Re: The Macquarie Bank Case thrown out

On Wed, 16 Jun 1999, Michael do Rozario <mdr[_at_]abkj.com.au> wrote:
>
> There is no doubt that the courts are being cautious in
> extending the reach of laws into the net, but really its not their
> job to regulate the Internet,

With respect, it is the court's job to apply the law of the land to the land. They may be showing reticence to apply their powers beyond their jurisdiction, but within their jurisdiction, exactly who do you think does enforce the existing regulations over the Internet?

> and they should be loathe to do it - especially where to do so would
> be contrary to precedent.

In actual fact, in the area of defamation, there is plenty of precedent for providing both damages and injunctive relief beyond the jurisdiction (providing it touches on the jurisdiction of the court as well which it most certainly does in this case). I fail to see how you arrive at this conclusion.

I suspect the decision has more to do with the fact that, to enforce the judgment, it would have to go before a US judge anyway so the case may as well start there - a simple case of appropriateness of forum.

-- 
| Tim Arnold-Moore, Ph.D., LL.B., B.Sc. (Hons)
| Postal address:  Multimedia Database Systems, RMIT
|                  GPO Box 2476V
|                  Melbourne 3001
|                  AUSTRALIA
| Tel: 		+61 3 9925 4116
| Fax: 		+61 3 9925 4098
|	simul iustus et peccator
<tja[_at_]mds.rmit.edu.au>