This paper explains the problem of the vastness of the internet and critical analysis of shooting an elephant by george orwell therefore the hurdles that law-makers face in implementing rules over its jurisdiction. It examines how each fake paper writer country has its own definition of what internet practices need to be limited. It discusses how differing business and social cultures worldwide are unlimited over the internet in this period of globalization.
From the Paper:
“After reviewing these cases it can be said that the conflict of jurisdiction on the internet has a strong relationship to “forum shopping”. (Forum shopping is a way of giving a plaintiff a choice of jurisdictions). The most likely choice would be that he/she would pick the jurisdiction that gives them a better chance at winning the case. For example with the Gutnick case, he knew that he would have a better chance to winning his case in Victoria as opposed to New Jersey (Economist.com). More and more internet cases are becoming a fight in which jurisdiction is more beneficial for winning your court case. Since the internet can usually bring two or more jurisdictions to court it becomes a fight of who has the bigger jurisdiction. When two or more jurisdiction are able to hear the dispute between the parties, the plaintiff can “forum shop” and pick which jurisdiction he/she can benefit from (Moore & Paris).”