{"id":353542,"date":"2016-04-04T10:47:02","date_gmt":"2016-04-04T15:47:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/content.findlaw-admin.com\/ability-law\/injury\/torts-and-personal-injuries\/what-is-libel-tourism.html"},"modified":"2025-09-11T14:50:26","modified_gmt":"2025-09-11T19:50:26","slug":"what-is-libel-tourism","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.findlaw.com\/injury\/torts-and-personal-injuries\/what-is-libel-tourism.html","title":{"rendered":"What Is Libel Tourism?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n

What Is Libel Tourism?<\/h1>\n\n
\n
\n By Lark Lewis, J.D.<\/a> | Legally reviewed by Katrina Wilson, Esq.<\/a>\n | Last updated\n
\n \n <\/i>\n Legally Reviewed\n <\/summary>\n\n
\n

This article has been written and reviewed for legal accuracy, clarity, and style by FindLaw\u2019s team of legal writers and attorneys<\/a> and in accordance with our editorial standards<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n <\/div>\n <\/details>\n\n

\n \n <\/i>\n Fact-Checked\n <\/summary>\n\n
\n

The last updated date refers to the last time this article was reviewed by FindLaw or one of our contributing authors<\/a>. We make every effort to keep our articles updated. For information regarding a specific legal issue affecting you, please contact an attorney in your area<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n <\/div>\n <\/details>\n<\/section>\n\n\n

\n

Libel tourism happens when plaintiffs in a libel case take advantage of the differences in defamation laws between foreign countries. Yet, the U.S. may choose to not enforce foreign court rulings. This may protect people from libel tourism.<\/p>\n\n <\/div>\n\n\n\n

The United States places a strong legal emphasis on freedom of speech. There are exceptions, such as in a defamation case. But proving that the damage of someone’s words outweighs their free speech is comparatively difficult in this country. Some other countries have a lower legal standard to prove defamation.\u00a0<\/p>\n

This article offers background information on\u00a0defamation lawsuits<\/a>\u00a0in 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.<\/p>\n

If you believe you have a libel or slander suit or if someone has accused you of defamation, contact a tort and defamation attorney<\/a>\u00a0right away.<\/p>\n

Defining Libel Tourism<\/h2>\n

Libel is a\u00a0written defamatory statement<\/a>. But a plaintiff might forum shop<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n

In the United States,\u00a0defamation laws<\/a>\u00a0generally 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.<\/p>\n

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\u00a0defamatory statement<\/a>\u00a0with 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.”<\/p>\n

In other countries, like Great Britain,\u00a0defamation laws<\/a>\u00a0are 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<\/a>.” As a result of this practice, publishers are reluctant to express certain opinions and to report on certain topics, leading to a\u00a0chilling effect\u00a0<\/a>on freedom of speech and freedom of expression.<\/p>\n

Background Information on U.S. Defamation Suits<\/h2>\n

Under the\u00a0common law<\/a>\u00a0(the law created by judicial decisions), a defendant could be held\u00a0strictly liable<\/a>\u00a0in 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.<\/p>\n

Historically, the\u00a0U.S. Supreme Court<\/a>\u00a0didn’t help matters. The high court’s decisions barely mentioned the link between defamation laws and the U.S. Constitution’s free speech guarantees.<\/p>\n

But, the Supreme Court made a paradigm shift in case law for\u00a0defamation<\/a>\u00a0causes of actions. In the 1964\u00a0New York Times v. Sullivan<\/a><\/i>\u00a0decision, 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.<\/p>\n

How Libel Tourism Works<\/h2>\n

The high court in England, known as the High Court of Justice, is a popular destination for libel tourists. Under Section 9 of the\u00a0Defamation Act 2013,<\/a>\u00a0a plaintiff must show the court that England is the most appropriate jurisdiction in which to bring the defamation action.<\/p>\n

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\u00a0public figures<\/a>\u00a0have used libel tourism to succeed in defamation cases that would otherwise fail in the U.S.<\/p>\n

Libel Tourism Examples<\/h2>\n

In 2000, England’s House of Lords allowed\u00a0Boris Berezovsky<\/a>, a Russian resident, to file a libel claim against Forbes magazine, a U.S. company.<\/p>\n

In 2008, Saudi billionaire\u00a0Khalid bin Mahfouz sued Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld<\/a>, 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 \u2014 and How to Stop It,” in the U.S.<\/p>\n

Some consumers\u00a0purchased the book<\/a>\u00a0via 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.<\/p>\n

The SPEECH Act and Libel Tourism Today<\/h2>\n

In 2010, the passage of the\u00a0Securing the Protection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage (SPEECH) Act<\/a>\u00a0significantly 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.<\/p>\n

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\u00a0Libel Terrorism Protection Act,<\/a>\u00a0which “relates to personal jurisdiction and enforceability of certain foreign judgments in cases involving defamation.”<\/p>\n

States with libel tourism laws include:<\/p>\n