There's a lot of rubbish in Australian court's upside-down Internet ruling article, like implying that he could be sent to jail in Australia for opinions published in his article:
"Under the court's perverse logic, every person or organization that posts something on the Internet will need to understand and comply with the libel laws of 190 nations and who knows how many sub-national jurisdictions. That's absurd, of course.
It's also dangerous, because it encourages powerful and paranoid people to use local laws, some of which will be designed for such purposes, to stamp out unwelcome news or opinions. If we all have to temper our speech to fit the restrictions of the worst abusers of liberty, no one will say anything worth hearing."
In the physical world companies operate in jurisdictions that are most supportive of their business (like Nevada or Delaware). It's the same for publishers.