On Libel And The Law, U.S. And U.K. Go Separate Ways

[I]…
“I just set out to write the truth, to expose those who funded terrorism,” she says.

Ehrenfeld runs a think tank in New York called the American Center for Democracy. In 2003, she wrote a book called Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed, and How to Stop It.

The book accused a wealthy Saudi businessman of funding al-Qaida. The businessman, Khalid bin Mahfouz, sued Ehrenfeld in a British court.

“I did not live in England, I do not live in England, the book was not published there, so why not come and sue me in the United States?” she asks.

The reason is simple.

“English laws are much more favorable for someone looking to protect their reputation,” says Jenny Afia, a lawyer in London who often represents people making libel and privacy claims.

Ehrenfeld’s case was an example of “libel tourism,” where someone brings a libel claim in a country where he is most likely to win. Often, that country is Great Britain.

“Crooks and brigands from around the world come here to launder their reputations, where they couldn’t get exculpation in either their home country or indeed in the United States of America,” says Mark Stephens, a London lawyer who often represents media companies in these cases.

In American courts, the burden of proof rests with the person who brings a claim of libel. In British courts, the author or journalist has the burden of proof, and typically loses.

“So you’ve got the rich and powerful shutting down and chilling speech which is critical of them,” says Stephens.

Afia disagrees with that characterization. Journalists “are writing about the wealthy and the powerful, so those are the people who are going to be the victim to more false claims, and they’re the people whose families will have their privacy invaded,” she says.

U.S. Fights Back With ‘Rachel’s Law’

When author Rachel Ehrenfeld was sued in England, she didn’t show up, and the court issued a default judgment against her, “that I would destroy the book, in addition to the fine” of about $250,000.

Typically, a U.S. court would enforce that ruling. But in this case, something extraordinary happened.

The New York Legislature took up Ehrenfeld’s cause and passed a bill called the Libel Terrorism Protection Act. Many referred to it as “Rachel’s Law.”

Then, the U.S. Congress acted on it. Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., spoke on the House floor about the bill, known at the federal level as the “Speech Act.”

“While we generally share a proud common law legal tradition with the United Kingdom,” Cohen said, “it is also true that the United Kingdom has laws that disfavor speech critical of public officials, contrary to our own constitutional tradition.”

The bill passed the House and the Senate unanimously, and President Obama signed it into law in 2010. It prevents U.S. courts from enforcing British libel rulings.
…[/I]

source

@pamba leta summary tafasali

he is nursing a hangover

When put like this, I think I agree with the British courts. If someone makes wild claims and I sue for libel, they should be the ones required to have the burden of proof since they made the claims in the first place.

Interesting. But could the law apply retroactively?

A bit lazy to Google…