[Senate Report 111-224]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
111th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 111-224
======================================================================
SECURING THE PROTECTION OF OUR ENDURING AND ESTABLISHED CONSTITUTIONAL
HERITAGE (``SPEECH'') ACT
_______
July 19, 2010.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Leahy, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 2765]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on the Judiciary, to which was referred the
bill (H.R. 2765), to amend title 28, United States Code, to
prohibit recognition and enforcement of foreign defamation
judgments in United States Courts where those judgments
undermine the First Amendment, and to provide a cause of action
for declaratory judgment relief against a party who has brought
a successful foreign defamation action whose judgment
undermines the First Amendment, having considered the same,
reports favorably thereon, with an amendment, and recommends
that the bill, as amended, do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
I. Background and Purpose of the Securing the Protection of Our
Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage Act.............2
II. History of the Bill and Committee Consideration..................5
III. Section-by-Section Summary of the Bill...........................6
IV. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................6
V. Regulatory Impact Evaluation.....................................8
VI. Conclusion.......................................................8
VII. Additional Views of Senator Kyl..................................9
VIII.Changes to Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported...........11
I. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF THE SECURING THE PROTECTION OF OUR
ENDURING AND ESTABLISHED CONSTITUTIONAL HERITAGE ACT
In the United States, the First Amendment to the
Constitution protects writers and publishers from libel
lawsuits that would discourage otherwise protected speech.\1\
Since the landmark New York Times v. Sullivan,\2\ a plaintiff
must establish that an author, writer, or publisher of an
allegedly libelous statement against a public figure acted with
``actual malice'' to prevail in a defamation suit.\3\ Even a
private figure must demonstrate that speech at issue is
provably false to prevail in a libel action over a matter of
public interest.\4\ This is rooted in the basic First Amendment
principle that vulgar and distasteful speech merits the same
protections as speech that does not offend.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\See Hart-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S.
657, 684 (1989); see also Editorial, ``Libel Tourism,'' N.Y. Times,
A18, May 25, 2009, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/26/
opinion/26tue2.html?_r=1.
\2\376 U.S. 254, 268 (1964) (``[L]ibel can claim no talismanic
immunity from constitutional limitations. It must be measured by
standards that satisfy the First Amendment.'').
\3\See id.
\4\See Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990) (``a
statement on matters of public concern must be provable as false before
there can be liability under state defamation law, at least in
situations, like the present, where a media defendant is involved'').
\5\See Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 26 (1971) (``[A]bsent a
more particularized and compelling reason for its actions, the State
may not, consistently with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, make
the simple public display here involved of [a] single four-letter
expletive a criminal offense.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many other countries do not provide these same free speech
protections. As a result, American authors, reporters, and
publishers are sometimes sued in foreign countries where free
speech protections are lower than those guaranteed by our First
Amendment. These lawsuits occur even where the parties do not
have any substantial connection to the foreign forum. That
phenomenon, where a party has sought out the foreign court
simply because of its plaintiff-friendly libel laws, is known
colloquially as ``libel tourism.''
The prevalence of these foreign libel lawsuits is
significantly chilling American free speech and restricting
both domestic and worldwide access to important information.
Given the international circulation of many U.S.-based
publications, as well as the worldwide access to U.S.-based
content over the Internet, concerns over foreign libel lawsuits
confront many American authors, reporters, and publishers.
Regardless, whether the foreign libel judgment is enforced in
the United States or not, the mere filing of a foreign libel
lawsuit can result in damage to an author, reporter or
publisher's reputation.\6\ As a result, these lawsuits have a
chilling effect on U.S. authors, reporters and publishers who
are forced to abide by the libel laws of the most restrictive
countries in order to completely shield themselves from harm--a
result that runs counter to the free speech guarantees of the
First Amendment.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\Rachel Ehrenfeld, ``The Chill of Libel Tourism,'' Guardian, June
9, 2009, available at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/
libertycentral/2009/jun/09/libel-tourism-rogues-gallery.
