[ad_1]
Internet jurisdiction determines which legal authority can hear a case involving a potential crime committed over the internet. In the US, intent to conduct business within a specific region is required for a regional court to claim jurisdiction. International jurisdiction is not regulated in the same way, and each country usually takes its own laws into consideration. The pace of global growth of the internet continues to outpace the world’s justice systems, leading to cases without legal precedent.
Internet jurisdiction is used to determine which legal authority can hear a case, between a defendant and a plaintiff, in which the potential crime was committed over the Internet. Typically, when a plaintiff, or individual bringing a suit, wishes to charge someone with a crime, he or she appeals to the judicial authority, or court, competent for the geographical area in which the crime occurred. Internet crime, however, is difficult to attribute to a particular geographic location because the perpetrator of the website may be in a different region or country than the person against whom the crime was allegedly committed.
In determining state jurisdiction within the United States, current US legal precedence has determined that an operator of a website must demonstrate intent to conduct business within a specific region in order for that regional court to claim jurisdiction. For example, if a plaintiff in Massachusetts believes that content on a website operated in the state of California violates the laws unique to Massachusetts, the plaintiff must show that the website specifically targets his state as a region in which he wishes to do business . If this intent can be demonstrated, a Massachusetts court and judge would have jurisdiction over the case.
Evidence of intent to do business can be proven through various means, such as contact by website operators with companies in a specific geographic area via the website. It could also be established whether operators make business trips, phone calls or fax messages in the region. There are also a variety of other means of demonstrating intent to do business, and they are often determined by the relevant court on a case-by-case basis.
Internet jurisdiction internationally is not regulated in the same way. United States law provides a guideline by which separate state courts may base their decisions, and states may refer to decisions reached through other state court cases as the basis for their decision. In other words, while a Texas state court may use a ruling from a Wisconsin court to make a decision on an Internet case, there is no such higher authority to regulate separate countries.
In such cases, each country usually takes its own laws into consideration in determining legal action, before considering the laws of the country where the defendant may live. If a country determines that a crime has been committed on the Internet, according to its laws, and determines that its courts have jurisdiction over the case, then that country can prosecute the person or company that operates the website, even if the person involved may live in a different country.
A rather well-known example of international jurisdiction over the Internet is the case of Dow Jones & Company v. Gutnik. In it, a US Internet publication published potentially harmful information about an Australian citizen. The High Court of Australia has therefore ruled that, if the information is viewable within Australia, that information and its publishers are subject to the legal jurisdiction of Australia.
An Australian court has ruled that an individual’s right to be protected from libelous speech overrides the rights of an internet publication to post any material it wishes as a form of free speech. Therefore, the court also ruled that the website had to remove the material from the internet. The High Court cited the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a covenant which, among other things, protects individuals from international attacks on their honor or reputation, as a basis for defending individual rights. However, the material posted on the Internet by the US site did not violate any US law.
The pace of global growth of the Internet continues to grow at a faster rate than the current law. As it, and its technical capabilities, outpace the world’s justice systems, regional and international courts continue to tackle cases without legal precedent. Until laws exist to address every possible crime on the Internet, Internet jurisdiction will most likely be determined largely by casuistry.
[ad_2]