Saudi Prince Sues Forbes for Libel Over Low Placement on Rich List

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

England's recent defamation law reforms (see "TUOL" post 4/29/13) will be put to the test by billionaire Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, whom The Guardian Web site (www.guardian.co.uk) reports has sued Forbes Magazine for allegedly under-reporting the extent of his wealth.

The 58-year-old Alwaleed, whose Kingdom Holding investments include swanky hotels the Savoy in London and New York City's Plaza, filed a libel suit in London's High Court against Forbes Editor Randall Lane, along with the business magazine's publisher and two of its reporters. Apparently, Forbes' annual Rich List assessed the Prince's worth at $20 billion, whereas Alwaleed pegs his fortune at closer to $30 billion, and claims Forbes is "demonstrably biased" against Saudi Arabian businesses.

Forbes, according to The Guardian article, said members of the Prince's inner circle lobbied the magazine for higher placement on the Rich List for Alwaleed, who, apparently finds little solace in the fact that his private Boeing 747 jet is equipped with a solid gold throne that no doubt affords him ample leg room. The magazine reported that it calculated Kingdom Holding's worth based on the value of its investments, rather than its stock price on Saudi Arabia's Tadawul stock exchange.

The Prince faces an uphill challenge as England, once decried as the principal destination for libel tourism, will require him to prove that he suffered, or is likely to suffer, serious financial harm as a result of the allegedly libelous lower placement on the Rich List. If he somehow manages to do that, Forbes will look to the SPEECH (Securing the Protection of our Enduring & Established Constitutional Heritage) Act signed into law by President Obama in 2010 that shields U.S. citizens and businesses against foreign libel judgments that run afoul of First Amendment tenets.

That Alwaleed would get his royal knickers in a twist and incur the costs of a quixotic libel suit alleging his reputation was harmed because a media defendant underestimated his wealth may not warrant higher placement on Forbes' Rich List, but certainly is evidence to the staff of "TUOL" that he has too much money for his own good.

UPDATE: U.K. Measure Cuts into 'Libel Tourism' Industry

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Parliament last week enacted legislation that may make the United Kingdom a less desirable destination for would-be plaintiffs pursuing defamation claims against media defendants, the New York Times reported.

The new law, which encompasses England and Wales, but not Scotland or Northern Ireland, unlike defamation law in the U.S. involving high-profile public officials and public figures, still imposes the burden of proof on the media defendant to prove the truth of allegedly libelous statements. However, Parliament's first revision to plaintiff-friendly defamation laws since 1996 does ramp up the causation standard, requiring individuals to show the offending speech caused or is likely to cause them harm, and corporations to prove serious financial loss, or likely serious financial loss, because of allegedly defamatory statements.

The revised law also focuses on the party who uttered the allegedly libelous speech, shifting responsibility away from Internet Service Providers, for example, that convey the offensive statements. Also receiving a boost is the so-called "public interest" defense that permits media defendants, irrespective of the truth or falsity of the alleged defamatory speech at issue, to claim they published the remarks in good faith and in the public interest.

Free speech advocates are hopeful the new measure will cut down on the practice of libel tourism under which prominent individuals forum-shopped defamation claims into the more favorable setting of  U.K. courts, despite sometimes dubious jurisdictional connections to the U.K. (see "TUOL" post 5/24/10). Lord Lester has championed revising libel laws in England for several years.  In response to libel tourism, President Obama signed into law in August 2010, the SPEECH Act (Securing the Protection of our Enduring & Established Constitutional Heritage) that would not enforce foreign defamation judgments in the U.S. that ran counter to the tenets of the First Amendment (see "TUOL" post 8/11/10).

UPDATE: Journal Editor Not Criminally Libel for Defamation for Book Review, French Court Rules

Image by bmayer27 via FlickrThe editor in chief of the European Journal of International Law and its Web site offshoot, Global Law Books, has been acquitted of criminal libel by a French court where the victim of an unfavorable book review brought the action, The Chronicle of Higher Education reports.

