"Libel Tourism" Bill Endorsed
by IPT News • Feb 20, 2009 at 6:25 pm
http://www.investigativeproject.org/1224/libel-tourism-bill-endorsed
The Washington Post on Friday endorsed legislation to protect American writers and publishers from "libel tourism," the recent practice of bringing libel suits in foreign courts where the burdens of proof are far more lax than here at home.
The Post editorial noted testimony earlier this week at a House subcommittee hearing about Rachel Ehrenfeld's unfortunate experience in British courts. Neither she nor her accuser live in England and her book, Funding Evil: How Terrorism Is Financed and How to Stop It, wasn't even published there. But because copies of the book were bought via the Internet, a court granted jurisdiction and damages to one of the subjects of Ehrenfeld's book.
Legislation backed by U.S. Rep. Peter King (R-NY) and Senators Arlen Specter (R-PA) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) would allow American judges to bar foreign libel judgments from being enforced in the U.S. without first meeting constitutional protections and established case law. The editorial notes authors and publishers who have prevailed in American courts could even counter-sue "libel tourists" for bringing foreign litigation.
"The lawmakers were right to include this last provision, but they should be careful to make sure that it would not have the unintended consequence of weakening jurisdictional defenses that U.S. citizens have in foreign courts. It would also help immensely if Britain strengthened free-speech protections in its laws. It is encouraging that some British lawmakers are considering that."
The entire editorial can be seen here.
Related Topics: IPT News
 |  |  |  |  
|
Reader comments on this item
US isn't the center of teh universe
Submitted by Dr. Barbara Levine Bartlett, Jun 24, 2009 04:05
I have been destroy by international online libel: http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/430/RipOff0430930.htm
In a similar case, the Australian High Court explains this perfectly in a similar case called Dow Jones & Co. Inc. v Gutnick:
"If people wish to do business in, or indeed travel to, or live in, or utilize the infrastructure of different countries, they can hardly expect to be absolved from compliance with the laws of those countries. The fact that publication might occur everywhere does not mean that it occurs nowhere." (per Callinan J at para 186)
AND
" …the spectre which Dow Jones sought to conjure up in the present appeal, of a publisher forced to consider every article it publishes on the World Wide Web against the defamation laws of every country from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe is seen to be unreal when it is recalled that in all except the most unusual of cases, identifying the person about whom material is to be published will readily identify the defamation law to which that person may resort."