[WikiEN-l] RE: Corrected

Sun May 15 11:53:40 UTC 2005

Tony Sidaway wrote:

>Delirium said:
>  
>
>>Tony Sidaway wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>geni said:
>>>      
>>>
>>>>On 5/14/05, Tony Sidaway <minorityreport at bluebottle.com> wrote:
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>Ray Saintonge said:
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>>>should review the four criteria
>>>>>>for fair use found in U.S. law.
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>>>>Why?  I live outside the USA and Wikipedia publishes worldwide.
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>The servers are in florida as such we are subject to the law of that
>>>>state and the laws of the US federal goverment.
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>Not surprisingly, the UK courts do not take that view, and reciprocal
>>>legal arrangements between the US and the UK make it possible to pursue
>>>non-payment of UK judgements in US courts.
>>>      
>>>
>>Not surprisingly, you are misinformed on this point.
>>    
>>
>Please do not make insults on this mailing list.
>
I fail to see the relevance of that comment.  I most circumstances one 
would at least wait until there has in fact been an insult before making 
such a request.

>> UK courts take
>>the  view that they do not have jurisdiction over US publications.  For
>> example, were the Atlanta Journal-Constitution to defame a Briton,
>>they  would not be able to sue in UK courts.
>>    
>>
>As far as websites are concerned, that is flatly incorrect.  Australia,
>Canada and the UK have all accepted cases against US websites, and the UK
>case Godfrey versus Hallam, for instance, demonstrates that a private US
>citizen who publishes using the internet can be sued in the British
>courts.
>An Australian businessmen sued WSJ online after it claimed he was involved
>in money laundering.  The Australian court ruled that he was allowed to
>bring the case in Australia where his reputation was damaged by the
>article.  Coincidentally, WSJ was also sued in the UK courts over a
>separate case.  In both cases the content was published on a US website
>primarily for a US readership, but a foreign court accepted jurisdiction.
>The Canadian case involved an Ontario citizen suing the Washington Post in
>the Ontario courts. What is interesting about this case is that, at the
>time of the damage was done, the plaintiff was not in Canada, and was not
>a Canadian citizen.  He was a UN employee stationed in an African country.
> Later he moved to Canada and petitioned the courts.  The Ontario court
>reasoned that the harm would follow him wherever he went, so they accepted
>jurisdiction.
>
In reviewing this string of cases at 
http://www.caslon.com.au/defamationprofile7.htm I note that the 
plaintiff was a resident of the jurisdiction at the time the suit was 
filed.  In the Bangoora case it is admitted that he was not a resident 
at the time the offence began, but the offence is considered as 
continuing as long as the material keeps appearing on the net.  Thus the 
questions of jurisdiction presented in these cases relate more to where 
the offence was committed, than to whether the plaintiff has standing in 
the jurisdiction.

I believe you were the one who claimed that truth was not a defence to 
an allegation of defamation in the UK.  This is clearly not true.  See 
http://www.swarb.co.uk/lawb/defGeneral.shtml on this point.

Ec