The Tribunal de Grand Instance de Paris found against Dr. Karin Calvo-Goller, a senior lecturer at the Ramat Gan, Israel-based Academic Center of Law & Business, whose book received an unfavorable review in April  2007, from Prof. Thomas Weigend, a law professor at the University of Cologne, that was published by defendant, Prof. Joseph H.H. Weiler, a law professor at New York University's School of Law. [See "TUOL" post 3/2/10.] The court's decision this week (No. d'affaire 0718523043 Ministere Public c/Weiler 17eme chamber) said Calvo-Goller's action was brought in "bad faith" and constituted "libel tourism," in awarding Prof. Weiler punitive damages of 8,000 Euros ($11,189). The plaintiff has 10 days to appeal the ruling.

Academic editors and reviewers were aghast when the suit was initiated, citing the reluctance of scholars and editors to publish reviews if the action were successful. The French court, however, said the allegedly defamatory review "expressed a scientific opinion of the book and did not go beyond the kind of criticism to which all authors of intellectual work subject themselves when they publish."

The case, as noted by the Web site Stinkyjournalism.org, had an international flavor: Dr. Calvo-Goller, who is a French citizen and resides in Israel, wrote the book at issue in English, which was published by a Dutch firm, reviewed in English by a German Professor whose review was published by an American professor in New York. Conflict of  Laws was not "TUOL"'s cup of tea in law school, so we'll leave it at that.

Ukraine Media: Libel Tourism in UK not ok

Image by Stuck in Customs via FlickrYou know it's time to revisit your defamation law when a former republic of the U.S.S.R. complains about oppression of press freedom.

The Kyiv Post in the Ukraine has locked out United Kingdom Internet users from its Web site in protest of Great Britain's plaintiff-friendly libel laws, according to the stinkyjournalism.org Web site.  The move, according to the paper's editor, is a response to England's "draconian" libel laws that he claims impede independent journalists in the performance of their jobs.

President Obama signed the SPEECH (Securing the Protection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage) Act in August to shield American journalists and authors from the so-called "libel tourism" phenomenon. (See "TUOL" post 8/11.10.). British Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg vows to overturn the existing libel laws that he condemned as an  "international embarrassment."  (See "TUOL" post 3/24/10 re: proposed libel reforms.)

UPDATE: President Obama Inks SPEECH Act

Image via Wikipedia

American authors and jorunalists breathed a sigh of relief after President Barack Obama yesterday signed the so-called "libel tourism" bill co-sponsored by Sen. Patrick Lahey (D-Vt.) and Sen. Jeffrey Sessions (R-Ala.).

The Securing the Protection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage ("SPEECH") Act [H.R. 2765] prevents the enforcement of foreign libel judgments in the U.S. that run counter to protections afforded by the First Amendment. (See "TUOL" post 7/28/10.) The SPEECH Act allows for U.S. defendants in foreign defamation suits to seek a declaratory judgment in an American court to clear their name.

UPDATE: Libel Tourism Bill Awaits President Obama's Signature

Image via Wikipedia

By voice vote yesterday, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 2765, the so-called "libel tourism" bill that would protect U.S. journalists and authors against foreign libel judgments that are inconsistent with First Amendment rights [see "TUOL" post 7/20/10].

The Senate previously passed S. 3518, co-sponsored by Sens. Pat Lahey (D-Vt.) & Jeff Sessions (R.-Ala.), which was sent to the House for reconciliaton before heading to the White House for President Obama's signature. The House bill was sponsored by Texas Democrat Steve Cohen.

UPDATE: Full Senate Endorses Libel Tourism Bill

Image via Wikipedia

By a unanimous voice vote, the Senate yesterday approved S. 3518, the so-called SPEECH (Securing the Protection of our Enduring Established Constitutional Heritage) bill co-sponsored by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Sen. Jeffrey Sessions (R-Ala.) that bars domestic enforcement of foreign libel judgments against U.S. citizens that are inconsistent with First Amendment protections. (See "TUOL" posts 7/14/10, 6/25/10.)

The legislation is headed to the House of Representatives for final action.  The House by voice vote previously passed its own version of the measure, H.R. 2765.

UPDATE: Senate Curtails Libel Tourism Trade

Image by Getty Images via @daylife

The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee this week unanimously passed the SPEECH (Securing the Protection of our Enduring Established Constitutional Heritage) bill co-sponsored by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Sen Jeffrey Sessions (R-Ala.), which will make it more difficult for foreign plaintiffs to prevail against U.S. journalists and authors in defamation claims brought outside our country. (See "TUOL" post 6/25/10.)

