U.S. Speech Act puts pressure on UK libel tourism laws

Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. Congress may not agree on much, but in a rare event there was bipartisan support on a libel tourism bill, also know as The SPEECH Act (Securing the Protection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage). If signed into law, the United States government would no longer uphold judgments of defamation abroad that conflict with the First Amendment, which upholds freedom of speech. This more liberal version of the libel tourism law calls into question the UK's more rigid stance on the issue.

There are several recorded cases of libel tourism being used against American journalists in the past, most of the cases being heard in UK courts. A Greek citizen was cited as suing The New York Times and International Herald, claiming they falsified information about him. The recent case that initiated the new legislation was the that of a US citizen, Rachel Ehrenfeld, who was sued in a London court. Apparently, she claimed in her book, "Funding Evil," that that a Saudi billionaire, Khalid bin Mahmouz, was supporting terrorism activities. Although less than 25 books were purchased through Amazon in the United Kingdom, the court decided in favour of bin Mahmouz and awarded him $225,000 in damages. Mahmouz did not attempt to collect his damages as all of Ehrenfeld's assets were in the United States, but nevertheless, the situation riled Ehrenfeld up enough to pursue legislative actions.

For more on this story, visit our sister publication, editorsweblog.org.