California bans British 'libel tourism'

By Robert Verkaik, Law editor

Saturday, 17 October 2009

Share
Close
- Digg
- del.icio.us
- Facebook
- Reddit
- Google
- Stumble Upon
- Fark
- Newsvine
Print
Email

Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Governor of California, has brought in laws to deter celebrities and businessmen travelling to Britain to sue American-based publications in what has become known as libel tourism.

The new measures, personally signed off by Mr Schwarzenegger this week, will make judgments won against US magazines and newspapers unenforceable in California.

The legislation mirrors similar bills passed into law by the states of New York and Illinois and was strongly supported by the California Newspaper Publishers' Association.

This rash of legislation in the US follows the case of the New York-based academic, researcher and writer Rachel Ehrenfeld, who in May 2005 was ordered to pay a total of £30,000 in damages, plus costs, after being sued in the High Court in London by multimillionaire Saudi Arabian businessman Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz and his two sons.

They sued over Dr Ehrenfeld's book, Funding Terrorism, which was only published in the US. The High Court, which follows more libel-friendly rules than America, dealt with the case on the basis that 23 copies were sold into the English jurisdiction via the internet, and the first chapter was available on the internet.

Dr Ehrenfeld refused to respond to the litigation, and the High Court awarded summary judgment to Sheikh bin Mahfouz and his sons.

Two of the most high-profile cases of foreigners using the High Court to sue US-based publications are Cameron Diaz and Roman Polanski, who both won their libel claims.

Comments

( Leave a comment )

Nice on, Arnie...

rockinrog wrote:

Friday, 16 October 2009 at 11:13 pm (UTC)

Except, what happens when Private Eye publish something scurrilous about Arnie or one of his celeb friends? Will he suddenly have repeal this legislation? Of course, he's right, but I can't help smelling something a bit odd about the whole shebang. Still, anything that makes a few London barristers weep through loss of potential earnings can't be bad, can it?

Link | Reply | Thread

The facts of the case - she told lies!

mannygoldstein wrote:

Saturday, 17 October 2009 at 04:32 am (UTC)

This so-called 'expert' alleged that Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz and his two sons were involved in terrorist funding, but this was not true. When sued in the UK, she refused to defend herself because she had no viable evidence to support her case.

She lost and then tried to evade her responsibilities by getting US law changed. So people can now write what they like in the US and not be held accountable.

Another example of American hubris!

Link | Reply | Thread

Re: The facts of the case - she told lies!

nialltubes wrote:

Saturday, 17 October 2009 at 11:10 am (UTC)

If it was all lies, why not sue in the States then eh?

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

Re: The facts of the case - she told lies!

flacksteen wrote:

Saturday, 17 October 2009 at 11:55 am (UTC)

She refused to defend herself because she did not have to. Her book was only published in the USA, and she had no control over sales to the UK through the internet. If she had published untruths and defamed anyone they could have sued her in the USA - if they had a case. The fact that they did not implies that there may be something to her claims.

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

Re: The facts of the case - she told lies!

paul999 wrote:

Sunday, 18 October 2009 at 12:03 pm (UTC)

Whether it was lies or not (and I am unwilling to take your expertise in this at face value) it is wrong that the UK courts are being used to settle disputes they have no right being involved in. A US citizen writes a book about a Saudi citizen that is published in the US by a US publisher. The fact that a couple of copies are sold in the UK is irrelvant, we taxpayers should not be paying for this to be dealt with in our courts. It should either be dealt with in the US or Saudi Arabia. There is along enough delay in the legal process for UK citizens without these cases clogging up the judicial system and Mr Justice Eady has a lot to answer for.

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread