Case Study Respon13.edited
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Kenyatta University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
NUTRITION
Subject
Law
Date
Nov 24, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
4
Uploaded by jessejunior
1
Case Study Response
Students Name
Institutional Affiliation
Professor
Course Code
Due Date
2
What happened in this case?
On December 10, 2002, the High Court of Australia issued its ruling in the case of Dow
Jones & Co. Inc. v. Gutnick, which dealt with online libel. Barron's Online, a publication of Dow
Jones, had a piece titled "Unholy Gains" on October 28, 2000. The article's response to the
investigation was written by one Joseph Gutnick, to whom several references were made. It was
said that Gutnick's good name was sullied in the article. So, it may be said that the High court of
Australia heard a case involving online slander. In October of 2000, Dow Jones posted an article
on Borron's website. Many references to Gutnick and "unholy profits" may be found in this
essay. Gutnick took legal action against Dow Jones as a consequence.
What is defamation
It is an act in which the image and reputation of the person being hindered are being
impeded by some individual directly or indirectly. As a consequence of such activities, the
person whose image is being hampered might incur tremendous losses. Dow Jones defamed
Gutnick by spreading false information about him by publishing an article that Gutnick had
written, as shown by the case.
What legal issue did the court have to decide, and what decision did it reach?
It was decided in court that Dow Jones's report publication defamed Gutnick and that the
news organization had no basis for believing that Gutnick was involved with Mr. Goldberg. Any
evidence supports none of the claims that these connections were improper or unlawful. The
consensus is that Dow Jones is responsible for what happened. The ruling allows plaintiffs to sue
for defamation online regardless of their location. This was carried out because Dow Jones
published unfounded rumors regarding Gutnick's character. Even if the judge's ruling in favor of
3
Gutnick in the case issue was hotly fought and many other courts reached a different conclusion,
the reality remains that this is the situation. At trial, Dow Jones was required to state there was no
cause to assume Mr. Gutnick was a customer of Mr. Goldberg or had any illicit or criminal links
with Mr. Goldberg. The High Court's ruling effectively allows Australian plaintiffs to file
defamation lawsuits against any defendant, regardless of where they are physically located, if the
defendant's conduct occurred on the internet. Engaging in trade with, visiting, residing in, or
utilizing a foreign country's infrastructure necessitates acquiescing to that country's legal
requirements. The reason being doing business internationally necessitates conformity with the
local legislation in each country involved. Just because a publication might not happen
somewhere does not mean it never happens.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
4
References
Pappalardo, K., & Suzor, N. (2019). Dow Jones and Company v Gutnick (2002).
Landmark
cases in defamation law (Landmark Cases)
, 217-241.