DOCSLIB.ORG

Libel Suits Against American Media in Foreign Courts Kathleen A

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Libel Suits Against American Media in Foreign Courts Kathleen A Penn State International Law Review Volume 9 Article 7 Number 1 Dickinson Journal of International Law 1991 Libel Suits Against American Media in Foreign Courts Kathleen A. O'Connell Follow this and additional works at: http://elibrary.law.psu.edu/psilr Part of the International Law Commons Recommended Citation O'Connell, Kathleen A. (1991) "Libel Suits Against American Media in Foreign Courts," Penn State International Law Review: Vol. 9: No. 1, Article 7. Available at: http://elibrary.law.psu.edu/psilr/vol9/iss1/7 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by Penn State Law eLibrary. It has been accepted for inclusion in Penn State International Law Review by an authorized administrator of Penn State Law eLibrary. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Libel Suits Against American Media in Foreign Courts I. Introduction American print and broadcast media have expanded signifi- cantly into international markets during recent decades. This growth has undoubtedly increased profits for American media outlets. It has also allowed American media to acquire even more worldwide re- spect for its news than it has enjoyed in the past. Yet with all these positives, there are bound to be negatives as well. Perhaps one of the most threatening of these is the fact that the expansion into interna- tional markets has exposed American media to libel suits in foreign courts. Since foreign libel law often differs significantly from the United States' media-protective law in this area, exposure to suits elsewhere is a far from desirable result of expansion. Recently, the press has noted a growing trend of libel plaintiffs suing American media in foreign courts.' An American attorney, Le- onard Boudin,2 filed an action against Time in a London court on behalf of former Greek Prime Minister, Andreas Papandreou.' Boudin was repeatedly4 quoted in press statements saying that the suit was not filed in the United States because "the English law of libel is much more favorable than the American law of libel .... The prime minister, as a public figure, would have had a much harder go at it in the United States." F. Lee Bailey, who repre- sented the Prime Minister of the Bahamas, Sir Lynden 0. Pindling, 1. DeBenedictis, Moving Abroad: Libel Plaintiffs Say It's Easier Suing U.S. Media Elsewhere, A.B.A. J., September 1989, at 38 [hereinafter Moving Abroad]; Docker, Plaintiffs Take Libel Suits Abroad To Favorable Laws, The Wall Street Journal, June 6, 1989, at B1, col. 3 [hereinafter Favorable Laws]. The Wall Street Journal article indicated that there were a minimum of four libel suits against American media defendants pending in foreign courts and that actions were pending against The Wall Street Journal in Europe and Asia, stemming respectively from its European and Asia editions. Favorable Laws, supra note 1, at BI, col. 3. 2. Mr: Boudin passed away November 24, 1990. Edward Copeland, Partner, Rabino- witz, Boudin, Standard, Krinsky & Lieberman, New York, New York, was serving as counsel for the case as of the summer of 1990. 3. Papandreou, a Harvard educated scholar and political exile until democracy was re- stored in 1976, was first elected prime minister in 1981, re-elected in 1985, and defeated in June of 1989 in a bid for second re-election. United Press International, September 27, 1989; Reuters, July 28, 1989. Constantine Mitsotakis was Prime Minister of Greece as of the sum- mer of 1990. Chicago Tribune, April 12, 1990, at 16, col. 1. 4. Favorable Laws, supra note 1, at BI, col 3; Moving Abroad, supra note 1, at 38. See also Reuters Library Report, May 8, 1989. 5. Moving Abroad, supra note 1, at 38. 