Scenario in UK

Cases

Although it has been suggested that the defense should always apply unless the plaintiff is able to show that the defendant did indeed have the disqualifying knowledge or cause for suspicion, only the defendant knows exactly what care he has taken. Accordingly, as in most defenses, it is for the defendant to show that the defense applies to him."

The decision in that case was that ISP Demon agreed to settle out of court to pay damages to academic Laurence Godfrey who claimed it had hosted "squalid, obscene and defamatory" material about him.

The case has shown that the legal regulation of the Internet remains a grey area. If an ISP have to remove any offending material from a website simply someone objects to it or claims it be offending because it assumes its all reasonable care to protect itself, it appears that any individual can force an ISP to remove content on demand. It is to some extent unacceptable and undesirable that an offended party should simply notify an ISP claiming the information to be legally defamatory. While in another spectrum, the ISP may possibly be sued by users on the grounds that their right to freedom of expression are violated.

Berezovsky v. Michaels & Others
This case concerned two Russian businessman who alleged that defamatory material had been published in a US magazine, Forbes, and distributed in the UK. Such publication of defamatory material was made on the Internet and in a magazine. Even though Forbes is a US-based magazine, and has relatively few subscriptions in the UK or Russia, Berezovsky and another Russian businessman sued Forbes in the UK. The plaintiffs had decided to sue in the UK rather than in Russia or the US, claiming substantial connections with the jurisdiction through visits, business relationships and, in one case, personal and family ties. They had confined their claims to damages to their reputations in the UK.

The House of Lords said that publication in the UK of a libel that was internationally disseminated constituted a separate tort, and as publication took place where the words were read, an action could be brought in the UK in respect of the publication made there. In addition, given the evidence made available to the court that there were reputation of the plaintiffs to protect in the UK, the UK could be taken as the most appropriate forum.

No doubt that that case was related to the issue of jurisdiction, and was problematic in the sense that the defamatory statement was made by one in one country, on a website hosted in second country but could be accessed anywhere in effect, and the publication occurs in many countries. Complicating the issue may be that the defamed person has a reputation in a third country. The decision of where the suit can be brought somehow depends on how the court in one jurisdiction interprets. In particular, the laws theoretically, can be different from country to country. As concerned, the plaintiff may be encouraged to engage in "forum shopping", choosing the country whose laws are most favourable to him/her.B. Berezovsky v. Michaels & Others