Complete Question:
In 2002, Australia's highest court ruled on a defamation case in which an Australian citizen claimed to have been defamed by a Dow Jones article published on the defendant's website. The court found that the citizen was defamed
A)but jurisdiction over Dow Jones couldn't be established because the defendant had no physical presence in Australia.
B)but jurisdiction over Dow Jones couldn't be established because the defendant's servers were in America and the article had been uploaded in the United States, so it was considered published in the United States and not subject to Australian law.
C)and publication of the article occurred when the article appeared and could be read on a user's computer screen, establishing jurisdiction in Australia.
D)and jurisdiction over Dow Jones was established because under American law, the defendant's website was interactive and sufficiently established minimum contacts, creating jurisdiction.
Answer:
In 2002, Australia's highest court ruled on a defamation case in which an Australian citizen claimed to have been defamed by a Dow Jones article published on the defendant's website. The court found that the citizen was defamed and publication of the article occurred when the article appeared and could be read on a user's computer screen, establishing jurisdiction in Australia.
Explanation:
Jones & Co. Dow. Inc. v Gutnick was examined in the High Court of Australia in a trial of Web diffamation, determined on 10 December 2002.
Barron's Web, released by Dow Jones on 28 October 2000, included the article entitled "Unholy Gains," where the respondent, Joseph Gutnic, was referred to several times. This portion of the report was diffamed by Gutnick. One main decision was that in Australia the complaint could be introduced.
