Whether or not this argument presents a problem should be dealt with by the defamation law of states.
106) Nationwide defamation actions are just as common in real-space, however, through nationwide newspaper circulations, as they may be in cyberspace.
Another argument used to support the notion that choice of law is confounded by cyberspace stems from the fact that defamation law draws a distinction between "private persons who may be unavailable to access the media to respond to the defamation and public persons who have greater access to mass media.
110) For example, in a defamation action, a plaintiff may bring suit in any state in which the plaintiff can prove that someone received the defamatory message.
A nationwide cyber-defamation action poses no greater opportunity for forum shopping than a nationwide real-space defamation action.
This heightened potential for cyber-statements to gain national attention may call for states to rethink the potential severity of their defamation laws.
118) According to Faucher: "Such an approach would allow judges to fashion a defamation law that is relevant to electronic communication" as well as "avoid the conceptual difficulties of applying choice-of-law rules to torts that have little relation to a single geographical area.
As well as offending state sovereignty, a federal common law for defamation seems difficult and unreasonable.
Regardless of these quandaries, it is entirely unreasonable that a state should lose its interest in protecting its citizens involved in a defamation dispute merely because a different medium was chosen to publish the defamatory material.
130) As cyberspace becomes more grounded and less mystifying, it becomes much clearer that cyberspace does not offer any unique problems for choice of law in defamation disputes.
Faucher, Let the Chips Fall Where They May: Choice of Law in Computer Bulletin Board Defamation Cases, 26 U.
Hemphill, Defamation Liability and the Internet, 507 PLI/PAT 691, 706 (1998).