What Is Libel Tourism?

Libel is a written defamatory statement. Libel tourism happens when plaintiffs in a libel case take advantage of the differences in defamation laws between foreign countries. They forum shop by looking for a favorable jurisdiction. This means filing lawsuits in places where the libel law is less restrictive than in the U.S. legal system.

In the United States, defamation laws generally disfavor plaintiffs. U.S. courts and legislatures frequently use the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment free speech rights in defamation cases. This makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to succeed with defamation claims.

If you believe you have a libel or slander suit or if someone has accused you of defamation, contact an attorney right away.

For example, a plaintiff must prove a defendant’s defamatory statement is false. If the plaintiff is a public figure (or limited public figure), they must show that the defendant made the defamatory statement with actual malice. To show actual malice, as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant made the statement "with the knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard for the truth."

In other countries, like Great Britain, defamation laws are more plaintiff-friendly. In English courts, the defendant in a defamation suit must prove a defamatory statement is true. Because of this distinction in the law, many plaintiffs, notably celebrities, choose to file their defamation cases in England. London was nicknamed the "libel capital of the world." As a result of this practice, publishers are reluctant to express certain opinions and to report on certain topics, leading to a chilling effect on freedom of speech and freedom of expression.

This article offers background information on defamation lawsuits in the United States. It also explains how libel tourism works and gives examples. Finally, the article discusses the SPEECH Act and the current state of libel tourism.

Background Information on U.S. Defamation Suits

Under the common law (the law created by judicial decisions), a defendant could be held strictly liable in a defamation action. This means a defendant could be liable for publishing a false statement even if they didn’t know it was untrue. The federal government and state governments used weak defamation laws to their advantage to curb free speech.

Historically, the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t help matters. The high court’s decisions barely mentioned the link between defamation laws and the U.S. Constitution’s free speech guarantees.

But, the Supreme Court made a paradigm shift in case law for defamation causes of actions. In the 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan decision, the Court reversed a libel judgment against the New York Times. The decision recognized that the First Amendment’s free speech rights can protect speech about public officials. This type of speech is critical to the public interest because it triggers conversations about the government.

How Libel Tourism Works

The high court in England, known as the High Court of Justice, is a popular destination for libel tourists. Under Section 9 of the Defamation Act 2013, a plaintiff must show the court that England is the most appropriate jurisdiction in which to bring the defamation action.

A plaintiff might bring a claim for defamation in England because English libel laws are perceived to be more protective of plaintiffs’ rights than U.S. libel laws. A plaintiff can then have the court’s judgment in England enforced by a court in the United States. Celebrities and other public figures have used libel tourism to succeed in defamation cases that would otherwise fail in the U.S.

Libel Tourism Examples

In 2000, England’s House of Lords allowed Boris Berezovsky, a Russian resident, to file a libel claim against Forbes magazine, a U.S. company.

In 2008, Saudi billionaire Khalid bin Mahfouz sued Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, an American author and academic, for libel. Ehrenfeld asserted that the Mahfouz helped finance terrorists. Ehrenfeld published her book, "Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed — and How to Stop It," in the U.S.

Some consumers purchased the book via websites registered in the United Kingdom. That connection enabled Mahfouz to exploit the U.K.’s broader defamation laws. His lawsuit against Ehrenfeld was successful. It resulted in a U.K. high court judgment requiring the destruction of the remaining books. Given the facts, it’s doubtful that a court in the United States would have ruled in favor of Mahfouz.

The SPEECH Act and Libel Tourism Today

In 2010, the passage of the Securing the Protection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage (SPEECH) Act significantly restricted libel tourism in the United States. The SPEECH Act requires that all foreign libel judgments follow the libel standards in the United States. If they don’t, the court won’t enforce those judgments. The non-enforcement of foreign defamation judgments has substantially curbed libel tourism.

Some states have gone further to remedy the issue of libel tourism by passing libel tourism acts. These state laws allow their courts to exercise jurisdiction over libel suits filed against authors and publishing companies operating from their states. These laws make it less likely that courts in other countries will be the best place for a lawsuit. New York passed the Libel Terrorism Protection Act, which "relates to personal jurisdiction and enforceability of certain foreign judgments in cases involving defamation."

States with libel tourism laws include:

• California
• Florida
• Illinois
• New York

Libel tourism remains a public policy issue for government leaders. The government tries to find the proper balance between First Amendment rights of free speech and the need to respect the laws and decisions of other jurisdictions.

Get Legal Help With Your Libel Claim

If you think you have a viable libel claim, maybe you’re not sure where to start a lawsuit. Reach out to an experienced defamation attorney today for help.