US court decision limits jurisdiction for internet libel

The decision by the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals was delivered just three days after Australia's highest court ruled that, in defamation cases, an article posted on the internet is considered as published at the point where it is downloaded and read, and allowed an Australian businessman to sue Dow Jones in Victoria over an article posted on its site from New Jersey.

The US case involved Connecticut newspapers The Hartford Courant and The New Haven Advocate, and Virginia prison warden Stanley Young. In March 2000, the New Haven Advocate published an article criticising the allegedly harsh conditions at the prison.

The article mentioned a class action that some of the inmates filed against the prison, alleging a lack of hygiene, proper medical care and religious privileges. At about the same time The Hartford Courant published a similar article.

In May 2000, Stanley sued the two newspapers, their editors and the authors of the articles for libel. He claimed that the articles implied that he was "a racist who advocates racism" and that he "encourages abuse of inmates by the guards."

Stanley filed the suits in Virginia arguing that the articles, which were available to Virginia residents through the internet, exposed him to "public hatred, contempt and ridicule" in the state where he lived and worked.

The newspapers, on the other hand, claimed that the Virginia court lacked jurisdiction, since they were distributed locally in Connecticut and had no offices or employees in Virginia. The newspapers also argued that, although some of their contents were published on the internet, they did not specifically target Virginia audiences.

The Virginia District Court, which initially heard the case, rejected the newspapers' arguments ruling that it could exercise jurisdiction, reasoning that the newspapers' Connecticut-based internet activities led to an injury to Stanley in Virginia. The newspapers appealed the ruling.

The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday reversed the lower court's decision. In a unanimous opinion, the three-judge panel characterised the newspapers' overall content as "decidedly local", and pointed out that neither newspaper's web site contained ads aimed at a Virginia audience.

It appeared, the judges said, that the papers maintained their web sites to serve their local readers and were not designed to attract or serve a Virginia audience.

The judges concluded:

"The facts in this case establish that the newspapers' web sites, as well as the articles in question, were aimed at a Connecticut audience. The newspapers did not post materials on the internet with the manifest intent of targeting Virginia readers. Accordingly, the newspapers could not have 'reasonably anticipated' being halted into court [in Virginia] to answer for the truth of the statements made in their articles. In sum, the newspapers do not have sufficient internet contacts with Virginia to permit the district court to exercise specific jurisdiction over them."

The decision means that Stanley can still sue the two newspapers in Connecticut.

The decision, issued on 13th December 2002, can be found at:
pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/012340.P.pdf