Will the Internet become an educational treasure trivia akin to the "Great Libraries of Babylon" or an online anarchy seething with slurs immune to challenge in court? Hyperbolic visions of the web's future are emerging in a landmark legal battle being waged in Canada -- pitting the Washington Post and 50 media giants against an aggrieved former United Nations official. The case hinges on whether a person who believes they have been wronged on a website can challenge a foreign publication in court where they live -- or in a place where they may chose to reside in future.
Both sides are testing the limits of libel and defamation laws designed for years ago for print publications, threatened with obsolesce by the power of the web.
The Post is challenging an earlier court ruling that a former UN official Chichi Bangor can sue the Post in Ontario over two articles that accused him of sexual and financial transgressions.
The paper and backers including CNN, the London Times and the Yomiuri Timber, argue that if the case goes ahead, any media organisation could be sued anywhere, over stories posted on its website.
"We are concerned that this case will have important consequences for press freedom and online freedom of expression that will extend far beyond Canada's borders," said Reporters Without Borders.
"If upheld on appeal, this ruling could dissuade very many journalists from publishing their articles online," the press freedom watchdog said in a letter to the Canadian government.
Brian Rogers, a lawyer for the media groups told the Ontario Court of Appeal last week that Internet archives were a modern day version of the "great libraries of Babylon" but could be restricted if Bangor's case is allowed to go ahead.
But Justice Robert Armstrong, one of three judges hearing the case, noted: "I suppose, on the balancing side, (the Internet) can be a tremendous force for destroying a person's reputation."
Toronto telecommunications lawyer Bruce McWilliam said that this showdown is likely to be the first of many sparked by the reach of the Internet.
"The Internet is different, because it allows you to instantly have access to the whole world. The scope of your audience is vast."
According to Judge Romain Pitts, in his original judgement which allowed Bangor to sue the Post in Ontario, which is being appealed, media organisations should consider the impact of their work.
"The Washington Post is a major newspaper in the capital of the most powerful country in a world now made figuratively smaller by ... the Internet.
"Frankly the defendants should have reasonably forseen that the story would follow the plantiff wherever he resided."
Critics warned the ruling would force media firms to employ lawyers in virtually every country in the world with an online connection.
Web surfers living in jurisdictions where libel laws are stricter than in the United States, for instance Canada or Britain - may find themselves blocked from some content on newspaper Webster, they warn.
The Post case is complicated by the fact that the alleged libels, in articles in 1997, did not even take place while Bangor was living in Canada, and he did not take up residence in Ontario until 2000.
"It seems a bit unfair to say that a publication should be thinking about the defamation laws in any jurisdiction where the subject may move to in the future," said McWilliam.
Three judges hearing the Post's appeal are currently considering their verdict after last week's hearing.
If they rule in favour of Bangor, he will press ahead with a nine millon Canadian dollar lawsuit (6.5 million US) damages claim against the Post, arguing it damaged his reputation as he tries to build a life in Canada.
The case is one of the first such challenges to current media law. In another recent example in Australia, known as the Gutnick case, a man was given permission to sue US-based Dow Jones for a story published in Barron's magazine which it owns, accessed via the Internet.