Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

1. 

   dorpus, 14 Mar 2005 @ 3:40am

   
   

   Internet Child Custody Cases?

   It's a lot easier to have intercontinental relationships now, and thus, international babies. Will we see a new generation of intercontinental custody battles, or internet orphans who were conceived in one country, birthed in another, and abandoned in a third?
   

   [ link to this | view in thread ]

2. 

   Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2005 @ 5:52am

   
   

   No Subject Given

   It is actually called forum shopping, not jurisdiction shopping.

   [ link to this | view in thread ]

3. 

   dorpus, 14 Mar 2005 @ 10:49am

   
   

   Jurisdiction over Amazon.com products?

   Japan has no laws against selling child pornography, thus Amazon is the largest seller of the material in Japan. Most of the kiddie porn videos on this site are sold through Amazon.
   
   http://girlsdvd.jugem.jp/
   

   [ link to this | view in thread ]

4. 

   Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2005 @ 11:05am

   
   

   No Subject Given

   
   Why not simply make up a list of the biggest offenders (countries like Australia, The U.K. and Canada apparently, who allow frivolous cases like this to plug up their courts) and simply deny access to them based on there laws… When disclaimers start popping up saying “Because your country is backwards and stupid, you are not allowed to view this content…” People will be pissed, and laws will change.
   
   
   
   

   [ link to this | view in thread ]

5. 

   blorpus, 14 Mar 2005 @ 7:43pm

   
   

   pending suit

   This is notify you that I plan to file a class action suit against Techdirt in the Duchy of Grand Fenwick for mental anguish, for subjecting me and my ilk to the inane ramblings of a certain Dorpus and his/her/its ilk.

   [ link to this | view in thread ]

6. 

   Michael Roberts of the Rexxfield.com, 5 Aug 2009 @ 9:19am

   
   

   Well, the Internet libel does have universal exposure two all jurisdictions that are plugged in...

   The Internet is a good thing, justice is a good thing, all good things are subject to abuse, including both Internet and justice. I know just how debilitating and anguishing Internet smear campaigns and online libel can be because I help its victims are living. The Australian High Court ruling cited in this article is, I believe, one of the most common sense rulings I have read. the victim of libel was an Australian, the publication although originating in the United States was made available to Australians, the damage to the victim's reputation was sustained in Australia. The Australian High Court explains this perfectly in the case called Dow Jones & Co. Inc. v Gutnick: Here is a little snippet:
   "If people wish to do business in, or indeed travel to, or live in, or utilize the infrastructure of different countries, they can hardly expect to be absolved from compliance with the laws of those countries. The fact that publication might occur everywhere does not mean that it occurs nowhere." (per Callinan J at para 186)
   AND
   "the spectre which Dow Jones sought to conjure up in the present appeal, of a publisher forced to consider every article it publishes on the World Wide Web against the defamation laws of every country from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe is seen to be unreal when it is recalled that in all except the most unusual of cases, identifying the person about whom material is to be published will readily identify the defamation law to which that person may resort."
   Regards, Michael Roberts of www.Rexxfield.com

   [ link to this | view in thread ]