EUR/USD 1.17092
-0.103%
Gold 4339.50
0.156%
Oil 56.513
1.153%
USD/JPY 157.685
1.371%
GBP/USD 1.33734
-0.060%
GBP/JPY 210.883
1.325%
Browse More
  • English
  • 简体中文
  • 繁體中文
  • Tiếng Việt
  • ไทย
  • Indonesia
Subscribe
Real-time News
On December 21, the United States intercepted another oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela, which the Venezuelan government called an act of piracy. Jeremy Paner, a partner at the Washington-based law firm Hughes Hubbard and a former investigator with the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), said the ship was not subject to U.S. sanctions. “The seizure of a vessel not sanctioned by the United States marks a further increase in pressure on Venezuela by Trump,” Paner said. “This also contradicts Trump’s statements that the U.S. will blockade all sanctioned oil tankers.”On December 21, Venezuelan Vice President and Oil Minister Rodríguez condemned the United States for "theft and hijacking" of private vessels carrying Venezuelan oil in international waters on December 20. In a government statement released via social media, Rodríguez stated that this serious act of "piracy" violated international law. He asserted that the colonial model the US government attempted to impose on Venezuela would ultimately fail, and that the Venezuelan government would appeal to the UN Security Council and other multilateral organizations for appropriate action.On December 21, the World Trade Organization (WTO) released its "World Trade Report 2025" on December 20, local time. The report indicates that, with supporting policies in place, artificial intelligence (AI) is expected to increase cross-border trade in goods and services by 34% to 37% and global GDP growth by 12% to 13% by 2040 by improving productivity and reducing trade costs. The report emphasizes the need to bridge the digital infrastructure gap, strengthen skills training, and maintain an open and predictable trading environment to ensure more inclusive growth.According to Business Insider, Apple has advised some employees with visas not to travel outside the United States due to embassy delays.Russian Presidential Special Representative Dmitriev: Russia and the United States are having "constructive" discussions, which will continue in Miami on Sunday.

Australia's highest court decides Google is not liable for defamation

Charlie Brooks

Aug 18, 2022 10:51

1.png


The highest court in Australia reversed a judgment that found Google guilty of defamation for providing a link to a contested newspaper article on Wednesday, focussing attention on how internet libel cases are handled in the country.


The seven-judge panel of the High Court of Australia ruled 5 to 2 to reverse an earlier ruling that the Alphabet (NASDAQ:GOOGL) Inc subsidiary was involved in the publication of the contentious article by acting as a "library" holding it, stating that the website had no active role.


In Australia, the question of who is responsible for internet-based libel has simmered for years. This decision increases the difficulty. An evaluation of the country's libel law that has lasted years has not yet produced a conclusive answer as to whether Google and Facebook (NASDAQ:META) should be held accountable.


According to the published judgment, the issue stems from a 2004 article alleging that a criminal defense attorney exceeded professional bounds by becoming a "confidant" of criminals. According to the judgment, attorney George Defteros uncovered a connection to the article via a Google search of his name in 2016 and had Google remove it after 150 people viewed it.


A state court determined that Google is a publisher and ordered the company to pay Defteros A$40,000 (US$28,056). Google appealed the conviction, culminating in the verdict issued on Wednesday.


"The Underworld article was not authored by any of the appellant's employees or agents," two panel judges noted in a ruling issued on Wednesday.


"It was written by a journalist unaffiliated with the appellant and published by a newspaper over which the appellant had no influence or control."


Google "does not own or control the internet," they said.


A Google representative was unavailable for immediate comment.


Despite the fact that Google was not found accountable, Defteros felt vindicated because the court agreed that the article was defamatory.


The decision was rendered after the High Court determined last year that a newspaper publisher was liable for defamatory comments posted on Facebook beneath an article it had posted.


The media companies "invited and promoted" comments last year, however Google "did not create a space or area where it could be sent nor did it encourage the drafting of response comments," the judges decided.

Suggestion