A Canadian company published an article on the internet defaming an Australian resident.The Australian resident brought action against the Canadian company.With regard to internet jurisdiction,which of the following statements is true?
A) The Canadian company's appropriate defence would be to point out that it is impossible to know and comply with the laws of every jurisdiction, and that the company is therefore not liable.
B) Since the plaintiff lived in Australia, and the harm was done in that country, there is no connection between the defamation and Canada, and appropriately there is no jurisdiction.
C) Since the company was Canadian, the most convenient jurisdiction would be the province in which the Canadian company resides.
D) Since the plaintiff lived in Australia, and the defendant was based in Canada, a third neutral country would be the appropriate jurisdiction.
E) Since the plaintiff lived in Australia, and the harm was done in that country, there is a sufficient connection between the defamation and that country, and the case would be heard in an Australian court.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

In cases of online defamation, the appropriate jurisdiction is usually where the harm was done, which in this case is Australia since the defamatory article was published online and accessible to residents in Australia. Therefore, the case would be heard in an Australian court. Option A is not a valid defence as companies are expected to comply with the laws of the countries they operate in. Option B is incorrect as the fact that the defamatory material was published in Canada connects it to Canadian jurisdiction. Option C is not necessarily true as the most convenient jurisdiction may not always be where the defendant resides. Option D is also not necessarily true and would depend on the specific circumstances of the case.

A Canadian Company Published an Article on the Internet Defaming