Libel and defamation

==Background==
Cases of libel and defamation take new twists when coupled with the modern, online world.
Current media law faces challenges. 
Libel and defamation laws are not the same in the US, Canada and England. So, web surfers living in jurisdictions where libel laws are stricter than in the United States, for instance Canada or Britain -- may find themselves blocked from some content on newspaper websites. 
==Insights==
Can a person who has been wronged on a website can challenge a foreign publication in court where they live -- or in a place where they may chose to reside in future?
:Toronto telecommunications lawyer Bruce McWilliam said that this showdown is likely to be the first of many sparked by the reach of the Internet. "The Internet is different, because it allows you to instantly have access to the whole world. The scope of your audience is vast."
==Details==
The Post is challenging an earlier court ruling that a former UN official Cheickh Bangoura can sue the Post in Ontario over two articles that accused him of sexual and financial transgressions. The paper and backers including CNN, the London Times and the Yomiuri Shimbun, argue that if the case goes ahead, any media organisation could be sued anywhere, over stories posted on its website.
"We are concerned that this case will have important consequences for press freedom and online freedom of expression that will extend far beyond Canada's borders," said Reporters Without Borders.
"If upheld on appeal, this ruling could dissuade very many journalists from publishing their articles online," the press freedom watchdog said in a letter to the Canadian government.
Brian Rogers, a lawyer for the media groups told the Ontario Court of Appeal that Internet archives were a modern day version of the "great libraries of Babylon" but could be restricted if Bangoura's case is allowed to go ahead.
:But Justice Robert Armstrong, one of three judges hearing the case, noted: "I suppose, on the balancing side, (the Internet) can be a tremendous force for destroying a person's reputation."
According to Judge Romain Pitts, in his original judgement which allowed Bangoura to sue the Post in Ontario, which is being appealed, media organisations should consider the impact of their work.
Critics warned the ruling would force media firms to employ lawyers in virtually every country in the world with an online connection.
The Post case is complicated by the fact that the alleged libels, in articles in 1997, did not even take place while Bangoura was living in Canada, and he did not take up residence in Ontario until 2000.
"It seems a bit unfair to say that a publication should be thinking about the defamation laws in any jurisdiction where the subject may move to in the future," said McWilliam.
Three judges hearing the Post's appeal are currently considering their verdict after last week's hearing.
If they rule in favour of Bangoura, he will press ahead with a nine million Canadian dollar lawsuit (6.5 million US) damages claim against the Post, arguing it damaged his reputation as he tries to build a life in Canada.
==Details 2 ==
In Australia's Gutnick case, a man was given permission to sue US-based Dow Jones for a story published in Barron's magazine, owned by Dow Jones]], accessed via the Internet.
==Details 3==
* lawsuit over 1983 Inquirer series ends Philadelphia Inquirer June 2006 A jury in 1990 had found that the original series was not libelous - but that a reprint of it was.
:Twenty-three years after The Inquirer published a series of articles about the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and 15 years after a jury awarded a $6 million verdict to one justice, the libel case has been dismissed. Bucks County Court Senior Judge Edward G. Biester Jr., who was specially appointed to hear a pending retrial, signed an order earlier this week dismissing the decades-long litigation after Inquirer lawyers and lawyers for the sons of the late Justice James T. McDermott agreed to the dismissal.