Popularly called “Rachel’s Law, forms of Free Speech Protection have passed on the state level in New York, California, Illinois, Florida, Utah, Louisiana and Tennessee. In August of 2010, the Free Speech Protection Act passed Congress and was signed into law on the federal level.
These laws protect Americans from the practice of “Libel Tourism,” in which plaintiffs choose to file lawsuits in jurisdictions which do not provide the same protections of free speech as the U.S. Constitution.
Libel Tourism is especially active against anything published that deals with international terrorism. U. S. publishers, online retailers and distinguished news organizations are so scared of Libel Tourism, many have begun to refrain from publishing items dealing with international terrorism and must increasingly vet their stories according to foreign libel laws due to the potential for global distribution made possible on the internet.. This stifling of free speech, due to the fear of foreign lawsuits, is a pernicious form of foreign censorship.
Free Speech Defense legislation is often referred to as “Rachel’s Law,” because it was largely prompted by the case of U.S. author Rachel Ehrenfeld, who refused to accept a British judgment against her favoring a Saudi financier she’d investigated. Saudi Prince Khalid bin Mahfouz and two members of his family sued Ms. Ehrenfeld, an Israeli-born writer and United States citizen over her 2003 book on terrorist financing, Funding Evil. Ms. Ehrenfeld asserted in the book that Mahfouz and his family provided financial support to Islamic terrorist groups. The book was not published in the United Kingdom, but 23 copies of her book had been purchased online through into the UK, and excerpts from the book had been published globally on the ABC News web site. Ehrenfeld claimed that the suit in England violated her First Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution and chose not to defend the action. In a default judgement, the British court ruled that Ehrenfeld should pay £10,000 to each plaintiff plus costs, apologize for false allegations and destroy existing copies of her book.
These laws protect American authors and journalists from being dragged into foreign courts over frivolous libel charges in jurisdictions that do not respect, value and protect freedom of speech and of the press as we do here in the United States.
Examples of existing laws:
- Tennessee Public Chapter Number 900 of 2010
- Utah House Bill 96 of 2010
- Louisiana Act 712 of 2010
- Florida HB 949 of 2009
- California SB 320 of 2009
- Illinois 735 ILCS 5/12-621 (b)(7) of 2009
Free Speech Defense Model Act
AN ACT
Relative foreign defamation judgments and to expand protections for citizens against such judgments by providing for declaratory and injunctive relief and further limit the recognition afforded to such judgments.
Be it enacted by the Legislature of [State]:
A. For the purposes of this Section, “foreign defamation judgment” means a judgment or decree rendered in a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States which was founded on a cause of action arising from allegations of defamation, libel, or slander.
(1) For the purposes of this Section, “foreign defamation action” means a legal proceeding instituted in a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States which was founded on a cause of action arising from allegations of defamation, libel, or slander.
B. A foreign defamation judgment is not conclusive if any of the following apply:
(1) The judgment was rendered under a system which does not provide impartial tribunals or procedures compatible with the requirements of due process of law.
(2) The foreign court did not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant.
(3) The foreign court did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter.
C. A foreign defamation judgment shall not be recognized, granted comity, or operate as res judicata or collateral estoppel if any of the following apply:
(1) The defendant in the proceedings in the foreign court did not receive notice of the proceedings in sufficient time to enable him to provide a defense.
(2) The judgment was obtained by fraud.
(3) The cause of action or claim for relief on which the judgment is based is repugnant to the public policy of this state.
(4) The judgment conflicts with another final and conclusive order.
(5) The proceeding in the foreign court was contrary to an agreement between the parties under which the dispute in question was to be settled otherwise than by proceedings in that court.
(6) In the case of jurisdiction based only on personal service, the foreign court was an inconvenient forum for the trial of the action.
(7) The foreign jurisdiction where judgment was rendered would not give recognition to a similar judgment rendered in this state.
(8) The court sitting in this state before which the matter is brought determines that the defamation law applied in the adjudication by the foreign court failed to provide at least as much protection for freedom of speech and press in that case as would be provided by the constitutions of this state and the United States.
D. Any person against whom a foreign defamation judgment is entered, whether the foreign defamation judgment is final or appealable, may bring an action in district court for a declaration with respect to the liability of a person for the judgment and determining whether the foreign defamation judgment should be deemed unenforceable pursuant to any reason enumerated in (C) of this Section.
E. For the purposes of rendering declaratory relief, the courts of this state shall have personal jurisdiction over any person who obtains a judgment in a defamation proceeding outside the United States against any of the following persons:
(1) A resident of this state.
(2) A person or entity amenable to the jurisdiction of this state.
(3) A person who has assets in this state.
(4) A person who may have to take action in this state to comply with the judgment.
F. Any person against who a foreign defamation action has been instituted may bring an action for an injunction where the foreign defamation action would: (1) frustrate a policy of the State, the guarantee of due process, and the protection of freedom of speech; (2) be vexatious or oppressive; or (3) where the proceedings prejudice other equitable considerations.
G. For the purposes of rendering injunctive relief, the courts of this state shall have personal jurisdiction over any person who institutes a defamation proceeding outside the United States against any of the following persons:
(1) A resident of this state.
(2) A person or entity amenable to the jurisdiction of this state.
(3) A person who has assets in this state.
(4) A person who may have to take action in this state to comply with the judgment.
H. No [state] court shall sustain a dilatory exception of “lis pendens” under asserted in a declaratory or injunctive proceeding under this Section that was filed in a [state] court subsequent to the foreign defamation action.
I. An action brought for declaratory or injunctive relief pursuant to this Section may be brought in:
(1) A court of proper venue or
(2) in either the county where the plaintiff resides; the county where the plaintiff has assets.
