Libel Tourism
The resources on this page provide information about state and federal legislative efforts to combat libel tourism.
Libel tourism refers to a tactic where plaintiffs file a libel suit in a foreign jurisdiction (where they have little or no connection) in order to take advantage of that foreign jurisdiction’s law and procedure. England, in particular, has been used for libel tourism because English libel law is very favorable to plaintiffs and the courts can exercise jurisdiction over foreign defendants if there has been some publication in England.
MLRC recently filed comments with the UK Parliament's select committee on Culture, Media and Sport expressing our concerns with "libel tourism" and English defamation law. The submission is available here.
The issue recently gained a great deal of attention when American author and researcher Rachel Ehrenfeld was sued in London by Khalid Bin Mahfouz, a Saudi Arabian businessman, over her book “Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It.” Her book was not published in England, but the plaintiff claimed that about 20 copies of her book had been purchased there. Ehrenfeld chose not to defend the lawsuit in England and instead brought an action in the United States seeking to declare the English judgment unenforceable.
New York State’s highest court suggested that the problem of libel tourism was best addressed by new legislation. Several states responded by enacting new laws that make foreign libel judgments unenforceable unless compliant with the First Amendment. In addition, bills were proposed in Congress that would create a new cause of action against the foreign libel plaintiff and provide for damages if the foreign plaintiff acted to deprive an American of his or her right to free speech.
Federal Bill
H.R. 2765 Introduced in the House on June 9, 2009 by Congressman Steve Cohen of Tennessee.
-
Bill Status: Passed the House and the Senate in July 2010. Current information available here.
-
Text of H.R. 2765 available here.
Summary: The bill would prohibit any state or federal court in the U.S. from enforcing a foreign defamation judgment unless it is compliant with First Amendment standards. The bill would also make certain foreign judgments against the providers of interactive computer services unenforceable unless compliant with Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Section 230 immunizes interactive computer services, such as websites and blogs, from defamation and related liability for content created by third parties.
State Statutes
Florida
Fla. Statutes 55.605 (2)(h); 55.6055
Enacted May 2009.
-
55.605 (2)(h) available here.
-
Summary: Same as the New York statute.
Illinois
735 ILL. COMP. STAT 5/12-621 (b)(7) (2009); 735 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/2-209 (b-5) (2009).
Enacted August 2008
Summary: Same as the New York statute.
New York “Libel Terrorism Protection Act”
N.Y. C.P.L.R. 302(d); N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 5304 (b)(8)
Enacted May 1, 2008
-
State press release here.
-
Summary: Amends state law on recognition of foreign judgments to provide that foreign defamation judgments need not be enforced unless the court determines that the foreign law provided at least as much protection for freedom of speech and press in that case as would be provided by the United States Constitution and the State Constitution. The state long-arm jurisdiction statute is amended to provide for personal jurisdiction over foreign libel plaintiff for a declaratory judgment action of non-enforceability.
California – SB 320
-
-
Bill Status: Introduced in February 2009. Passed the Senate Judiciary Committee on a 5-0 vote and the full Senate 38-0. Signed by Governor Schwarzenegger on October 12, 2009. Current information available here.
Summary: Same as the New York law. The bill would amend the state’s Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Act so that foreign defamation judgments need not be recognized if obtained under law that provides less protection for speech than the First Amendment and California state constitution. The bill also provides for a declaratory judgment action to obtain an order that the foreign judgment is unenforceable.
Pending Bills
New Jersey – S16
Summary: Amends state law on enforcement of foreign country money-judgments to provide that such judgments need not be recognized unless the defamation law applied in the foreign country provides at least as much protection for freedom of speech and press as is provided by the Constitutions of the United States and New Jersey.
|
