When I wrote about Simon Singh's libel case, my commentary on the case included, you may have noticed, a comment that I shouldn't have to wonder if I was going to be sued in Britain. That 'I' was not rhetorical. British courts tend to take the view that their libel law can apply widely. Very widely. Like to books that weren't published in Britain.
Singh is British, so it at least makes sense that he would be sued for libel in Britain. Rachel Ehrenfeld, on the other hand, is American. She was sued by Khalid bin Mahfouz, who is Saudi Arabian. Ehrenfeld's book sold a grand total of 23 copies in Britain, via internet or special order- it was not published in Britain, to avoid exactly this situation. The first chapter was available on the internet.
That was enough for Justice David Eady to decide that British courts had enough authority to take the case. Ehrenfeld did not appear to make a defense and a default judgement was awarded against her.
Cases like Ehrenfeld's have spawned a new term: libel tourism. It refers to plaintiffs taking libel cases to foreign (particularly British) courts because of the relative ease of winning a libel claim there.
In reponse to libel tourism, California recently became the third US state to bar its courts from enforcing foreign libel judgements unless that judgement was made in a court whose free speech protections were equal to or greater than those in the US. New York, Florida, and Illinois have passed similar laws; on a nationwide basis, HR1304, is currently in the House.
While that's nice news for those of us in the US, it doesn't much help our British colleagues, or address the issues underlying libel tourism. Hopefully, the controversy stirred up by high-profile cases like Singh's and Ehrenfeld's will lead to a revision of British law, and British writers will be able to depend on truth as a defense against libel.
No comments:
Post a Comment