|
|
|
Somportex Ltd. v. Philadelphia Chewing Gum Corp., 185–186 |
|
special relationship privilege, 46 |
|
duty, interest test, 46 |
|
Speech Act of 2010, 251–262 |
|
as applied to Desai case, 256 |
|
attorney’s fee provision, 253–255 |
|
deterrent to comity, 255 |
|
burden of proof for comity, 253 |
|
choice of forum, 266–268 |
|
conflicts of law, 303 |
|
due process requirement, 253 |
|
equivalence as opposed to comparability, 262 |
|
European Convention on Human Rights, 261 |
|
exaggerated need for legislation, 271 |
|
First Amendment equivalence, 255 |
|
First Amendment policy objectives as test for recognition, 259–260 |
|
full text, 305–310 |
|
intended not to be punitive, 252 |
|
interpretation, 257–262 |
|
ISPs, 253 |
|
long-arm provisions, 254 |
|
New York Times case, 260 |
|
opportunity for comity, 257 |
|
partial text of comity provisions, 252–253 |
|
pre-empts state libel tourism law, 251 |
|
requiring re-litigation in US, 256 |
|
similar to New York Libel Tourism legislation, 252 |
|
Speech Act of 2010 (continued) |
|
state defamation laws, 261 |
|
Uniform Foreign Money Judgments Recognition Act, 253 |
|
US legal hodgepodge as obstacle to recognition, 270 |
|
St. Amant v. Thompson, 22–24 |
|
reckless disregard of the truth, 22–24 |
|
subjective belief without any fact checking as good faith, 24 |
|
Telnikoff v. Matusevitch, 199–204 |
|
comity, 268–269 |
|
English litigation history, 200–201 |
|
US litigation history, 199–200 |
|
US Speech Act, 257–258 |
|
Theophanous v. Herald & Weekly Times, Ltd., 141–143 |
|
constitutional and common law privilege, 142–143 |
|
high point of Australian free speech privilege, 143 |
|
reversed by Lange v. Australian Broadcasting Corp., 143 |
|
truth |
|
defence at common law, 5 |
|
free speech theoryfree speech theory129. See also John Stuart Mill, 105, 105 |
|
irrelevance under Reynolds reasonable journalism, 222 |
|
Uniform Foreign Money Judgments Recognition Act |
|
adopted by major commercial states, 182 |
|
California statute, 183 |