6. Pindling has been Prime Minister of the Bahamas since January, 1967. He has also 148 DICKINSON JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 9:1 in Canada against National Broadcasting Company (NBC) echoed Boudin's explanation.7 Still, the fact remains that American media have exposed themselves to this litigation by circulating their publi- cations in foreign markets and allowing their electronic transmissions to be broadcast outside the United States. This Comment will first explore the gradual growth of Ameri- can media into a leading position in foreign markets. English libel law and a current English action, Papandreou v. Time will then be discussed. Next, Canadian libel law and a recent Canadian action, Pindling v. National Broadcasting Company (NBC), will be ex- amined. American libel law will be then described together with two recent suits filed in the United States, Sharon v. Time and Desai v. Hersh. An analysis of how, in each instance, the choice of forum was supported by the plaintiff's goals in filing the suit will lead to the conclusion that both the Papandreou and Pindling suits may have been properly filed in foreign courts, and that it is too early to pinpoint a trend in forum-shopping among libel plaintiffs based solely upon a handful of cases filed in foreign courts against Ameri- can media defendants. II. International Expansion of American Media Great Britain was actually the first nation to become a leader in international communications.8 Rigid control over oceanic cables and information centers staved off competition from other countries until the United States, touting the benefits of the free movement of infor- mation to international business development, infiltrated following World War II. While formal efforts to assure free flow created am- biguous results, the United States ultimately achieved its goal during the years of 1948-68 when its technology leapt ahead of that in the rest of the world, causing American communications instruments to come into world-wide demand and use.10 served as Financial Minister since October, 1984. Facts on File World New Digest, Marsh 23, 1990, at 213. 7. "[T]he suit was brought abroad in part because 'there is no future in it for a public figure [in the U.S.].'" Favorable Laws, supra note 1, at BI, col. 3. 8. Schiller, Free Flow of Information - for Whom? in MASS MEDIA POLICIES IN CHANGING CULTURES 106 (G. Gerbner ed. 1977) [hereinafter Free Flow of Information]. 9. Id. at 106-7. The United States made sure it had the support of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) on the issue of free flow of information. UNESCO, one of the peace-keeping structures established following World War II, id. at 110, created a special division to assure the attainment of this very goal: The Mass Communications Division. Id. at 11. See also A. SbMTH, THE GEOPOLITICS OF INFORMATION: How WESTERN CULTURE DOMINATES THE WORLD, 31-2 (1980). The Mass Communications Division was initially an adamant supporter of free flow of communications, but its support has since faltered with the growing recognition of the need to protect privacy rights. Id. at 113. See also Lowry, Transborder Data Flow: Public and Private International Law Aspects, 6 Hous. J. INT'L L. 159 (1984); H. SCHILLER, INFORMATION AND THE CRISIS ECONOMY (1986). 10. Free Flow of Information, supra note 8, at 112. Winter 1991] LIBEL SUITS The American media have assumed a central role in world-wide activity ever since by shaping the large-market growth of all the forms of mass media. 1 Ironically Great Britain, as the gateway to the British Commonwealth market, served as the major catalyst in the United States' growth into a media power by using American communications products. 2 This connection may have also contrib- uted to English becoming the dominant language of international media."3 In recent years, Asian countries have become recognized tech- nological powers. Still, American media have continued to exert sub- stantial international influence by becoming affiliated with multina- tional corporations and by joining together to form large corporate entities.' 4 The strength of the United States media presence in interna- tional markets is demonstrated by the fact that eighty percent of the television programs broadcast in the Western Hemisphere were pro- duced in the United States.' 5 The COMSAT Act of 1962 provided further means for the United States to gain dominance in interna- tional broadcasting by creating an international partnership in a pri- vate corporation based in the United States for the purpose of profit- ably developing an international space communications system.' 6 American print media are equally influential internationally. American newspapers, magazines and news agencies have served as models for prestige or elite newspatiers around the world. 7 The 11. Tunstall, Media Imperialism? in AMERICAN MEDIA AND MASS CULTURE: LEFT PER- SPECTIVES 540 (D. Lazere ed. 1987) [hereinafter Media Imperialism]. "By 1970, the interna- tional strength of America advertising agencies had succeeded Hollywood as the single most remarkable aspect of American media presence." Tunstall, The American Role in Worldwide Mass Communication in MASS MEDIA POLICIES IN CHANGING CULTURES 8 (G. Gerbner ed. 1977) [hereinafter The American Role in Worldwide Mass Communication]. See also, W. READ, AMERICA'S MASS MEDIA MERCHANTS 96-143 (1976). 