Libel Tourism


Also found in: Wikipedia.
A type of 'forum shopping' in which plaintiffs choose to file libel suits in a jurisdiction more likely to give a favourable result, especially in England and Wales, in preference to other jurisdictions, such as the US, which provide more extensive defences for those accused of making libellous (derogatory) statements
References in periodicals archive ?
I live in London, a city famous around the world for being the capital of 'libel tourism,' as the law here favors the accused and demands the accuser to provide the evidence.
Topics include the implications of cloud computing for copyright control, the media diversity potential of "long-tail markets" that exploit the reduced marginal costs of adding content, the ability of digital technologies to culturally unify diasporic communities such as Jamaican musical producers, issues of overlapping jurisdiction in the context of libel tourism, threats to free speech arising from jurisdictional convergence in the area of libel, strategies utilized by nation states to censor online content, the nature of constitutional rights in the private digital sphere, and the ways in which indigenous communities bend to technologies to their own needs.
In recent years, a significant concern has been raised about another variant of abusive libel action known as "libel tourism." This term describes a practice of international forum shopping whereby wealthy and powerful claimants pursue (or threaten to pursue) libel actions in plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions regardless of where the parties are based.
It chills free speech through the award of disproportionate damages, a lack of viable defenses and the application of the law to cases with only the slightest links to Britain, even when neither party lives there, a practice that has led to what is known as 'libel tourism'.
This case also raises the issue of "libel tourism": if more than one forum can assume jurisdiction over a single instance of tortious conduct, should we prevent plaintiffs from choosing the forum of greatest juridical advantage?"
'Libel tourism' has been a source of tension between the United States and the United Kingdom.
Reducing so-called "libel tourism" by making it tougher to bring overseas claims which have little connection to the UK in the English courts; ?
The overhaul would also crack down on "libel tourism" - stopping overseas claimaints using our courts.
Britain is to overhaul its archaic libel laws to stamp out 'libel tourism' by wealthy individuals and corporations who flock to British courts to sue for defamation.
The SPEECH Act, which allows Americans to block enforcement of foreign defamation judgments on First Amendment grounds, is aimed at discouraging "libel tourism" With written material available worldwide on the Internet, wealthy plaintiffs can easily go forum shopping, choosing the venues where they are most likely to win and making Americans subject to damages under standards that would never pass constitutional muster in the United States.
In his article, Please Do Not Publish This Article in England." A Jurisdictional Response to Libel Tourism, Robert McFarland addresses how U.S.
In his mass email against the libel law, French writes: " This is only one of many cases -- the libel law in England prevents people, and scares people, from publishing freely." He adds: " Examples of libel tourism include a Saudi businessman pursuing an American writer through the English courts over a book which had sold 23 copies in the UK, and an Indian politician who won a hefty out- of- court settlement because she disliked the way she was portrayed in Katherine Frank's biography, Indira: The Life of Indira Nehru Gandhi ."