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."

Comments

Hmmm

[DWMorse]

Not that I encourage deliberately starting wildfires, but does this encompass protection if you draw Mohammed now?

Re:Hmmm

[mcvos]

Yes, but only from law suits. It will not protect you from actual bombers or bullets. --This is not really a joke because it is way to accurate.

You're exaggerating. As far as I know not a single shot has been fired anywhere on earth because of a picture.

Does a moving picture count? Because Theo van Gogh has definitely been shot. (8 times. And then stabbed.)

Re:Hmmm

[jarbrewer]

Theo Van Gogh might disagree.

Re:Hmmm

[Yuuki Dasu]

Don't forget the change in life expectancy.

Classical Greece and Rome only had a life expectancy of 28 years. Medieval Britain had a life expectancy of 30. Early 20th Century had a life expectancy of 30-45 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy

The average life expectancy in Colonial America was under 25 years in the Virginia colony,[18] and in New England about 40% of children failed to reach adulthood.

So in order to marry, have children and live long enough to care for them, you would have to marry at an early age of around 14 through 16. This probably the reasoning behind the NC state law mentioned earlier in this thread.

From the same article, under "Misconceptions":

A popular misconception about life expectancy is that people living beyond the staged age was unusual.

...

This ignores the fact that life expectancy changes depending on age and the one often presented is the "at birth" number. For example, a Roman Life Expectancy table at the University of Texas shows that at birth the life expectancy was 25 but if one lived to the age of 5 one's life expectancy jumped to 48.

Life expectancy rates throughout history look weak because a huge proportion of children never lived to adulthood. When half your population dies by age 5 and the other half lives to 45, you get a life expectancy of around 25. I can't think of any time period where people who lived through childhood couldn't presume to live long enough to raise a family without having to get started at 14.

Good, sensible decision

[Dominic]

Good on you, Americans. So, now can you stop complaining if we try to stop our courts enforcing *your* mad decisions, like Gary McKinnon?

Re:Good, sensible decision

[MoonBuggy]

For the sake of argument, let's say that we all agree that the crime occurred on US soil (and even that is by no means a unanimous opinion). The UK will only allow the extradition of they believe that he will receive a fair trial and (if found guilty) a reasonable punishment for the crimes he has been accused of.

This is a man with some psychological problems who appears to have made a very very stupid decision by breaking in to some poorly secured US government computers. There was little actual harm done. The consensus seems to be that in the UK he would receive a slap on the wrist, maybe some psychiatric treatment, perhaps some limitations on his future access to computers. At the time he faced a maximum of six months in a UK prison.

The US are calling him a terrorist, and lining him up for the distinct possibility of several decades, maybe even life, in a federal prison.

Do you believe he would get off lightly if extradited to the US, or do you think he would be made an example of? If the former, why? If the latter, do you think it is still fair to extradite him?

Re:Good, sensible decision

[Dominic]

Well, *you* might say that, but your government wouldn't. The US doesn't let other countries judge its citizens nearly as easily. Take, for example, the refusal of the US to hand over Robert Seldon Lady, guilty of kidnap and torture (who was given 8 years in his absense). Or what about Captain Richard J. Ashby, who is one of four pilots responsible for the deaths of 20 people in Italy (and destroying the evidence)?

These are far worse crimes, and the US refused to hand them over to other countries for trial. They were also black-and-white crimes, whereas what McKinnon did was not even serious enough for prison time here, where he 'committed' it. That's what gets people - the double standards.

Re:Good, sensible decision

[nomadic]

These are far worse crimes, and the US refused to hand them over to other countries for trial.

Well, not really "other countries" plural, just one, Italy. Which, as the Knox trial showed, does not have a functioning justice system.

Confused

[AntEater]

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.

Re:Confused

[XxtraLarGe]

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.

Re:The US Senate did something useful

[Chrisq]

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!

Re:Good

[dangitman]

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.

Re:Good

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:A republican in favor of free speech ?

[The AtomicPunk]

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?

Re:campaign finance and free publicity

[locallyunscene]

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.

What happens when other countries join the game?

[dbkluck]

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.

Re:Catholic attack fail

[Wiarumas]

Mary had Jesus around the age of 13 or 14, meaning that God had impregnated her around the age of 12 or 13.

Re:A republican in favor of free speech ?

[nomadic]

Your freedom of opinion does not INCLUDE the freedom to think I or anybody else is less than you.

Yes. Yes, it does.

Re:Catholic attack fail

[jemtallon]

And someone accuses God of statutory rape. That's got to be worth 3 Godwins and a strawman. Thread over!

Re:What happens when other countries join the game

[Nimey]

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.