12. The American Role in Worldwide Mass Communication, supra note 11, at 9. 13. Id. 14. B. BAGDIKIAN, THE MEDIA MONOPOLY (1983). See also, B. COMPAINE (ed.), WHO OWNS MEDIA?: CONCENTRATION OF OWNERSHIP IN THE MASS COMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY (1979). 15. Media Imperialism, supra note 11, at 541 quoting A. WELLS, PICTURE TUBE IMPE- RIALISM: THE IMPACT OF U.S. TELEVISION ON LATIN AMERICA, 121 (1972). "The countries that are strongly regional exporters of media tend themselves to be unusually heavy importers of American media." Id. at 550. 16. Other nations have complained that the United States has been too dominant in this partnership. Riegel, Satellite Communications and National Power in MASS MEDIA POLICIES IN CHANGING CULTURES 66-7 (G.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Defamation and Parliamentarians
    Defamation and Parliamentarians _It is well known that no action for defamation can be founded on a statement made by a member of parliament In a speech made In the House. But should parliamentarians also be protected from defamation proceedings for material _____________________ they publish outside the House?___________________ _____ la this article Sally Walker explores the Victorian provision, the sections are the extent of the protection given to “ Members of expressed to apply to reports of “proceedings members of parliament as well as media Parliament may be of a House” rather than “parliamentary pro­ organisations olio publish reports of ceedings”6 It follows that, except in Victoria, defamatoiy statements made by protected from liability to obtain qualified privilege for the publica­ parliamentarians. tion of a fair and accurate report of proceed­ when they publish ings which did not take place in the House, a defamatory material media organisation would have torelyonthe he absolute privilege accorded to common law. This would be possible in all Members of Parliament against lia­ outside their Houses of jurisdictions except Queensland, Tasmanian bility for defamation is based on Ar­ and Western Australian where the statutory ticle 9 of the Bill of Rights (1688). Parliament.” provisions are partof acode. In these jurisdic­ Article 9 declares that; tions a media organisation could, however, T“the freedom of speech and debates or rely on the qualified privilege accorded to the proceedings in Parliament ought not to be tion of the material is part of “proceedings in publication of material “for the purpose of impeached or questioned in any court or parliament”.
    [Show full text]
  • Soap Opera Digest 2021 Publishing Calendar
    2021 MEDIA KIT Soap Opera Digest 2021 Publishing Calendar Issue # Issue Date On Sale Date Close Date Materials Due Date 1 01/04/21 12/25/20 11/27/20 12/04/20 2 01/11/21 01/01/21 12/04/20 12/11/20 3 01/18/21 01/08/21 12/11/20 12/18/20 4 01/25/21 01/15/21 12/18/20 12/25/20 5 02/01/21 01/22/21 12/25/20 01/01/21 6 02/08/21 01/29/21 01/01/21 01/08/21 7 02/15/21 02/05/21 01/08/21 01/15/21 8 02/22/21 02/12/21 01/15/21 01/22/21 9 03/01/21 02/19/21 01/22/21 01/29/21 10 03/08/21 02/26/21 01/29/21 02/05/21 11 03/15/21 03/05/21 02/05/21 02/12/21 12 03/22/21 03/12/21 02/12/21 02/19/21 13 03/29/21 03/19/21 02/19/21 02/26/21 14 04/05/21 03/26/21 02/26/21 03/05/21 15 04/12/21 04/02/21 03/05/21 03/12/21 16 04/19/21 04/09/21 03/12/21 03/19/21 17 04/26/21 04/16/21 03/19/21 03/26/21 18 05/03/21 04/23/21 03/26/21 04/02/21 19 05/10/21 04/30/21 04/02/21 04/09/21 20 05/17/21 05/07/21 04/09/21 04/16/21 21 05/24/21 05/14/21 04/16/21 04/23/21 22 05/31/21 05/21/21 04/23/21 04/30/21 23 06/07/21 05/28/21 04/30/21 05/07/21 24 06/14/21 06/04/21 05/07/21 05/14/21 25 06/21/21 06/11/21 05/14/21 05/21/21 26 06/28/21 06/18/21 05/21/21 05/28/21 27 07/05/21 06/25/21 05/28/21 06/04/21 28 07/12/21 07/02/21 06/04/21 06/11/21 29 07/19/21 07/09/21 06/11/21 06/18/21 30 07/26/21 07/16/21 06/18/21 06/25/21 31 08/02/21 07/23/21 06/25/21 07/02/21 32 08/09/21 07/30/21 07/02/21 07/09/21 33 08/16/21 08/06/21 07/09/21 07/16/21 34 08/23/21 08/13/21 07/16/21 07/23/21 35 08/30/21 08/20/21 07/23/21 07/30/21 36 09/06/21 08/27/21 07/30/21 08/06/21 37 09/13/21 09/03/21 08/06/21 08/13/21 38 09/20/21
    [Show full text]
  • IN the HIGH COURT of UGANDA SITTING at GULU Reportable Civil Suit No
    IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA SITTING AT GULU Reportable Civil Suit No. 12 of 2009 In the matter between 1. ENG. BARNABAS OKENY } 2. WALTER OKIDI LADWAR } 3. JAMES ONYING PENYWII } PLAINTIFFS 4. DAVID OKIDI } 5. BEST SERVICES CO. LIMITED } And PETER ODOK W'OCENG DEFENDANT Heard: 12 February 2019 Delivered: 28 February 2019 Summary: libel and the defences of qualified privilege and qualified immunity. ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ STEPHEN MUBIRU, J. Introduction: [1] The plaintiffs jointly and severally sued the defendant for general damages for libel, exemplary damages, an injunction restraining him from further publication of slanderous and libellous material against them, interest and costs. The defendant was at the material time Chairman of Pader District Local Government [2] Their claim is that on diverse occasions starting on 3rd December, 2007 the defendant wrote a series of letters of and about them, addressed to the IGG calling for investigations into the financial mismanagement in the District (exhibit 1 P.E.1). On 6th October, 2008 he wrote a letter addressed to the Minister of Local government over a similar subject (exhibit P.E.2); on 25th November, 2008 he wrote another letter addressed to IGG over a similar subject (exhibit P.E.3); on 19th January, 2009 he wrote another letter addressed to IGG on the same subject (exhibit P.E.4). The letters were copied to several people including personnel from the print (exhibit P.E.5) and electronic media. The subject if the defendant's complaint in those letters received wide media coverage in both forms. The contents of those letters was defamatory of the plaintiffs and as a result of their publication, the reputation and public image of each of the plaintiffs was damaged.
    [Show full text]
  • Vellacott V Saskatoon Starphoenix Group Inc. 2012 SKQB
    QUEEN'S BENCH FOR SASKATCHEWAN Citation: 2012 SKQB 359 Date: 2012 08 31 Docket: Q.B.G. No. 1725 I 2002 Judicial Centre: Saskatoon IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH FOR SASKATCHEWAN JUDICIAL CENTRE OF SASKATOON BETWEEN: MAURICE VELLACOTT, Plaintiff -and- SASKATOON STARPHOENIX GROUP INC., DARREN BERNHARDT and JAMES PARKER, Defendants Counsel: Daniel N. Tangjerd for the plaintiff Sean M. Sinclair for the defendants JUDGMENT DANYLIUKJ. August 31,2012 Introduction [1] The cut-and-thrust of politics can be a tough, even vicious, business. Not for the faint of heart, modem politics often means a participant's actions are examined - 2 - under a very public microscope, the lenses of which are frequently controlled by the media. While the media has obligations to act responsibly, there is no corresponding legal duty to soothe bruised feelings. [2] The plaintiff seeks damages based on his allegation that the defendants defamed him in two newspaper articles published in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix newspaper on March 4 and 5, 2002. The defendants state the words complained of were not defamatory and, even if they were, that they have defences to the claim. [3] To better organize this judgment, I have divided it into the following sections: Para~raphs Facts 4-45 Issues 46 Analysis 47- 115 1. Are the words complained of defamatory? 47-73 2. Does the defence of responsible journalism avail the defendants? 74-83 3. Does the defence of qualified privilege avail the defendants? 84-94 4. Does the defence of fair comment avail the defendants? 95- 112 5. Does the defence of consent avail the defendants? 113 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Common Law Division Supreme Court New South Wales
    Common Law Division Supreme Court New South Wales Case Name: O'Brien v Australian Broadcasting Corporation Medium Neutral Citation: [2016] NSWSC 1289 Hearing Date(s): 91 10, 11, 12, 13, 16 November2015 Date of Decision: 15 September 2016 Jurisdiction: Common law Before: Mccallum J Decision: Judgment for the defendant Catchwords: DEFAMATION - Media Watch programme analysing articles written by a journalist about the results of tests for toxic substances - imputations that the journalist engaged in trickery by misrepresenting the location of the tests and that she created unnecessary concern in the community by irresponsibly failing to consult experts in the preparation of her article - defences of fair comment at common law and statutory defence of honest opinion - whether defamation conveyed as the comment or opinion of the presenter - defence of