Defamation tourism is when plaintiffs take their cases overseas to increase their chances of a favorable outcome due to anti-defamation laws in some countries. This raises concerns about potential violations of US citizens’ rights to free speech and freedom of the press. The SPEECH Act limits the enforcement of foreign defamation judgments that do not violate US defamation laws. English libel law has been blamed for the surge in smear tourism, resulting in a three-fold increase in the number of libel cases filed in England. The SPEECH Act not only prohibits enforcement of defamation judgments that violate US law but also allows a US citizen defendant to sue the plaintiff for attempting to deprive them of their constitutional right to liberty.
Generally, defamation is any false written, published, or broadcast communication that is defamatory of any person, group, business, or government. Anti-defamation laws in some countries, such as England and Wales, help the plaintiff’s case more than the laws of the United States (USA). This has led to defamation tourism, where plaintiffs in defamation cases choose to take their cases overseas to increase their chances of a favorable outcome. Foreign rulings in defamatory tourism cases raise concerns about potential violations of US citizens’ rights to free speech and freedom of the press. In response to those concerns, both the US Senate and the House of Representatives unanimously passed the Protection of Our Durable and Established Constitutional Heritage Act (SPEECH) in 2010, which limits the enforcement of foreign defamation judgments in those cases that do not violate United States defamation laws.
Critics have blamed English libel law for the surge in smear tourism. Under English law, the courts assume that all libelous statements allegedly libelous are false, unless the defendant in such a case proves that they are true. If the defendant cannot prove the truth of the statement, he can argue that the statement is a correct comment, reflecting a reasonable viewpoint given the known facts. As a defense, however, this can be difficult to pin down. This has resulted in a three-fold increase in the number of libel cases filed in England, many of which involve allegations of aiding, financing or abetting terrorism.
Some cases of defamatory tourism in England have attracted the attention of US courts and legislatures. One such case involved allegations of terrorist financing by Saudi businessman Khalid bin Mahfouz. The allegations were part of a 2003 book, Funding Evil, by US citizen Rachel Ehrenfeld. Mahfouz brought a successful libel action in England against Ehrenfeld. Although Ehrenfeld argued that her book was protected by the First Amendment, the English court forced a judgment against her and forced her to pay Mahfouz’s damages.
While some US citizens, such as actress Kate Hudson, have benefited from smear tourism, the practice has in many cases been used to silence criticism from US journalists, writers, and broadcast staff. Internet posts by bloggers have also been vulnerable to lawsuits filed overseas. The SPEECH Act not only prohibits enforcement of defamation judgments that violate US law, but also allows a US citizen defendant in such a case to sue the plaintiff for attempting to deprive him of his constitutional right to liberty. of word. This writ provides for damages to be awarded in US court.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
