Slashdot Mirror
US Senate Passes 'Libel Tourism' Bill
Hugh Pickens writes "AFP reports that the US Senate has passed (by a 'unanimous consent' voice vote) a bill that prevents US federal courts from recognizing or enforcing a foreign judgment for defamation that is inconsistent with the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech. If the bill becomes law it will shield US journalists, authors, and publishers from 'libel tourists' who file suit in countries where they expect to get the most favorable ruling. 'While we cannot legislate changes to foreign law that are chilling protected speech in our country, we can ensure that our courts do not become a tool to uphold foreign libel judgments that undermine American First Amendment or due process rights,' said Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy. Backers of the bill have cited England, Brazil, Australia, Indonesia, and Singapore as places where weak libel safeguards attract lawsuits that unfairly harm US journalists, writers, and publishers. The popular legislation is headed to the House of Representatives, which is expected to approve it. 'This bill is a needed first step to ensure that weak free-speech protections and abusive legal practices in foreign countries do not prevent Americans from fully exercising their constitutional right to speak and debate freely,' said Senator Jeff Sessions, the top Republican on Leahy's committee."
Not that I encourage deliberately starting wildfires, but does this encompass protection if you draw Mohammed now?
There's a spot in User Info for World of Warcraft account names? Really?
So what was the last piece of legislation before this that actually was designed to protect an individuals rights? It has been too many years....
Good on you, Americans. So, now can you stop complaining if we try to stop our courts enforcing *your* mad decisions, like Gary McKinnon?
Now that one can do investigation journalism in US, reverse-engineering in Finland, publish leaks in Sweden could we please recognize that preventing the publication of a file on internet is utterly silly ?
There are several projects of a "bill of rights" for "the virtual place named internet". One will maybe stick. Information may not want to be anthropomorphized, but a lot of people surely want it to be free.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
I thought they were the party that's big on censoring. I guess libel-cases don't push the "morality" button like pr0n does. Oh well good for you American's anyway.
Raises an interesting question, am I the only one who thinks we'd be better of as a world if the UN Bill of Rights was as absolute in it's protections as particular clauses in some of our constitutions (like the first in America for example) and ALL U.N. member states were REQUIRED to implement it as part of their own constitutions (and where no constitution exists as in Britain be required to create one and make said bill of rights the entirey there-off ?)
We live in a global world now, life, law-enforcement and even international relations would all become a great deal simpler if we could agree on a set of universal human rights and be quite sure that in every non-totalitarian state you may visit those rights WILL receive absolute protection ?
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
I'm trying to figure this one out. A bill that passed the senate that reinforces some portion of our individual liberties. I'm having trouble seeing where the corporate benefit is here. I didn't think anything made its way through any part of congress without some corporation getting something out of it. I must be missing something.
Alex, I'll take keybindings not used by Emacs for $400....
Now that is news!
And more seriously, this is definitely useful, because otherwise a foreign country could set up rules that heavily favors the plaintiff and abuse US citizens for, say, writing negatively about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Posh Spice.
I am officially gone from
... this won't help cases like Spamhaus being sued by spammers in the US for defamation and tortious interference.
And yes, congrats for not "importing" silly laws.
Now if you might consider not exporting other silly laws *cough* *cough* DMCA *cough* software and bio patents *cough* ACTA *cough* practically infinite terms on copyright -- I'll start singing your praises loud.
And yes, the congrats in my first sentence are sincere and genuine!
This is an excellent move. Now, how about if the US stops trying to impose its laws on other countries? ACTA, anyone?
Probably a multi-billion dollar study on three-legged dogs. If the EU can do it, so can we! And, yes, I know the EU study isn't actually a multi-billion dollar study (but rather a small part of a multi-billion dollar fund allocation), but in the US of A, we do things bigger.
If you go to open secrets you'll notice that TV/MOVIES/MUSIC are a decent distance up the list. And notice how many contributions come from Time Warner. That's the smaller part of the reason though. The rest of it is that the media can spin any story to manipulate us one way or the other. Every legislator knows this, so none of them want to be the guy that stops this and gets pointed at. Big media wants its journalists to feel safe, and a public pat on the back or pointed finger isn't too far to go to get it as far as they are concerned.
