In 2002, Australia's highest court ruled on a defamation case in which an Australian citizen claimed to have been defamed by a Dow Jones article published on the defendant's website. The court found that the citizen was defamed:

A)but jurisdiction over Dow Jones couldn't be established because the defendant had no physical presence in Australia.

B)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 United States, so it was considered published in the United States and not subject to Australian law.

C)and publication of the article occurred when the article appeared and could be read on a user's computer screen, establishing jurisdiction in Australia.

D)and jurisdiction over Dow Jones was established because under American law, the defendant's website was interactive and sufficiently established minimum contacts, creating jurisdiction.