| 翻訳と辞書 |
| Dow Jones & Co Inc v Gutnick ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
Dow Jones & Co Inc v Gutnick
''Dow Jones & Co. Inc. v Gutnick'' was an Internet defamation case heard in the High Court of Australia, decided on 10 December 2002. The 28 October 2000 edition of Barron's Online, published by Dow Jones, contained an article entitled "Unholy Gains" in which several references were made to the respondent, Joseph Gutnick. Gutnick contended that part of the article defamed him. A key judgement was that the suit could be brought in Australia.
== Facts of this Case ==
The article in question was entitled ''Unholy Gains'', by William Alpert, published in Barron's 2000 Oct 30. The Australian courts described the details of the article in their written opinion on the case, as follows:〔〔〔
"(article ) "states that some of his business dealings with religious charities raise "uncomfortable questions" . . . . The author then uses some language that the media have appropriated from the law courts, implying that a balanced trial with equal opportunity to participate by all concerned has taken place: that a "''Barron's'' investigation ''found'' that several charities traded heavily in stocks promoted by Gutnick." . . . (emphasis added) The article associates the respondent with Mr Nachum Goldberg who is apparently a convicted tax evader and another person awaiting trial for stock manipulation in New York."
〔
In court it was proven that only five copies of the Barron's print edition were sent from New Jersey to be circulated in Australia, but that none had actually arrived in the Jurisdiction. Gutnick therefore resorted to the internet based publication in order to show an actionable tort in the jurisdiction. The Internet version of the magazine had 550,000 international subscribers and 1700 Australian-based credit cards.
Geoffrey Robertson QC argued for the publisher Dow Jones, as to whether it was considered to be "published from" where it was uploaded in New Jersey or "published into" where it was downloaded by subscribers in Victoria, Australia. The argument centered around publication and jurisdiction.
抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』
■ウィキペディアで「Dow Jones & Co Inc v Gutnick」の詳細全文を読む
スポンサード リンク
| 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース |
Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.
|
|