|
|
|
 论文编号：
org200806160939134253 |
| 论文属性：
assignment guidelines |
| 论文语言：English |
| 论文国家：U.K. |
| 登出日期： 2008-06-16 |
| 字数： 4000 |
| 源程序：
无 |
| 价格：
免费论文 |
| 参考相关附件： |
|
|
| 论文大纲，目录 |
| 关键词搜索：E-commerce Intellectual Properrty E-liability |
en though the defamation occurred in the USA. The basis for the Australian court’s jurisdiction partly rested upon the fact that the material could be viewed in Australia through the Dow Jones website. The English court has accepted some of the principles underpinning the Gutnick case.
The Harrods case involved an article that appeared in Dow Jones's publication The Wall Street Journal. This journal and the website version [www.wsj.com] are both published in the United States. Harrods had issued a press release with the title "Al Fayed Reveals Plan to 'Float' Harrods." It also related to a "first-come-first-served share option offer." Journalists were to contact "Loof Lirpa" -- "April Fool" backwards. The joke continued with references to Al Fayed’s intention to "float" Harrods by opening a boat version of Harrods and siting it on the River Thames. The WSJ had reported the story and also issued a retraction the next day. In doing so however, Harrods had been compared to Enron and this is where the defamatory sting arose.
Harrods commenced a defamation action against Dow Jones in England. The English court had to decide whether it could hear the case or whether it was more appropriate for it to be heard in the United States.
Publication was extremely limited in England - only 10 copies of the Wall Street Journal were circulated in England and a very small number of English hits to the Wall Street Journal website. Nevertheless, it was held that where a company o英语论文网 【http://www.51lunwen.org】r person has a reputation to protect in England, even if there has only been limited publication in England, that person has the right to protect their reputation in England.
Like the Australian court, the English court rejected the United States' 'single publication' rule. English law recognises that publication can occur in numerous places and at numerous times and each publication technically creating grounds for a separate action. US law is more restrictive than English law in this area, due to the widespread use of the public figure defence. In US law, the onus falls on the claimant/plaintiff to show that the libel is false, whereas in English law the position is the opposite – the defence of justification [veritas in Scotland] must be proved by the defendant/defender.
The New York courts were asked to intervene but declined to do so. The New York judge considered England to be the more appropriate forum. Enforcement of any damages award in the United States would be difficult however, in light of the USA’s attitude towards freedom of speech. The case basically ratchets up the standard required in order to ‘clear’ the statement. A statement must not only be consonant with the defamation law of the place of publication/establishment of the website, but also be in accordance with the law of the country of download. However, this is not necessarily a problem. If your statement has been checked out and you have evidence to justify your position, then the stateme
本文来自：英语论文网 【http://www.51lunwen.org】 |
| 第1页 第2页 第3页 第4页 第5页 第6页 第7页 第8页 第9页 第10页 第11页 第12页 第13页 |
|
|
| 最新论文 |
最热门论文 |
|
|
|
