The United States is to introduce legislation to protect its citizens from Britain’s draconian libel laws.
The Senate judiciary committee will vote this week on measures to block British and other overseas rulings that threaten the First Amendment right to free speech.
The bill was drawn up after a series of high-profile cases in which American writers and publishers have been successfully sued in the High Court in London after just a few copies of their books or articles were sold in Britain or read on the internet.
Senator Patrick Leahy, the Democrat chairman of the Senate judiciary committee, who tabled the bill, said: “Over recent years, American authors, reporters and publishers have fallen victim to libel lawsuits in countries with significantly weaker free speech protections than what our First Amendment affords.
Advertisement
“England, Brazil, Australia, Indonesia and Singapore are just a few of the countries whose weak libel protections have attracted libel lawsuits against American journalists and authors.”
The House of Representatives voted unanimously for similar federal legislation in June 2009. Once it has been voted through by the Senate committee it will go to a vote of the full house before being enacted.
Britain’s libel laws are considered some of the most onerous in the world. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Greenpeace, Index on Censorship, Oxfam, Christian Aid and the United Nations have raised concerns.
The threat of libel tourism to freedom of speech in America emerged six years ago, when Rachel Ehrenfeld, an American academic, suggested in a book that Khalid bin Mahfouz, a Saudi banker, had links to the financing of terrorist groups.
Ehrenfeld had not published or promoted the book in Britain but 23 copies were shipped to this country and the allegations were also made on the internet.
Advertisement
Bin Mahfouz successfully sued in the High Court after Ehrenfeld decided not to contest the case. Mr Justice Eady concluded that the allegations were wholly unfounded, and Ehrenfeld was ordered to pay £130,000 in costs and damages.
Last week, Ehrenfeld welcomed the US bill. She said: “This bill is fantastic, it will protect US citizens from the damaging impact of your draconian British libel laws. It is a damning indictment of British courts, which have damaged your international reputation.”
In 2005 Roman Polanski, the film director, used the High Court to sue the American magazine Vanity Fair over an article that claimed he tried to seduce a woman on his way to his wife’s funeral. Polanski was allowed to give evidence via video link from Paris to avoid extradition to the US, where he was wanted for having sex with a 13-year-old girl. After he won £50,000 damages, lawyers on both sides of the Atlantic called the case “a disgrace”.
In Britain, Lord Lester, the Liberal Democrat peer and human rights lawyer, has tabled a private member’s bill to reform libel law whereby claimants wishing to sue in this country would need to demonstrate “substantial harm” to their reputations.
Libel trials heard by juries could also be largely abandoned to cut costs and speed up the process. Lester said: “It [the US legislation] clearly is a stain on our reputation as a country that respects free speech and modern democracy, and reinforces the pressing need for reform. Our libel laws are damaging our reputation in the US, and having a serious, chilling effect on freedom of speech.
Advertisement
“It is the right of the public to receive information and opinions on matters of public interest.”
Doctor sued
An American medical company suing a British doctor for criticising one of its heart implants has seen its share price collapse after a trial cast doubt over the product’s effectiveness.
NMT Medical sued Dr Peter Wilmshurst after he criticised Starflex, an implant for fixing holes in the heart. The company has now published the results of its own clinical trial, which found that Starflex was no better at stopping strokes than the best non-surgical procedure.
Wilmshurst faces bankruptcy if he wins the libel case but fails to recover his costs.