\7\Drew Sullivan, ``Libel Tourism: Silencing the Press through
Transnational Legal Threats,'' Report for the Center for International
Media Assistance, 24, Jan. 6, 2010, available at (http://cima.ned.org/
wp-content/uploads/2010/01/CIMA-Libel_Tourism-Report.pdf) (``Lawyers
and media organizations say one of the reasons for these lawsuits is to
intimidate media organizations. Threatening media with expensive suits
can force them to hold off on stories or remove materials from stories.
It can discourage them from publishing future materials.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The magnitude of this problem is well documented. In 2008,
the United Nations Human Rights Committee reported that one
foreign country's libel laws are so plaintiff-friendly that
they have ``served to discourage critical media reporting on
matters of serious public interest, adversely affecting the
ability of scholars and journalists to publish their work.''\8\
This U.N. report explained that the additional concern with
these defamation suits is that the ``advent of the Internet and
the international distribution of foreign media . . . creates
the danger that a State party's unduly restrictive libel law
will affect freedom of expression world-wide on matters of
valid public interest.''\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\U.N. Human Rights Comm., Consideration of Reports Submitted by
States, p. 25, Commc'n No. CCPR/C/GBR/CO/6 (July 7-25, 2008), 47 Eur.
Ct. H.R. SE 19; see also Sarah Staveley-O'Carroll, Libel Tourism Laws:
Spoiling the Holiday and Saving the First Amendment, 4 N.Y.U. J.L. &
Liberty 252, 265 (2009).
\9\U.N. Human Rights Comm., at 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over the past several years, this fear has come to pass.
The most prominent example of the harm caused by foreign libel
lawsuits involves Rachel Ehrenfeld, an investigative reporter
and New York Times journalist, who is a United States citizen.
Ms. Ehrenfeld was sued in the United Kingdom for defamation
over the content of a book that she authored and published in
the United States. In that book, Funding Evil: How Terrorism is
Financed and How to Stop It,\10\ she reported, among other
things, that Saudi billionaire Khalid bin Mahfouz deposited
millions into terrorist accounts.\11\ Though Mr. Bin Mahfouz
was neither a British citizen nor a resident, he sued Ms.
Ehrenfeld in England, a country whose libel laws are much less
protective of journalists than the protections guaranteed by
the First Amendment.\12\ Mr. Bin Mahfouz won a default judgment
against Ms. Ehrenfeld, and the British judge awarded damages
and enjoined the publication of Ms. Ehrenfeld's book in the
United Kingdom.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\Rachel Ehrenfeld, Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and
How to Stop It (Bonus Books 2003).
\11\Samuel A. Abady and Harvey Silvergate, ```Libel Tourism' and
the War on Terror,'' Boston Globe, Nov. 7, 2006, available at http://
www.boston.com/ae/media/articles/2006/11/07/
libel_tourism_and_the_war_on_terror/.
\12\See id.
\13\See ``Florida Becomes Latest State to Pass Libel Tourism Bill;
California Could be Next,'' Weil Briefing: Intellectual Property and
the Media, 2, May 13, 2009, available at (http://www.weil.com/files/
upload/WeilBriefing_IP-M_090513.pdf) (``In addition to awarding roughly
$250,000 in damages, the court also issued a declaration of falsity and
ordered that the book be removed from public libraries, that Ehrenfeld
publish an apology, and that any unsold copies in England be
destroyed.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While Ms. Ehrenfeld's suit is the most recognizable,
similar examples have become all too common.\14\ Today, lawyers
must advise their journalist-clients of the legal repercussions
of reporting on transnational issues such as international
finance, terrorism, and celebrity scandals.\15\ This advice
influences the decision of what materials to publish both
overseas and domestically, and stifles the free flow of
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\See, e.g., Rendleman, supra note 1, at 468 (detailing Saudi
cleric Bin Badden's suit against American professor, Helene Herron in
the United Kingdom); Ehrenfeld, supra note 3 (describing legal threats
made to American writer Michael Gross after he wrote a book portraying
socialite Annette de la Renta in a manner that she did not approve).
