English lawmakers consider rewriting libel laws

Posted by Leah McBride Mensching on December 11, 2009 at 4:40 PM

English law is notorious for making it easy for complainants to sue for libel and win, thanks to the burden of proof resting on the defendant, leading British lawmakers to consider rewriting the country's outdated libel laws, The New York Times reported yesterday.

Libel laws are so relaxed that the term "libel tourism," is used to describe what goes on in English courts - people filing libel suits outside their home country. In fact, it's not surprising that The New York Times is reporting on the issue, since it has an interest in seeing the law changed, according to Wall Street Journal blogs.

Several U.S. states, including New York, have passed laws that make rulings from English libel courts difficult to enforce, and Congress is considering following. Meanwhile, a group of foreign newspapers and news groups, including The Associated Press, Bloomberg, Fairfax Media Limited and The New York Times, have recently sent a statement to the English House of Commons stating that some U.S. newspapers are considering blocking access to their sites in England.

The statement also calls the libel laws "repugnant to U.S. constitutional principles," and points out that just "one 'hit' in England is enough for a multimillion-pound libel action in London." The libel laws are so far reaching that they are damaging to free speech, the statement reads.

The impetus leading to New York's law was the case of American scholar Rachel Ehrenfeld, who was sued by Khalid bin Mahfouz, a Saudi billionaire. Ehrenfeld wrote a book in 2003 called "Funding Evil," in which she accused bin Mahfouz of contributing money to Al Qaeda. Although the book sold a mere 23 copies in England, that was enough for bin Mahfouz to sue her in English libel courts. When Ehrenfeld refused to take part in the case or submit to the libel court's jurisdiction, she was ordered to pay him more than US$225,000 by default, according to True/Slant.