This is a good thing that happened for the wrong reasons.
refactor the law, its bloated, confusing and unmaintainable.
So I've got to ask: how many libel suits must be pending overseas against BP America/Monsanto/Dow Chemical/United Healthcare/Disney/et al to get Congress to get off their butts and act?
Software piracy is victimless theft.
There's something a lot of folks have missed:
Since when did our courts have either the jurisdiction or authority to enforce foreign judgments that are Constitutionally inconsistent to begin with?
Why did anyone *ever* think that was acceptable or feasible?
That's a serious question, with a *fascinating* answer for anyone with the perseverance to dig until they find it, the honesty to accept it, and the bravery to confront the meaning.
A bill that passed the senate that reinforces some portion of our individual liberties. I'm having trouble seeing where the corporate benefit is here.
I know you're being facetious, but most magazines, radio stations & tv stations are owned by corporations, they can't just have foreigners suing them for their dramatic, yet wildly inaccurate and poorly researched news stories.
Actually, it's the other way around.
Where this law came from is because of England. Basically, journalists would publish something about a dictator and regardless of how true it was or where it was published (they always found a way to sue in the UK), the dictator would sue and many times win (England's liable laws are idiotic) - costing the newspaper millions in the process and then they have to retract what they said.
The Economist reports on this every once in a while.
Actually, that'd be a trip of the Economist/Financial Times move over here.
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
If the UN suddenly claimed the power to force member states to pass laws on their citizens, the "US out of UN" movement would probably quintuple in size overnight and they'd be looking for new office space to lease.
Well shoot, when you put it that way it almost makes me want to support it!
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
While I of course applaud the aims of this particular legislation, I think Senator Sessions may not like the consequences of starting an international game of "we won't recognize your court judgments because of your 'abusive legal system.'" The US legal systems for IP and class action recovery are the poster-children for 'abusive', and at a time when so much of the US economy depends on IP lawsuits (to say nothing of some no-doubt imminent class action suits against a certain British oil company), being the first to start ignoring foreign court judgments on principle might prove ill-advised.
Admirable to ask this question. Vigilance is always required.
In the case of this bill, the text appears to be straightforward, well targeted, reasonably concise, and free from extraneous tack-ons.
Check it out: Full text of bill at Thomas
I hope that URL will last, but the cgi looks suspiciously transient. If it stops working, just google "hr 2765 text".
As far as Catholics, they have and still do require at least 16 y/o for males, 14 y/o for females. Which is more stringent requirements than the laws of some existing states. Really in most societies couples got married a lot earlier than people do now adays.
There are potential law suits against a British oil company? I didn't realise we still had any. I know there are former British companies that are now multi-national conglomerates, and I know they're having issues that could lead to legal situations, but I didn't know there was another oil company in a similar situation.
From my American informants, apparently only Fox is still making that mistake and most TV stations have started intentionally correcting themselves ;)
Nope. we're coming up on elections soon. Every last one of the incumbents was probably screaming "YES" to free speech at the top of their lungs.
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
Excuse me; what?
Fair point; but even a multi-national conglomerate by definition has its assets in multiple nations. In order for US plaintiffs to reach those assets, foreign courts will have to recognize the US judgments. The US probably doesn't want those foreign courts deciding that a system based on scumbag lawyers putting up "Have you been injured by the Gulf Oil Spill?! CALL NOW!" ads on cable TV and collecting their 33% is an "abusive legal system" whose judgments can be ignored. On the other hand, it might not be such a bad thing for the rest of the world if they did make such a decision.
I have profound sympathy with the citizens of all foreign lands on which these pernicious obscenities such as DMCA have spread. But I must tell the citizens of these foreign lands this: look to your own corruptocracies, and not the US corruptocracy, as the guilty parties in this matter. The US does not have the power to dictate legislation to foreign lands.
I approve of any measure that enhances national sovereignty. The world is far too corrupt for the idea of world government by treaty to be anything but a way to screw people who obey those treaties, so the sooner nations reject the laws of others the better.
"The US legal systems for IP and class action recovery are the poster-children for 'abusive',"
International law itself is abuse, because it is internal government of nations by treaty with other nations while excluding voters. Such concessions should have to pass the test of becoming Constitutional amendments (effectively killing them) to be enforced.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
"Why not? The US effectively legislates copyright law in my country (Australia). "
Sack up and fight that nonsense, for the good of Oz and the US. It's OK to vilify US corporations. USians do it daily.