\15\Libel Tourism: Hearing on H.R. 6146 Before the Subcomm. on
Commercial and Administrative Law of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary,
111th Cong. 9-10 n. 30 (2009) (written statement of Bruce D. Brown,
Partner, Baker & Hostetler, LLP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A few American states have enacted laws to protect American
writers and publishers from foreign libel laws. In 2008, New
York passed the Libel Terrorism Protection Act, which prohibits
enforcement of foreign libel judgments in New York State that
are inconsistent with the ``freedom of speech and press
protections guaranteed by the United States or New York
Constitutions.''\16\ That law also expanded New York's long arm
statute to enable the American party to seek separate
declaratory relief to determine liability for the foreign
judgment under U.S. law, even where the foreign party does not
attempt enforcement.\17\ In 2009, California enacted a similar
law.\18\ Illinois and Florida implemented libel tourism
nonrecognition legislation in 2008 and 2009, although neither
state addressed the jurisdictional issues necessary to
facilitate effective declaratory relief.\19\ Though a few other
states are considering similar bills, the majority of states
have not addressed this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\N.Y. C.P.L.R. 5304(b)(8) (2008).
\17\N.Y. C.P.L.R. 5304(d).
\18\Cal. C.C.P. Code Sec. 1716 (2010).
\19\Compare 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/12-621(b)(7) (2008), with
Fla. Stat. Ann. Sec. Sec. 55.601, 55.605 (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal legislation is necessary to ensure that American
authors, reporters, and publishers have nationwide protection
from foreign libel judgments, even when the foreign party has
not yet sought enforcement of those judgments in the United
States. Additionally, federal legislation is needed to provide
a single, uniform standard for addressing these foreign libel
judgments.
The Committee bill, as reported, combats the chilling
effect that foreign defamation lawsuits are having on American
free speech in two significant respects. First, the bill
prohibits the enforcement of any foreign libel judgment that is
inconsistent with United States First Amendment protections or
Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due process requirements. In
that enforcement action, the burden falls on the foreign
plaintiff to demonstrate that the foreign judgment is
consistent with U.S. law. If the foreign plaintiff nonetheless
seeks enforcement in an American court, the domestic party
opposing enforcement of the judgment is entitled to reasonable
attorneys' fees if it prevails in the enforcement action. This
provision should serve to further deter enforcement actions of
foreign judgments that threaten free speech.
Second, the Committee bill, as reported, provides a
mechanism for American authors, reporters, or publishers to
clear their names even when the foreign party does not attempt
to enforce its judgment in the United States. The bill creates
a cause of action for declaratory relief where the foreign
judgment is repugnant to the Constitution or laws of the United
States. Such an action may be brought against a party with
sufficient contacts anywhere in the United States. In this
declaratory judgment action, the burden falls on the domestic
author, writer, or publisher to demonstrate that the foreign
judgment is inconsistent with the Constitution or the laws of
the United States. Attorneys' fees are not available to the
U.S. plaintiff in this declaratory judgment action, since it
would be initiated by a U.S. author, reporter or publisher.
In addition, the Committee bill, as reported, protects
Internet service providers (defined as providers of
``interactive computer service'' under section 230 of the
Communications Act of 1934)\20\ from libel litigation stemming
from the content published on its network. The bill also
includes an important provision to ensure that a U.S. party's
appearance in a foreign court to contest a libel lawsuit does
not bar that party from opposing domestic enforcement of the
judgment as provided by this legislation. Further, the bill
provides for removal to Federal court of any enforcement action
brought in State domestic court, where the foreign defamation
judgment meets certain diversity requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\47 U.S.C. Sec. 230(f)(2) (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the Committee bill, as reported, provides further
that it is the ``sense of Congress'' that for the purposes of
pleading a cause of action for a declaratory judgment, a
foreign judgment for defamation constitutes a ``case of actual
controversy'' under section 2201(a) of title 28, United States
Code. This provision pertains to a jurisdictional requirement
of Article III of the Constitution requiring a case or actual
controversy.
II. HISTORY OF THE BILL AND COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
On June 9, 2009, Representative Cohen introduced H.R. 2765.
