US acts to spike British courts

I spotted an article on a US web site the other day and it is somewhat telling that the American Government is having to take steps to protect its citizens from our oppressive libel laws which are now routinely used to stifle free speech and fair comment. Despite this idea we are the cradle of justice and democracy there is no real legal protection of free speech and clodhopping legislation on race, religious and hate crimes and so on have potentially limited free speech even further. There is little pride in Britain having become the libel tourism capital of the world where anyone with enough money from any dark corner of the planet can pop up and sue anyone in the world for libel - or to be more accurate saying something the plaintiff did not like - on the spurious basis that a web site can be seen in Britain or a book or publication can be obtained here. The rich and dubious don't sue in the countries where web sites are based or books are published because more often than not freedom of speech legislation would protect the author or libel law interpretation is more sensible. So we had the case of Ehrenfeld v. Mahfouz where Dr Rachel Ehrenfeld, a US expert on international terrorism who lives and works in New York, published a book Funding Evil: How Terrorism Is Financed - and How to Stop It. The book was published and sold only in the USA but 23 copies were sold through online bookshops in the UK so wealthy Saudi financier, Khalid Bin Mahfouz, who took exception sued here as he would never have got past the courthouse steps in the US. Our courts awarded him £110,000 damages and ordered a correction and apology to be published which more than ruffled the feathers of the USA where Freedom of Speech is a religion. Here though, in a nation which seems to be run these days by accountants and lawyers, our libel laws are weighed heavily in favour of plaintiffs and suppression and if the defendant is British based the eye-watering cost of defending a libel action usually means it is cheaper to capitulate rather than go bankrupt standing up for freedom of speech. Not so in the USA though where freedom is protected as opposed to here where it is quietly being eroded. Several states have passed legislation making British court judgements unenforceable if the case could not have been brought in the US and now the Senate has a bill aimed at protecting all American journalists and writers from libel decisions by our courts. And to deter libel tourism even further the Free Speech Protection Act would make it possible for US journalists and writers to counter sue for three times the damages awarded in London if the British case was seen as an attempt to suppress a US person's first amendment rights. Now wouldn't it be nice if our Government had a similar interest in protection our rights.