truth - whether imputations substantially true - defence of contextual truth - whether open to defendant to rely on an alternative, fall-back imputation pleaded by the plaintiff - whether open to plaintiff to rely on an imputation of which she complained but which was proved true - consideration of the decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal in Mizikovsky - whether because of the substantial truth of the contextual imputations the (untrue) defamatory imputation did not further harm the plaintiff's reputation - defence of qualified privilege at common law - whether the Media Watch programme was published on an occasion of qualified privilege at common law Legislation Cited: Defamation Act 2005
    [Show full text]
  • Rethinking Sullivan: New Approaches in Australia, New Zealand and England
    The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law CUA Law Scholarship Repository Scholarly Articles and Other Contributions Faculty Scholarship 2002 Rethinking Sullivan: New Approaches in Australia, New Zealand and England Susanna Frederick Fischer The Catholic University, Columbus School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.edu/scholar Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the Torts Commons Recommended Citation Susanna Frederick Fischer, Rethinking Sullivan: New Approaches in Australia, New Zealand and England, 34 GEO. WASH. INT’L L. REV. 101 (2002). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at CUA Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Scholarly Articles and Other Contributions by an authorized administrator of CUA Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. RETHINKING SULLIVAN: NEW APPROACHES IN AUSTRALIA, NEW ZEALAND, AND ENGLAND SUSANNA FREDERICK FISCHER* "This is a difficult problem. No answer is perfect." - Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead in Reynolds v. Times Newspapers1 SUMMARY This Article employs a comparative analysis of some important recent Commonwealth libel cases to analyze what has gone wrong with U.S. defa- mation law since New York Times v. Sullivan and to suggest a new direc- tion for its reform. In Lange v. Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Lange v. Atkinson, and Reynolds v. Times Newspapers, the highest courts of the Australian, New Zealand, and English legal systems were con- fronted with the same challengefaced by the U.S. Supreme Court in New York Times v. Sullivan. They had to decide the proper constitutionalbal- ance between protection of reputation and protection of free expression in defamation actions brought by public officials over statements of fact.
    [Show full text]
  • Internet Service Provider Liability for Defamation
    INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER LIABILITY FOR DEFAMATION: UNITED STATES AND UNITED KINGDOM COMPARED by AHRAN PARK A DISSERTATION Presented to the School of Journalism and Communication and the Graduate School of the University of Oregon in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy March 2015 DISSERTATION APPROVAL PAGE Student: Ahran Park Title: Internet Service Provider Liability for Defamation: United States and United Kingdom Compared This dissertation has been accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy degree in the School of Journalism and Communication by: Kyu Ho Youm Chairperson Timothy Gleason Core Member Kim Sheehan Core Member Ofer Raban Core Member Daniel Tichenor Institutional Representative and J. Andrew Berglund Dean of the Graduate School Original approval signatures are on file with the University of Oregon Graduate School. Degree awarded March 2015 ii © 2015 Ahran Park iii DISSERTATION ABSTRACT Ahran Park Doctor of Philosophy School of Journalism and Communication March 2015 Title: Internet Service Provider Liability for Defamation: United States and United Kingdom Compared Since the mid-1990s, American Internet Service Providers (ISPs) have enjoyed immunity from liability for defamation under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. As Congress originally intended in 1996, Section 230 has strongly protected freedom of online speech and allowed ISPs to thrive with little fear of being sued for online users’ comments. Such extraordinary statutory immunity for ISPs reflects American free-speech tradition that freedom of speech is preferred to reputation. Although the Internet landscape has changed over the past 20 years, American courts have applied Section 230 to shield ISPs almost invariably.