The bill was referred to the House of Representatives Committee
on the Judiciary, which reported it favorably by voice vote. On
June 15, 2009, the bill passed the House of Representatives, as
amended, by voice vote. The bill was then sent to the Senate,
where it was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. A full
history of the House Judiciary Committee's consideration of
H.R. 2765, including related hearings, can be found in House of
Representatives Report 111-154.
On February 23, 2010, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary
held a hearing on ``Are Foreign Libel Lawsuits Chilling
Americans' First Amendment Rights?''. This hearing was chaired
by Senator Leahy. The following witnesses testified: Bruce
Brown, Partner at Baker & Hostetler LLP; and Kurt Wimmer,
Partner at Covington & Burling LLP. The following materials
were submitted for the Record: statement of Dr. Rachel
Ehrenfeld, Director of American Center for Democracy; statement
of the American Civil Liberties Union; statement of Doug
Rendleman, Huntley Professor Of Law at Washington and Lee Law
School; letter from Lynne E. Bradley, Director of Government
Relations, American Library Association; and an article
authored by Robert D. Rachlin, Lecturer, Vermont Law School,
entitled The Sedition Act of 1798 and the East-West Political
Divide in Vermont.
On June 22, 2010, Chairman Leahy introduced the SPEECH Act,
S. 3518, which is cosponsored by Senator Sessions, Senator
Specter, Senator Schumer, Senator Lieberman, and Senator
Kaufman. This bill was referred to the Committee on the
Judiciary. The following persons or groups submitted letters of
support for the SPEECH Act: Michael B. Mukasey, former Attorney
General; R James Woolsey, former Director, Central Intelligence
Agency; Allan Adler, Vice President for Government and Legal
Affairs, Association of American Publishers; Corey Williams,
Associate Director, American Library Association; Marti Fiske,
President, Vermont Library Association; Lucy Dalglish,
Executive Director, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the
Press; Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, Director, American Center for
Democracy; Markham Erickson, Executive Director, NetCoalition;
Daniel Kornstein, Partner at Kornstein, Veisz, Wexler &
Pollard; and Floyd Abrams, of Cahill Gordon and Reindel LLP.
On July 13, 2010, the Committee on the Judiciary considered
H.R. 2765. One amendment was considered during this debate.
Senator Leahy offered a substitute amendment, which was adopted
by unanimous consent. That amendment contained the full text of
the SPEECH Act.
The Committee then voted to report H.R. 2765, with an
amendment in the nature of a substitute, favorably to the
Senate by voice vote.
III. SECTION-BY-SECTION SUMMARY OF THE BILL
Section 1. Short title
This section provides that the legislation may be cited as
the ``Securing the Protection of our Enduring and Established
Constitutional Heritage Act'' or the ``SPEECH Act''.
Section 2. Findings
This section contains congressional findings about the
scope of the problem known as libel tourism.
Section 3. Recognition of foreign defamation judgments
Subsection (a). This subsection creates a new Chapter 181
in Part VI of title 28, United States Code, as follows--
Sec. 4101 provides definitions.
Sec. 4102 outlines circumstances under which domestic
courts should not recognize a foreign defamation judgment.
Specifically, this includes (1) First Amendment considerations,
and the applicable burden of proof; (2) jurisdictional
considerations, and the applicable burden of proof; (3)
treatment of judgments against interactive computer services,
and the applicable burden of proof; (4) treatment of
appearances in foreign courts; and (5) rules of statutory
construction.
Sec. 4103 provides grounds for removal of an enforcement
action brought in a State domestic court to a United States
District Court.
Sec. 4104 provides a cause of action for any United States
person to obtain a declaratory judgment stating that a foreign
defamation judgment entered against that person is repugnant to
the Constitution or laws of the United States, where the
foreign judgment would not be enforceable under the criteria
provided in section 4102. This section also addresses the
applicable burden of proof, and provides criteria for
nationwide service of process.
Sec. 4105 provides that any party opposing enforcement of
the foreign defamation judgment who prevails in a domestic
court may recover a reasonable attorney's fee.
Subsection (b). This subsection provides that it is the
``sense of congress'' that for the purposes of pleading a cause
of action for a declaratory judgment, a foreign judgment for
defamation constitutes a ``case of actual controversy'' under
section 22012(a) of title 28, United States Code.
