The world capital of libel is London. Not that there is a list or anything. And people are still finding imaginative ways of making money, despite the crisis. Take the English libel law. Under UK libel law, a defendant is guilty until proven innocent. Doesn’t matter if you are British or not.
“English libel law is preventing not only the media, but also medical science and research, NGOs and others from holding the powerful to account,” said John Kampfner, chief executive of free speech organisation Index on Censorship.
For example, Dr. Rachael Ehrenfed. She is an American academic and journalist who wrote a book called Funding Evil: How Terrorism if Financed. The book was published in 2003 in New York. Twenty-three copies of her book were made available in the UK. She, according to UK laws, was now under UK jurisdiction.
In her book, Ehrenfed made several allegations about Saudi businessman Khalid bin Mafouz. She claimed he had connections to Al Qaeda. Mafouz sued in London in 2005. Ehrenfed refused to acknowledge UK jurisdication. Normal, she wrote and published the book in the US where the US first amendment gives citizens the right to freedom of speech. In her abscence, the UK judgment defaulted and Mafouz managed to receive almost $16,000 in damages.
Outcry. The New York State Assembly passes the Libel Terrorism Protection law in February 2008. The legislation declares that foreign libel judgements unenforceable unless the foreign law grants the defendant the same First Amendment protections as are available in New York State.
And cases like this, in the UK, continues today.
Another striking blow to freedom of expression is the following:
A Danish tabloid Ekstra Bladet was sued in London by Kaupthing, an Icelandic investment bank. The tabloid had published articles that criticized advice the company had given to wealthy clients about tax shelters. Kaupthing managed to successfully claim UK jurisdiction because a couple of the articles were posted on the paper’s website. This meant that UK readers were able to access it.
The Danish tabloid initially refused to remove the articles but then was forced to settle out of court. It had to pay a huge settlement fee and then had to post an apology on its website for an entire month. Editors at the tabloid are now debating whether or not they should even translate their articles into English.
——–
So it comes as some relief that the UK is finally considering reforming its Libel Law. On February 27, a panel was formed to figure out how the current law is damaging the freedom of speech. But isn’t this already obvious?