    [Show full text]
  • [2016] Nzhc 2496
    IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV-2015-404-1845 [2016] NZHC 2496 JORDAN HENRY WILLIAMS v COLIN GRAEME CRAIG Hearing: 28 September 2016 Counsel: P A McKnight and A J Romanos for plaintiff S J Mills QC and J Graham for first defendant Judgment: 19 October 2016 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF KATZ J [Defence of qualified privilege] This judgment was delivered by me on 19 October 2016 at 11:00am Pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules Registrar/Deputy Registrar Solicitors: Langford Law, Wellington Chapman Tripp, Auckland Counsel: S J Mills QC, Barrister, Auckland P A McKnight, Quayside Chambers, Wellington A Romanos, Barrister, Wellington Introduction [1] Jordan Williams is the founder and Executive Director of an organisation known as “the Taxpayers’ Union”. Colin Craig is the founder and former leader of the Conservative Party, a political party that unsuccessfully contested the 2011 and 2014 Parliamentary elections. [2] Mr Williams brought these proceedings against Mr Craig, in defamation. He alleged that Mr Craig defamed him in remarks he made at a press conference on 29 July 2015 (“Remarks”) and in a leaflet that was made available at that conference and was subsequently delivered nationwide (“Leaflet”). I will refer to the particular statements that are said to bear defamatory meanings as “the statements”. Mr Williams claimed, amongst other things, that the natural and ordinary meaning of the statements was that he had told lies about Mr Craig, including that Mr Craig had sexually harassed a person and that he had sent her sexually explicit text messages. Mr Williams further alleged that a reasonable person who read or heard the statements would understand them to mean that Mr Williams is dishonest, deceitful, a serial liar, cannot be trusted and lacks integrity.
    [Show full text]
  • Uniform Defamation Law in Australia: Moving Towards a More 'Reasonable' Privilege
    eCommons@AKU Graduate School of Media and Communications AKU in East Africa 2011 Uniform Defamation Law in Australia: Moving Towards a More 'Reasonable' Privilege Rhonda Breit Aga Khan University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ecommons.aku.edu/eastafrica_gsmc Part of the Journalism Studies Commons, and the Mass Communication Commons Recommended Citation Breit, R. (2011). Uniform Defamation Law in Australia: Moving Towards a More 'Reasonable' Privilege. Media International Australia(138), 9-20. Available at: https://ecommons.aku.edu/eastafrica_gsmc/5 Rhonda Breit UNIFORM DEFAMATION LAWS IN AUSTRALIA: MOVING TOWARDS A MORE ‘REASONABle’ PRIVILEGE? Abstract A new uniform defamation regime now operates in Australia. This article canvasses the Uniform Defamation Laws (UDLs), focusing on the defence of qualified privilege and its capacity to protect mass media publications in the public interest. Drawing on case law and analysis of the key approaches to statutory privilege, the article evaluates the current approach to statutory qualified privilege. Taking account of observations in O’Hara v Sims (2008, 2009) about the operation of qualified privilege, it questions whether the UDL statutory qualified privilege will ultimately censor publications in the public interest and restrict the application of the qualified privilege defence. Introduction Much of the literature surrounding the role of journalism in society relates to how journalists view their work or how audiences respond to work (see Wahl-Jorgensen and Hanitzsch, 2009). This article uses a legal research technique of case analysis to expand these approaches and view journalism in the context of an interacting system of professionals (Abbott, 1988; Abbott, 1993: 204), thereby taking account of inter-professional forces – namely how the law interprets and judges the quality of journalism through the law of defamation.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 4 Oct 2011 Peter Holmes a Court
    IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA SYDNEY REGISTRY No. S319 of2011 BETWEEN TONY PAPACONSTUNTINOS Appellant HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALiA FILED AND 1 4 OCT 2011 PETER HOLMES A COURT 10 THE REGISTRY SYDNEY Respondent APPELLANT'S SUBMISSIONS Part I: Internet Publication 1. The appellant certifies that these submissions are in a form suitable for publication on the internet. Part II: Statement of issues 2. The case raises the correctness of two propositions: 20 (a) Defamatory communications made by a defendant in defence of the defendant's personal interests will only be protected by the common law defence of qualified privilege where a reasonable person in the defendant's position would have thought that publication was necessary for the defence of those interests (reasonable necessity test). (b) In the case of a volunteered corrnnunication to defend interest, the defendant will ordinarily fail the reasonable necessity test unless there was a pressing need for the communication to be made. Part III: Section 78B of Judiciary Act 1903 ( Cth) 3. The appellant considers that no notice pursuant to section 78B of the Judiciary Act 1903 30 ( Cth) is required. Part IV: Citation of decisions below 4. The decision of the Court of Appeal is reported at [2011] Aust Tort Reports '1!82-081. The medium neutral citation is [2011] NSWCA 59. 1 5. The trial judge's decision is not reported. The medium neutral citation is [2009] NSWSC 903. Part V: Factual background 6. In August 2005 the respondent and Mr Russell Crowe put forward a proposal to inject $3 million into the South Sydney District Rugby League Football Club (Souths) in exchange for a controlling interest.