Subsection (c). This subsection provides technical and
conforming amendments.
IV. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE
The Committee sets forth, with respect to the bill, H.R.
2765, the following estimate and comparison prepared by the
Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974:
July 19, 2010.
Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2765, the Securing
the Protection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional
Heritage Act.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Martin von
Gnechten.
Sincerely,
Douglas W. Elmendorf.
Enclosure.
H.R. 2765--Securing the Protection of our Enduring and Established
Constitutional Heritage Act
H.R. 2765 would prohibit U.S. district and state courts
from enforcing foreign defamation judgments that are
inconsistent with Constitutional protections and certain
telecommunications laws. In general, foreign courts do not have
jurisdiction over the United States, and U.S. courts would not
recognize a foreign judgment against the United States. (Under
the Federal Tort Claims Act, the federal government waived its
sovereign immunity and consented to being sued in federal
courts only in particular cases). Therefore, CBO estimates that
H.R. 2765 would have no significant effect on the federal
budget. Because the legislation would not affect direct
spending or revenues, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply.
H.R. 2765 contains an intergovernmental mandate as defined
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) because it would
preempt state laws related to foreign judgments. CBO estimates
that state courts would incur no significant costs to comply
with the preemption; therefore, the costs of the mandate would
not exceed the annual threshold established in UMRA for
intergovernmental mandates ($70 million in 2010, adjusted for
inflation).
H.R. 2765 would impose private-sector mandates as defined
in UMRA on individuals seeking to have certain foreign
defamation judgments enforced in the United States. New
requirements on those individuals would limit an existing right
to recover damages and direct them to reimburse attorney's fees
in the event a domestic court does not uphold a foreign
judgment. The cost of the mandate would be the net value of
forgone awards and settlements in such claims and any fees paid
to opposing parties. Based on information about foreign
defamation cases, CBO expects that the cost of the mandates
would fall below the annual threshold established in UMRA for
private-sector mandates ($141 million in 2010, adjusted
annually for inflation).
On June 12, 2009, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for H.R.
2765, a bill to amend title 28, United States Code, to prohibit
recognition and enforcement of foreign defamation judgments and
certain foreign judgments against the providers of interactive
computer services, as ordered reported by the House Committee
on the Judiciary on June 10, 2009. The two versions of the
legislation are similar, and the CBO cost estimates are the
same.
The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Martin von
Gnechten (for federal costs) and Marin Randall (for the
private-sector impact). This estimate was approved by Theresa
Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
V. REGULATORY IMPACT EVALUATION
In compliance with rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the
Senate, the Committee finds that no significant regulatory
impact will result from the enactment of H.R. 2765.
vi. conclusion
The SPEECH Act will ensure that no domestic court can be
used to diminish the First Amendment rights of American
authors, reporters and publishers by enforcing a foreign libel
judgment that is inconsistent with U.S. law. Moreover, the bill
provides a new affirmative cause of action for any U.S. citizen
who is the victim of a foreign defamation judgment that is
inconsistent with the First Amendment or the due process
guarantees of the U.S. Constitution. This bill will prevent the
chilling of American free speech that is the inevitable result
of these foreign libel lawsuits.
vii. additional views
----------
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR KYL
The complementary freedoms of speech and the press
enshrined by our founding fathers in the First Amendment are
cornerstones of American society. As Thomas Jefferson famously
said, ``Our liberty cannot be guarded but by the freedom of the
press, nor that be limited without danger of losing it.'' The
importance of these freedoms has not diminished with time.
Regrettably, many other countries place lesser value on
free expression and do not provide the strong legal protection
for speech and the press that exists in the United States.
These nations' judicial systems have, in many instances, become
home to a practice known as ``libel tourism,'' which occurs
when an individual brings a libel or defamation suit against an
American in a country with less protective free speech laws.
Plaintiffs are increasingly engaging in global forum shopping
in an effort to silence journalists, authors, publishers, and
others who are merely exercising their First Amendment rights.
