|
''Richardson v Schwarzenegger'' was an internet defamation case heard in the United Kingdom High Court of Justice (Queen’s Bench Division), on 29 October 2004. Claimant Anna Richardson, a prominent British television presenter, claimed to have been libeled in the 2 October 2003 issue of the ''Los Angeles Times'', which was available in print and online in the UK, as a result of statements made by Arnold Schwarzenegger’s then gubernatorial campaign manager. One key issue in this case was to determine the appropriate venue: Can a suit be brought before a United Kingdom jurisdiction for statements made by an American in California which are immune from suit under local law? ==Facts of the Case== Claimant, Anna Richardson, made no claims against the authors of the allegedly defamatory ''Los Angeles Times'' article, nor against the publishers of the paper. The three defendants were (1) Arnold Schwarzenegger, (2) Sean Walsh, the campaign spokesman whose application to dismiss service ultimately came before the High Court, and (3) Sheryl Main, Mr. Schwarzenegger’s publicist. Richardson had previously claimed that Schwarzenegger had “groped” her during a December 2000 interview in London. In response to a question by a ''Los Angeles Times'' reporter regarding the Richardson allegation. Although Walsh was not present for the interview in question, he categorically denied the allegations and suggested that they were little more than cheap political tricks. Richardson claimed that this denial implied that she had “deliberately and dishonestly fabricated” the allegations. She further noted that the damage to her reputation caused by the statement was felt in the UK due to the availability of the LA Times both in print and online in the UK. Walsh claimed Britain was an improper forum in which to litigate the case. Walsh’s attorney, Richard Spearman, described the case as follows: 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「Richardson v Schwarzenegger」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|