The legislation, which is expected to gain full Senate approval, would prevent enforcement of foreign libel judgments in the U.S. that are not consistent with First Amendment protections. The SPEECH bill has the backing of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and the American Association of Publishers, among other groups.

'Libel Tourism' Focus of Senate Judiciary Committee

Image via Wikipedia

U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee members Patrick Leahy (D.-Vt.) and Jeffrey Sessions (R.-Ala.) this week introduced SPEECH--Securing the Protection of our Enduring Established Constitutional Heritage--a bill designed to protect journalists and authors from foreign defamation claims.

The bill, which the Judiciary Committee is expected to address at their business meeting next Thursday, may be offered as a substitute amendment to the companion House measure, H.R. 2765, passed last year by the House of Representatives. Patterned on a New York law that was prompted by an author targeted in a libel tourism suit, SPEECH nullifies any foreign libel judgment obtained against U.S. citizens that would not have succeeded in U.S. courts because of First Amendment protections. Unlike other libel tourism bills seeking Senate review, the SPEECH legislation does not contain a provision that would allow American defendants to counter-sue plaintiffs who file defamation claims in foreign courts.

Bill Seeks to Curb U.K. Libel Tourism Trade

Image via Wikipedia

According to an item in "Banksy's Blog," Lord Lester this week will introduce a private member's  libel reform bill to the House of Lords.

The measure would attempt to restore balance to claimant-friendly defamation laws in Great Britain.  Lord Lester's bill reportedly would require claimants--individuals and corporations alike--to prove damages in defamation claims, which are presumed as the law currently is written. Other revisions to the libel law would mandate that libel trials be bench trials, rather than jury trials, and that defenses  common in U.S. libel law, such as privilege, be available to English media defendants. (See "TUOL" post 3/24/10 for a discussion of England's libel law.)

England's defamation law was last revised in 1996.

U.K. Proposes Reforms to Curb 'Libel Tourism' Traffic

Image via Wikipedia

The Associated Press reports that Great Britain this week introduced proposed changes to its plaintiff-friendly libel laws that could be heard by the next Parliament convened after this Spring's election.

Suggested changes to the U.K. libel laws include:

• preventing plaintiffs from suing numerous publications based on the same allegedly defamatory materials
• establishing statutory public interest defenses to libel claims
• imposing standards to determine whether just cause exists for foreign claimaints to initiate libel claims in English courts

The government also hopes to tighten restrictions in court rules pertaining to serving defendants in libel suits beyond England and Wales.  Critics blame England's current libel laws (see "TUOL" post 12/11/09) for impeding investigative journalistic efforts and creating a chilling effect on free speech.

London Seeks to Shed 'Libel Capital of the World' Title

Image via Wikipedia

England's libel laws, grounded in the 19th century, may be overhauled under a House of Lords bill intended to derail "libel tourism."

Unlike U.S. libel law that requires a plaintiff to prove the falsity of a media defendant's statement concerning the plaintiff, England shifts the burden onto the media defendant to prove the truth of the statement about the plaintiff.
The proposed legislation would place the onus on a foreign plaintiff to show that harm to the foreign plaintiff's reputation was suffered in England before a defamation suit could be initiated in England's courts.

According to accounts in The New York Times and ABA Journal, the House of Lords bill was provoked, in part, by a petition bearing 20,000 signatures that accused England's current libel law of discouraging argument and debate, and by a statement from a consortium of foreign newspapers and publishers threatening to erect firewalls and to discontinue distributing their publications in England (see "TUOL" post 11/9/09).

U.K. Fears Domestic Newsstands Outcome of Liberal Libel Laws

Image via Wikipedia

Members of Parliament are concerned that England's favorable climate for libel plaintiffs against media defendants could prompt U.S. and other foreign newspaper and magazine outlets to block access to their Web sites and stop selling their publications in the United Kingdom.

A memorandum submitted to MPs on behalf of several media organizations, including The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times and MacMillan Publishers, warns that foreign newspapers may abandon the nominal sale of 200-plus copies of their publications in London, rather than risk exposure to "libel tourism," or forum-shopping by plaintiffs who seek out jurisdictions, such as the U.K., where defamation actions may be brought based on speech that would be protected in less libel-friendly nations, such as the United States. A meeting between U.S. Publishers and the House of Commons is upcoming.