There can be no doubt that American citizens' rights of
free expression are being abridged by this practice. Indeed,
some Americans are falling victim to an international race to
the bottom--they are able to write or publish only material
that would be allowed in countries with the weakest free speech
protections.
Although libel tourism conflicts with American values, it
has proven to be an effective way to silence criticism. Several
high profile cases illustrate how libel tourism stifles free
speech, perhaps none better known than the case of Rachel
Ehrenfeld. In 2003, Dr. Ehrenfeld published Funding Evil: How
Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It, which detailed how
Saudi billionaire Khalid bin Mahfouz financed terrorism. In
response, bin Mahfouz and two members of his family filed suit
against Dr. Ehrenfeld in Britain to take advantage of that
country's expansive libel laws. Despite the fact that neither
the plaintiff nor the defendant was a British citizen, the
courts permitted the case. Dr. Ehrenfeld refused to acknowledge
the jurisdiction of the British court and chose not to defend
the action. The British court issued a default judgment and
ordered Dr. Ehrenfeld to pay each plaintiff 10,000
(and their accompanying legal fees), apologize, and destroy
existing copies of her book.
Dr. Ehrenfeld was not bin Mahfouz's only victim. Reports
indicate he has sued or threatened suit in Britain at least 33
times in order to silence those who have accused him of
knowingly funding terrorism. He has taken similar legal actions
in Belgium, France and Switzerland.
The record is clear that libel judgments can lead to the
financial ruin of authors and severely restrict their ability
to publish in the future. Moreover, the mere prospect of a
meritless foreign libel suit can chill speech by deterring the
publication of books and articles that may subject the author
to financial loss and reputational harm.
Libel tourism also affects publishers. In 1997, Russian
oligarch Boris Berezovsky sued Forbes magazine in a British
court for publishing an article accusing him of substantial
illegal activities and ties to organized crime. Rather than
engage in a prolonged legal battle, Forbes reportedly settled
with Mr. Berezovsky. Subsequently, Brazil issued a warrant for
Mr. Berezovsky's arrest on charges of fraud and money
laundering.
Several states including New York, Illinois, California and
Florida have taken action to prevent their citizens from
suffering the penalties of foreign libel judgments; however,
Federal action is necessary to ensure that all Americans are
protected by the rights they are afforded under U.S. law.
This bill takes important steps toward achieving this goal.
First, the bill would protect U.S. citizens by barring the
enforcement of baseless foreign libel judgments in the United
States. It would also permit U.S. citizens targeted by foreign
libel judgments to seek and obtain a declaratory judgment in
U.S. court that a foreign libel judgment is repugnant to the
Constitution or laws of the United States. This will help U.S.
victims of libel tourism clear their names. Because a libel
judgment can prevent an author from publishing in the future,
this section is critical to protecting Americans from the
destructive effects of libel tourism.
Finally, the bill takes an initial step toward making
practitioners of libel tourism financially responsible for
their actions. Specifically, the bill would allow Americans to
recover attorney's fees incurred defending themselves against
efforts to enforce a foreign libel judgment's enforcement in
the United States.
But this bill will not, standing alone, eliminate the harm
caused to Americans by baseless foreign libel lawsuits. After
all, many plaintiffs never seek to enforce their judgments in
the United States; Bin Mahfouz, for example, was content to
deter publishers from distributing books overseas. And this law
does not provide any recourse to Americans who have had foreign
assets attached by a foreign court.
We believe that the Congress needs to pass broader measures
that permit U.S. citizens accused of libel in foreign courts to
force their accusers to pay for legal fees incurred abroad and,
in certain cases, additional damages. Libel tourism will
continue to pose problems for Americans until those who bring
foreign libel lawsuits are faced with the same kinds of
financial risks they seek to inflict on others.
We support this bill as a good first step toward addressing
an important problem, but there is more that can, and should,
be done. We look forward to working on additional measures to
protect Americans from efforts to infringe on their free speech
rights.
Jon Kyl.
viii. changes to existing law made by the bill, as reported
Pursuant to paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules
of the Senate, the Committee finds no changes in existing law
made by H.R. 2765, as ordered reported.