翻訳と辞書 |
Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton : ウィキペディア英語版 | Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton
''Harte-Hanks Communications Inc. v. Connaughton'', 491 U.S. 657(1989),〔 〕 was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States supplied an additional journalistic behavior that constitutes actual malice as first discussed in ''New York Times Co. v. Sullivan''. In the case, the Court held that departure from responsible reporting and unreasonable reporting conduct alone were not sufficient to award a public figure damages in a libel case. However, the court also ruled that if reporters wrote with reckless disregard for the truth, which included ignoring obvious sources for their report, plaintiffs could be awarded compensatory damages on the grounds of actual malice. ==Background of the Case== In November 1983, Daniel Connaughton unsuccessfully ran for the position of Municipal Judge of Hamilton, Ohio, losing to incumbent James Dolan. A local newspaper, the JournalNews, supported the incumbent Dolan. About a month before the election, Dolan's Director of Court Services resigned his position and was subsequently arrested on perjury charges. On November 1, 1983, while a grand jury investigation of the charges was taking place, the JournalNews ran a front page article quoting Alice Thompson, a witness in the trial. Thompson was quoted as saying Connaughton had used "dirty tricks" and had offered both Thompson and her sister tangible benefits (including employment opportunities and a trip to Florida) "in appreciation" for Thompson's testimony in the trial.
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「Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton」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.
|
|