The US needs Australian support for its economic Empire and cannot abandon it. (The US public would see it as feeding Crocodile Dundee to the ChiComs!)
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
The US does not have the power to dictate legislation to foreign lands.
Unfortunately, this does not stop the U.S. from trying to do so, at gunpoint if necessary.
The founding documents are not law in the U.S. except for the Constitution; neither are the personal views of the founding fathers. As much as I think you're right in a moral and ethical sense, the letter of the law in the U.S. is that you are entitled to your own opinions and speech - ALWAYS, regardless of the validity of what you say/think and if it offends anyone. Civil liberties groups like the ACLU exist, in part, to defend speech even when it is hurtful and unpopular. Legal precedent states that the only speech which is ever punishable is something like the old "yelling fire in a public theater" example.
So yeah, you're just wrong. And judging from some of the religious defamation laws that have been floated lately in Europe, I'm kinda glad you are.
slang changes. Chalkboards always were chalkboards where I grew up, confused the hell out of me when I heard people calling them blackboards (they are green damn it!). Changing locations, changing demographics, new generations, all of them can change slang.
the preceding post was not spell checked... suck it.
Perhaps Congress could pass a law guaranteeing that "abusive legal practices in foreign countries [the US] do not prevent non-Americans from fully exercising their rights to play legally purchased audio/video content and write code without paying protection money to US patent trolls".
Sack up and fight that nonsense, for the good of Oz and the US. It's OK to vilify US corporations. USians do it daily.
Americans, the word is Americans, People from the United States of America are called Americans.
I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
Yeah, that's already happening... even the director who fucked a minor was not extradited to the US by Switzerland...
I was unaware US courts could do anything regarding liability for things done elsewhere that are not illegal in the US. Especially things that cannot be made illegal in the US.
Do treaties override Constitutional protections? I thought they could not.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
You said it yourself, 40% of children failed to reach adulthood. Most numbers that are thrown around are the average at birth; the high infant mortality rates of the past lead to artificially low numbers (e.g. you have 6 babies, 4 of them die within a year but the remaining two live to be 65, your average expectancy is...well, a lot lower than 65, the math is more involved than I want to get atm). In Rome, the average expectancy was 24, but if you made it to 5 years old your new average was 48, more than enough time to bear and raise children even if you married in your mid-20s.
I suspect the early marriage of yore was so you could start producing children as soon as possible, to insure you could bear enough that at least one or two would make it through childhood and get to the point where they could reasonably expect to see 50.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
Nobody, because TSA doesn't determine whether or not you can enter the country. Perhaps you've confused them with CBP?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
You think that is an unusual position for someone that is charged with representing the people of the State of Alabama? Of course they should consider the priorities of the constituents should take precedence, that's their job and the job of the US Government.
Brett
So why should other countries enforce idiotic American laws, such as software patents and continuously extended copyrights ?
Moreover, (without reading the bill) what about foreign judgments from actions that didn't occur in the US?
Say I go to Belarus and violate the libel laws there (also assume the libel laws there are not in accordance with the US 1st Amendment). I'm taken to court there, and the victim of my blather wins. Assume this is in accordance with the law, so no corruption or funny business. Not being from Belarus, but instead from the US, all my assets (money) are in the US. So the winning plaintiff brings the judgment to the US and asks the court to enforce the judgment against me. Still quite reasonable, as I did violate the law of Belarus in Belarus. Does this legislation prevent the enforcement? If it does, why should it? This, to my mind, is a legitimate situation to enforce the judgment.
Avoiding the 1st Amendment by bringing an action elsewhere shouldn't work and should be stopped, as this would do. But this may be overbroad, essentially infringing on the sovereignty of other nations to apply their laws in their countries to Americans and have that recognized. Comity of nations may often be a comedy, but it isn't always, and the US Congress would do well to remember that and be careful in the drafting.
IAAL and an American. AC because I only occasionally lurk on /.
