Oct 1, 2008
The chilling effect of “libel tourism”
Responding to fear of foreign libel lawsuits, the House of Representatives passed a bill Saturday on “libel tourism.” H.R. 6146 aims to prevent American courts from enforcing some foreign libel judgments, according to an editorial in the New York Times.
If the bill is signed into law, judgments obtained in foreign countries with less free speech protections cannot be enforced in the U.S. For instance, in America, the plaintiff has the burden of proof in a libel suit; in Britain, that burden is on the defendant, making it much easier to obtain a libel judgment.
As an example of the chilling effect of “libel tourism,” the editorial tells the story of a lawsuit brought against Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, an American author and director of the American Center for Democracy. Saudi Arabian businessman Khalid bin Mahfouz sued Ehrenfeld in Britain for claims in her book, “Funding Evil: How Terrorism Is Financed and How to Stop It,” that Mahfouz was financing terrorism. The businessman won a judgment in Britain’s court, and can now ask an American court to enforce the judgment.
New York responded by enacting “Rachel’s Law,” which made foreign libel judgments unenforceable in the state’s courts. Now, the Senate and president must decide whether to provide authors with federal protection.
What do you think? Should American courts be prevented from enforcing defamation judgments obtained in countries with weaker free speech protections?
CHRISTINA DORAN, Assistant Legal Editor
Of course Congress should pass such a law. Without it, the freedom of speech in every country would be reduced to the freedom of speech in the most authoritarian country and soon we would all be back in caves (the direction the UK seems to be heading). Besides, Saudi Arabia is one of the most oppressive countries in the world and people should be free to point that out.