This is a letter I just sent to the High Court of Australia, specifically to [email protected].
It has come to my attention that your court found in the case of Gutnick v. Dow Jones, that when a non-Australian engages in speech with a computer located outside of Australia, and with Internet servers located outside of Australia, that concerns a resident of Australia, the non-Australian speaker may be sued in an Australian court for libel or defamation, if the web page in question can be viewed on computers located within Australia.
I am the webmaster for the Antipeonage Act Website, URL www.geocities.com/rogerwknight/. If you type in www.antipeonage.com, it will flip you over to the index page of my website. The content of my web site is mostly concerned with issues of American law. I do not defame any person in this web site. However, should any person mentioned in my web site take up residence in Australia, your decision is cause for my concern. After all, those who enforce child support obligations in the United States may not like my assertion that they commit the crime defined by 18 United States Code Section 1581. But I do not consider such to be defamatory on the basis that the allegation is quite obviously true and that I believe in the truth in such statement in good faith. As I have yet to be sued in an American court for defamation or libel, I believe that those who represent those who may be distressed at my allegation of criminal behavior agree, however reluctantly, that my speech is not defamatory. Any such suit would be considered in light of the constitutional guarantees of free speech provided by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and by Article I section 5 of the Washington Constitution and by the free speech clause of any other state constitution should someone in another American state bring such a suit.
In the United States, you are constitutionally protected while shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater as long as you are speaking the truth. It is the false shout that is not necessarily protected. (An actor who shouts "FIRE" is constitutionally protected because everyone present would recognize it as part of the dialog of the play.)
As for those who enforce child support obligations in Australia, I do not accuse them of criminal behavior simply because I am unfamiliar with Australian anti-slavery law. If an Australian non-custodial parent reads my web site and sends me an e-mail, I would simply suggest to him that he research Australian anti-slavery laws and that it is up to Australian non-custodial parents to take whatever action they may to enforce such anti-slavery laws. I would not advise violent action for obvious reasons.
One reason I find your Gutnick decision distressing is that our government agencies hire numerous non-Americans, including Australian citizens. Should an Australian citizen who worked for the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services Division of Child Support return to Australia and log on to my web site, she might be tempted to sue me for libel in an Australian court. How so? Because I state quite frankly, on my Enemies page, that those who enforce child support obligations in the United States are criminals, violating 18 United States Code Section 1581. She would have standing because while in the United States, she helped enforce child support obligations.
Other Australians who might have standing to sue me for libel are those who arrest American non-custodial parents found within Australia with the intent to enforce their American child support orders, which I declare to be null and void under 42 United States Code Section 1994. Such an arrest of an American is a crime as defined by 18 United States Code Section 1581 and it is aiding and abetting the crime of peonage, 18 United States Code Section 2. All Australians who merely assist in the enforcement of American child support orders against American citizens could claim standing to sue me for libel as well.
One other cause for concern is that on my Allies page, I include a link to www.dadsaustralia.com with the comment: "Would you believe it is just as bad in other nations where big government liberalism, with its fellow traveler feminazism, has taken over?" A comment on Australian policy I admit, but then again, there are many who do not consider American citizenship or presence within the United States to be a requirement to be allowed to comment on American policy. As for commentary beyond that, I have so far allowed DADs Australia to speak for themselves.
Which brings me to comment on another aspect of your Gutnick decision. Are we in the rest of the world to not say anything bad about Saddam Hussein because, based on the logic of Gutnick, he can sue us in Iraq courts under Iraqi defamation law, to the extent that there is any such thing as "law" in Iraq, if he does not like what we say about him? And would your court recognize and enforce any such Iraqi judgment?
While I would hope not, then again, I don't know.
I will say this: Should any Australian believe that I defamed him or her, he or she is free to bring a lawsuit against me in either King County Superior Court in Seattle, Washington or in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle. He or she would have to serve me under Washington law or the court will not recognize itself as having jurisdiction over me to hear the lawsuit. If such service is perfected, I will then appear and defend. However, if I am sued in an Australian court, I will not recognize it as having jurisdiction over me. If I respond at all, it will be to move for dismissal for want of jurisdiction. If the question is of a defamatory accusation of the crime defined by 18 United States Code Section 1581 I will assert a forum non conveniens argument in that an Australian court is not a readily competent forum to decide an issue of American law. I may suggest certification of any question of American law to a United States District Court. They would really "appreciate" that, as they have been trying to sweep under the rug my admittedly embarrassing claim that the enforcement of child support obligations violate the Antipeonage Act of 1867, and my web site renders it visible to anyone in the world who wishes look at it and consider what is published therein.
Then again, that is what Ben Franklin, Tom Jefferson, and Jim Madison had in mind with freedom of speech. Truthful speech and opinion speech about the government is protected, however embarrassing it may be to government officials.
If the back button does not take you there, click Home to go to the Index page of this Antipeonage Act Website, click Enemies for the main Enemies page, click Letters for the Letters page, and click Allies for the Allies page. Or you can use the Antipeonage Act Site Map. See also www.antipeonage.0catch.com