Ed. In auua, Australia's highest court ruled on a defamation case where an Australian citizen claimed to have been defamed b},F a Dow Jones article published on the defendant's web site. They found: A. the citizen was defamed but jurisdiction over Dow Jones couldn't he established because the defendant had nu physical presence in Australia. B. the citizen was defamed but jurisdiction over Dow Jones couldn't be established because the defendant's servers were in America and the article had been uploaded in the U.E. so it was considered published in the U.S. and nut subject to Australian law. C. the citizen was defamed and jurisdiction over Dow Jones was established because under American law, the defendant's web site was interactive and sufficiently established minimum contacts creating jurisdiction. 1]. the citizen was defamed and publication of the article occurred when the article appeared and could be read on a user's computer screen establishing jurisdiction inAustralia