnick case is New Jersey, where the disputed article was
uploaded. Any other choice would have a "chilling effect" on the
Internet because publishers would have to tailor stories for
defamatory material to the laws of every country where the Internet is
available, the company says.
It is not a theoretical point. Distant online connections were a real
life issue in Zimbabwe, where an American journalist was tried for a
story criticizing a Zimbabwe political party. The story wasn't printed
in Zimbabwe, but ran in a British newspaper and was downloaded from a
Web site by prosecutors in Africa.
Overall, jumbled Internet law could chill American free speech in two
ways. Individuals and publishers might curb their writing with an eye
toward preventing lawsuits in countries with less free speech.
Or theoretically, U.S. courts could enforce a foreign libel judgment.
The United States and other countries are working on a treaty to cover
Internet speech and disputes like the Gutnick lawsuit. A lot of
proposals are on the table.
But at the minimum, any treaty on Internet use should not limit
Americans' hard-won First Amendment freedoms.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Vote for Bush. Why vote for the lesser of two evils?
No matter the candidates the superstition industry wins.
'Jesus' is a sock-puppet Christians utilize to add 'authority' to
whatever action they intend on taking. -Stoney
.
|