    [Show full text]
  • “Cbs Daytime #1 for 30 Years” Exhibit to Debut at the Paley Center for Media in Beverly Hills
    “CBS DAYTIME #1 FOR 30 YEARS” EXHIBIT TO DEBUT AT THE PALEY CENTER FOR MEDIA IN BEVERLY HILLS Exhibit to Feature Sets and Costumes from Daytime Shows Including the “Big Wheel” from The Price Is Right New Exhibit is Part of CBS Daytime’s Year-Long Celebration BEVERLY HILLS, CA - October 10, 2016 – The Paley Center for Media is excited to announce that the new exhibit, CBS Daytime #1 for 30 Years, will make its debut at the Paley Center on October 12, 2016. The exhibit, created by CBS Daytime to commemorate 30 years of the Network’s daytime programming being rated #1, will feature sets, props, and costumes from Let’s Make a Deal, The Price Is Right, The Young and the Restless, The Bold and the Beautiful, and The Talk. In addition, the Paley Center will host four consecutive weeks of panel events featuring the talent and creative teams from the CBS Daytime lineup. Visitors to the exhibit will have the rare chance to immerse themselves in the world of CBS Daytime, viewing sets, costumes, and props from their favorite shows, as well as engaging in special interactives. Included in the exhibit: the “Big Wheel” from The Price Is Right; the “Car Pong” game and the Zonko, Zurtle, and Zonkey mascot costumes from Let’s Make a Deal; a replica of Victor Newman’s office and the Chancellor Park set from The Young and the Restless; the fashion runway from the opening credits of The Bold and the Beautiful, in addition to five memorable wedding dresses and wardrobe from international location shoots; the original host table from The Talk and the costumes each host wore for the 2015’s Daytime Emmy-winning episode “Rocktober Halloween Spectacular.” “The Paley Center is thrilled to host the debut of this incredible exhibit,” said Maureen J.
    [Show full text]
  • Recent Developments in Newspaper Libel Robert H
    NORTH CAROLINA LAW REVIEW Volume 7 | Number 1 Article 7 12-1-1928 Recent Developments in Newspaper Libel Robert H. Wettach Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Robert H. Wettach, Recent Developments in Newspaper Libel, 7 N.C. L. Rev. 3 (1928). Available at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr/vol7/iss1/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in North Carolina Law Review by an authorized administrator of Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN NEWSPAPER LIBEL ROBERT H. WETTACH* On the front page of the Columbia Record, an afternoon paper published in Columbia, S. C., the following article appeared: "Facsimile of a Letter from Senator T. C. Duncan to Edwin W. Robertson, of Columbia. "Senator Duncan is a member of the Canal Commission. He was appointed on March 23, 1923. The act creating the commission was passed by the General Assembly during the session of 1923, and was approved March 26, 1923. Senator Duncan's letter is dated March 28, 1923. The loan solicited was not granted. The first meeting of the Canal Commission was held in Columbia April 13, 1923. "After five days return to T. C. Duncan, Union, S. C. To E. W. Robertson, c/o Loan & Exchange Nat. Bank. "Personal. "T. C. Duncan, Union, S. C. To E. W. Robertson, Columbia, S. C. March 28, 1923. "Dear Sir: I would like to secure a loan of $25,000.00-for three years-interest payable semi-annually.
    [Show full text]