On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 11:45 am, John O'Hagan wrote: > On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 00:09:18 +1100 > Steven D'Aprano <st...@pearwood.info> wrote: > > >> I don't believe that the Python mailing list archives are hosted in a >> country under the jurisdiction of European Law. If I'm right, then >> removing posts sets a dangerous precedent of obeying laws in foreign >> countries that don't apply. > > For better or worse, that's not how defamation law works. Generally, > the defaming is regarded as happening where the material is read, i.e. > at the point of download. The location of upload, hosting etc is > irrelevant, although the uploader and the host can both be liable > along with the author. Of course, the point is moot if none of those > people has assets in that jurisdiction. > > For example: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dow_Jones_%26_Co_Inc_v_Gutnick
You can't generalise from a ruling in one state (Australia) when other country's legal systems may (and almost certainly are) different. For example, the US explicitly prohibits their courts from enforcing foreign libel or defamation suits unless the other country provides at least as much protection for free speech as does the US. Oh, and for what it's worth, I remember that case very well, and I think the judges were terribly naive in some of their comments. Specifically, they poo-pooed the suggestion that the ruling could lead to a flurry of defamation actions in Australia against publications all over the world. If they were right, it was more by good luck than by good reasoning: the UK, not Australia, was the go-to place for "libel tourism". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel_tourism > On the specific point, I think it's possible to agree with both > Steven and Laura. It's a bad idea to obey laws that don't apply to > you if you'd rather not. It's also a good idea if possible to remove > defamatory material, not because it might be illegal, but because it's > defamatory. Defamatory according to whom, according to what standards? Standards vary greatly. It is hard to prove defamation in the US, it was ridiculously easy in the UK (things are better since the Simon Singh case inspired the UK government to change the law), and in places like Singapore defamation is a thinly disguised weapons for the ruling party to use to attack political opponents and critics, and protect themselves from having their corrupt activities revealed. http://singaporepress.pbworks.com/w/page/11489265/Defamation%20Act http://www.irrawaddy.org/asia/in-singapore-the-economics-of-defamation.html http://singaporedissident.blogspot.com.au/2012/02/lee-family-will-not-sue-for-defamation.html http://www.singapore-window.org/sw02/020926au.htm Including ordinary bloggers: http://blogs.wsj.com/indonesiarealtime/2014/06/04/libel-suit-turns-singapore-blogger-into-underdog-for-pensioners/ -- Steven -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
