{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022481265611990008, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0033305578684429643, 'mean_word_length': 5.293193717277487, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Defamation in the Internet Age: Missouri’s Jurisdictional Fight Begins with Baldwin v. Fischer-Smith

“The Internet is becoming the town square for the global village of tomorrow.” – Bill Gates, 1999. For centuries, determining jurisdiction in defamation cases was easy because defamatory comments made in a village town square would be settled in the courts of that village. In the twentieth century, the introduction of radio and television and the nationalization of print media brought additional jurisdictional concerns to defamation cases as this new technology allowed easy communication across jurisdictional lines. Now, with the expansion of the Internet, worldwide communication is available to anyone with a computer and an Internet connection. Unfortunately, many bloggers and other Internet content providers fail to realize that “[w]hat you type today can haunt you tomorrow.” While Internet users may view cyberspace as a new province independent of real-world concerns, the impact of Internet activity is felt in the real world and thus the resolution of Internet defamation cases must occur in a real-world jurisdiction. The Internet has created a global village where information can