Britain Considers Changes to Deter 'Libel Tourism'
Embarrassed by London’s reputation as a libel mecca that draws litigation from purportedly aggrieved claimants from around the world, British lawmakers appear poised to make changes to the 19th-century libel laws.
One member of the House of Lords is drafting a bill that could especially deter forum shopping. It would require foreigners to show that they’ve suffered actual harm in England before they are allowed to sue there, the New York Times reports.
Unlike the United States, where the plaintiff must prove that a statement is false in order to sue for libel, England puts the onus on the defendant, who must establish that statements are true.
Lawmakers are responding to growing criticisms of the law from not just media, but environmentalists, anti-corruption groups and others who are being sued or threatened with legal action because of blog posts.
The Times notes that lawmakers are responding in part to a petition from 20,000 people who believe the current laws “discourage argument and debate.” And they heard from “a parade of witnesses” at a House of Commons committee. The witnesses, the Times says, denounced the current law “as perverse, unfair, prohibitively expensive, contemptuous of free speech and an anachronism in an age when access to articles on foreign websites can be obtained anywhere.”
In a statement to the committee, a consortium of foreign newspapers, publishers and human rights organizations, said that because of the threat of costly lawsuits often targeting deep-pocket companies, some American newspapers are considering abandoning distribution and installing firewalls to block access to websites in England.
“That long purse is no longer available. Several major U.S. papers are now in receivership, and the drying up of the advertising market with consequent loss of journalistic jobs means there is little money available for improving media law in Britain,” the statement notes. “Leading U.S. newspapers are actively considering abandoning the supply of the 200 odd copies they make available for sale in London – mainly to Americans who want full details of their local news and sport. They do not make profits out of these minimal and casual sales and they can no longer risk losing millions of dollars in a libel action which they would never face under U.S. law.”