While I of course applaud the aims of this particular legislation, I think Senator Sessions may not like the consequences of starting an international game of "we won't recognize your court judgments because of your 'abusive legal system.'" The US legal systems for IP and class action recovery are the poster-children for 'abusive', and at a time when so much of the US economy depends on IP lawsuits (to say nothing of some no-doubt imminent class action suits against a certain British oil company), being the first to start ignoring foreign court judgments on principle might prove ill-advised.
I'm pretty sure that everyone has been freely ignoring foreign court judgments since anyone first came up with the idea of a "court" sometime in prehistoric times. Foreign court rulings are not generally enforceable against someone outside the country, unless a specific agreement exists. Usually agreements do exist, at least between developed nations, but they tend to be very limited when it comes to civil cases, AFAIK.
IP and class action suits are entirely different, because there you're often talking about suing a multinational corporation. Likewise BP. As soon as they have assets in the country, the court can enforce its orders without asking permission from another country. Otherwise, you're out of luck. When the MPAA tried sending DMCA takedown notices to The Pirate Bay, they were indeed told to go jump off a cliff, IIRC. The suit had to be filed in the local nation's court to actually get an enforceable judgment.
MediaWiki developer, Total War Center sysadmin
Exactly!
This has to be one of the BIGGEST misunderstandings over averages (means) I've ever seen. It has wide reaching impact as well. It gives people a false notion that modern times have extended our lives greatly or that poor nations have people who do not live long, etc. The perception has wide reaching impact. Those starving diseased places in the world don't actually have a whole lot less of a lifespan than we think they do - they just have huge child mortality rates knocking it down for the most part - the war torn places have an impact too but it is not as great as the hugely skewing child death rates. Just fixing up the birth process brings up the stat in large ways; although, again you are then focusing effort based upon a misunderstanding of averages instead of working on more important factors which simply lack the pull on the numbers.
It also undermines the belief that modern medicine is as great as we think it is... not completely, but it doesn't look as great as the numbers make it look... so we get a few more years out of it...at huge massive expense... alters one's perspective a little bit.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
You have no perspective.
The US already has one-way extradition treaties with numerous countries, including major ones. A situation which is decidedly more abusive than just choosing to ignore a few foreign court judgments. Considering this only applies to speech, it's not going to get anyone in much more of a huff than they already are over the current relationship.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Um... no. Exactly the opposite. I would fully expect them to support American priorities over foreign priorities (for most foreign countries, anyway). That's why I said it doesn't really count.
Technoli
I dunno. It might not be a bad thing for foreign legal systems to start ignoring us when we want to punish their citizens for things they did while not on US soil.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
Would that mean the US will also cease in trying to strong arm US law onto foreign, sovereign states?
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
I suspect astroturfing is going on. There's too many trolls, and too many opinions that seem unreasonable.
Never think that only corporations engage in astroturfing. If anything, governments have more need to shape public opinion.
Imagine, though, what kind of a job it would be for a non-geek to have the job of reading slashdot, and deciding how to post. That's probably why so many of the opinions seem wrong-headed.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
No, it's the product of a bad legal system that relies on jury trials, and judges who are former lawyers. In short, the Common Law system. The Civil Law system is a superior system, as it abolishes juries (which are just composed of emotional idiots), and has judges that were trained specifically to be judges, not lawyers.
The US's "legal system" is really just justice for the rich.
What event precipitated this bill? Did the US courts actually do this? I was not aware that the US courts ever upheld foreign judgments. I thought that was what extradition was for -- you send the person to the other country, and they judge and enforce their law. I find it difficult to believe that even if the US did uphold a foreign judgment, that it would happen on something that violated hte first amendment. The US courts are pretty consistent on that one. It seems like an easy appeal.
What happened?
I wouldn't be surprised if they tacked on a bridge to nowhere.
Wait, so now it's safe to call Tom Cruise a fudge packer? And he can't even sue me in England? Because I thought I saw him at a fudge factory, packing up boxes, and had to tell someone.
This is admirable, and good news for US citizens. If only the same principle could be applied to the Bush-Blair extradition treaty, which allows British citizens to be deported to the US for trial on the unsupported word of US law enforcement authorities (but not, notably, the other way round).
P,S.: Check into the "Church of Perfect Liberty" if you want to see how the current laws apply. (That's no me, I don't qualify. But THEY do.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.