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 1

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.

Step-by-step explanation:

The internet has made legal matters complicated for businesses that try to claim that there is no jurisdiction. Before, there was no way that a court would have taken the case because a newspaper or magazine is generally sold locally or domestically only. Even international editions varied from local editions, but now things have changed. It only takes one sale from a company in another state, for that state's court to have jurisdiction because the company was actively serving customers there. The world has become much smaller now.