Steve Block wrote:
Andrew Gray wrote:
Basically, in the eyes of the UK court system, what needs to happen is that something is published in the UK, and that it can be defaming to someone with standing in the UK.
"Published" has been construed to mean "made available to be read by a third party" - the classic example is that sending a letter in an envelope isn't publishing, since there's one recipient, but sending a postcard is, since the postman can read it... the logical extension of this is that something published on a server in Thailand by a guy in Kenya can be grounds for someone in Cuba to sue, if someone in London reads it even once, but this (thankfully) has not been ruled on by a court as yet. At least, I don't *think* it has, but IIRC there's an Australian court that did something similar.
Didn't the Lennox Lewis & ors v. Don King make exactly this point? That even though the comments were made on American websites, they were downloadable in the UK, and so had been published here.
There have been similar rulings on that point, but relating to copyrights instead of libel, in both Australian and Canadian courts.
Ec