The US Senate has passed a bill against ‘libel tourism’, essentially barring the enforcement of defamation judgments from places that the US deems to protect free speech insufficiently. In what has become a widespread but still unfortunate practice, the bill’s name is an acronym: the Securing the Protection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage Act (viz the SPEECH Act).*

Out-law.com has this story and more official information is available on the Govtrack.us site. (It does not show the bill as passed as of July 14.)

Is such a bill necessary? Would not a rule like the Canadian one of not enforcing a foreign judgment if the foreign court did not have a real and substantial connection with the controversy be enough to refuse enforcement? Or are British rules on jurisdiction over online publications no more liberal than American or Canadian laws? Did the Ontario Court of Appeal in Bangoura v. Washington Post 2005 CanLII 32906 (ON C.A.) get it right?

Is the Senate bill just a little hypocritical, given the willingness of many US courts to take jurisdiction over activities that occur well outside the US (and of US legislatures to give it to them)?

Is the test clear: refuse to enforce judgments that undermine the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States? Presumably that should mean that enforcement in the US would undermine the protection of US speech by the first amendment, so it should apply only to speech made in the US that created liability abroad. There does not seem to be any such limit in the Bill.

The Bill also bars enforcement of a judgment against an internet intermediary that would not be available in the US because of s. 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

Would this Bill be a good idea here?


* A more extreme example was introduced last week: the “Building Effective Strategies to Promote Responsibility Accountability Choice Transparency Innovation Consumer Expectations and Safeguards" Act – the BEST PRACTICES Act – dealing with privacy and computer security. (This is not to be confused with the “Battlefield Excellence through Superior Training Practices Act”, known as the BEST Practices Act…)

John D. Gregory is an Ontario lawyer called in 1977, with a special interest in what happens to the law when you take the paper away. He works in civil justice law reform at the Ministry of the Attorney General, but his Slawian opinions are not necessarily those of the Ministry.
[click on the author's name for more information]

up

One Comment on “Is a Law Against "Libel Tourism" Needed?”

  1. Sue says:

    New York State passed such a law a few years ago.

SlawTips      

SlawTips United Nations Documents
Wednesday, May 23

Today’s Tip: Monitor UN documents with RSS Since I last looked, the United Nations Documents site has a new look and feel. For what the site is trying to deliver, … »»

Research

SlawTips Updated Version of Great Social Media Guide for Lawyers Released
Wednesday, May 23

Last spring, Meritas’ Leadership Institute released a Social Media Guide for Lawyers. This helpful resource provided lawyers with an overview of the three main social media tools — LinkedIn, Faceb. […] »»

Technology

SlawTips Cash Flow Reports – Part 1
Thursday, May 17

Following on our earlier Top 10 Financial Errors posts, this is the first in a series of 10 posts dealing with Cash Flow Reports and in particular, cash flow management.… »»

Practice

noted on Slaw    

MLB Selected Case Summaries    

These summaries of selected recent cases are provided each week to Slaw by Maritime Law Book.
More information.

  • Aliens - Exclusion and expulsion - Power to detain and deport - Minister’s certificate - Review - Evidence

    In 2002, Harkat was detained pursuant to a ministerial security certificate issued under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) as a person inadmissible to Canada on grounds ...

  • Contracts - Formation of contract - Signing - Electronic signature

    The plaintiff expressed an interest in purchasing the defendant’s (vendor’s) condo. The parties agreed to carry on their discussions through e-mail. Following an exchange of e-mails, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant was contractually bound to ...

  • Barristers and Solicitors - Relationship with client - Confidential communications - General

    The petitioner was a Receiver appointed in March 2009 by a California court over the assets of GJB Enterprises Inc. (a “Ponzi scheme”) and its principals, the Berkes (the GJB parties). The court ordered ...

  • Practice - Costs - Funding before judgment - When interim or advance costs available

    The plaintiffs were “direct to home” satellite based subscription program providers. Rex and other defendants offered “grey market” services to Canadian residents to facilitate the unauthorized reception in Canada of the plaintiffs’ ...

TalkLaw/ParLoi    

This is a listing of a few upcoming events in Canada of interest to lawyers, law students, legal librarians, and others involved in the practice of law.

Clicking on any event in the list below will give you access to more information and to links allowing you to see the full entry and to add the event to your own calendar.

Click this link for a fuller version of the TalkLaw/ParLoi calendar of events and for instructions as to how to add events and calendars to your own calendar.