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?
Good on you, Americans. So, now can you stop complaining if we try to stop our courts enforcing *your* mad decisions, like Gary McKinnon?
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 all we need is for other countries to protect their citizens from similar patent tourism.
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.
Or even the two of them as lovers!
... this won't help cases like Spamhaus being sued by spammers in the US for defamation and tortious interference.
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 ?
As long as you don't get your countries mixed up, and create leaks in Holland, or attempt to reverse-engineer Swedish.
... and then they built the supercollider.
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 ?
Nope. Servers live places. The people who do the uploading live places. The people who run the servers can be punished. The people who do the uploading can be punished. There's no legal basis for your theory that criminalizing the publication of a file on the internet (I assume that's what you meant since nobody is preventing the publication of anything, if I assume incorrectly please let me know WTF you were thinking) is "silly". First we'd need to throw away IP law entirely, which is pretty much the opposite of what is going on in the world today. A significant part of IP law is written into international conventions to which the USA and GB are both signatories.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
If you think the republicans have a monopoly on censorship, you've had your head buried in the sand too long.
Heard of the fairness doctrine?
Nono you've got your conspiracy theory all wrong. Big media can and always have been able to spin a story any way they like. That's part of free speech.
The real reason is that Disney wants to make a new movie about the life of Muhammad and wants protection from pairing him with an effeminate wise-cracking camel.
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.
On the contrary, from my point of view, the Democrats are much bigger on censorship (such as so-called "hate speech", AKA opinions) and political correctness than the Republicans, but let's not fight. These opposing fundamental viewpoints are really not arguable effectively; i.e., stating this one way or the other will never sway anyone on the other side. Can we just agree that it is very gratifying that both sides of the aisle joined together on this?
AFAIK, none of those companies (with the possible fringe example of Disney) are in an industry where libel is a serious issue.
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
Mary had Jesus around the age of 13 or 14, meaning that God had impregnated her around the age of 12 or 13.
I will bend like a reed in the wind.
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.
Your freedom of opinion does not INCLUDE the freedom to think I or anybody else is less than you.
Yes. Yes, it does.
And someone accuses God of statutory rape. That's got to be worth 3 Godwins and a strawman. Thread over!
Since it's a provable fact that I am NOT less than you, and nobody else is either
How would you go about proving that? I believe that all people are of equal value, but I would be hard pressed to prove that as a fact. In truth, I think it would be trivial to "prove" that some people are of less value than others (for certain definitions of "value").
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
I still think its a slippery slope. If specific rights are enumerated that leaves the door open to restrict everything else.
It can also sometimes lead to a "you have those rights only because 'we' were nice enough and generous enough to give them to you", or a "rights are only granted by the government and not an inherent property of people" kind of mentality. Both carry the unstated implication of "we can take them away if we want".
But then, if you don't list them at all, what safety net do you have to help protect them?
Damned if you do, damned if you don't, I guess.
The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
The moment it DOES - you've lost the right to. The moment you pass me over for promotion because I'm the wrong color even though I'm the best candidate you SHOULD be committing a crime.
Well that's where we differ. If you let your racist hiring decisions affect how you run your business, I may dislike it but it's your business. You should be able to choose not to hire me because you don't like my skin color, or eye color, or because the your hallucination of St. Peter told your enfeebled brain that if you hired me your moustache would turn green. Freedom is freedom; if you have to qualify it like you want to do it's not freedom anymore.
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