Persistence of Vision

Last fall, MPI fellow Jared Lapidus released a short film that informed the world about libel tourism--and made particularly strong points about how Britain's plaintiff-friendly libel laws were being exploited by those who wish to suppress the free exchange of information and ideas about terrorism. Since then, New York State has passed a law reaffirming the First Amendment rights of New York authors--no matter where their work is published. An analogous federal bill has followed.

Now the United Nations is paying attention, too. The Guardian has the details:

Britain's libel laws have come under attack from the United Nations committee on human rights for discouraging coverage of matters of major public interest. The use of the Official Secrets Act to deter government employees from raising important issues has also been criticised.

The intervention by the UN comes in the wake of international disquiet over the use of British courts for "libel tourism", whereby wealthy plaintiffs can sue in the high court in London over articles that would not warrant an action in their own country.

The criticisms are made as part of the committee's concluding observations on the report submitted by the UK on civil and political rights. UN member states are required to submit reports on human rights in their jurisdictions every three years.

The committee warns that the British libel laws 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, including through the phenomenon known as libel tourism".

[...]

The committee's report highlights the grey area created by the internet whereby alleged libel can be read in different countries. There is a risk, warns the committee, that restrictive libel laws could affect legitimate international discussion, contrary to article 19 of the covenant on civil and political rights, which guarantees the right to freedom of speech "regardless of borders".

The UK government has been urged to consider "a so-called 'public figure' exception" that would require a would-be claimant to prove actual malice by a publisher or author.

This would apply in cases involving public officials and prominent public figures, as currently exists in the US, where a public figure can only sue for libel if he or she can demonstrate malice, recklessness or indifference to the truth and that the statement is false.