Findlaw's Julie Hilden (via
La Shawn Barber) talks about Rachel Ehrenfeld's problem with Saudi billionaire bin Mahfouz, and regarding the UK's ludicrous libel laws, she says:
Make no mistake, this is a clash of cultures: one that so values speech and openness that it leaves significant room for irremediable, damaging error; and another that so values reputation and privacy, that it errs in favor of what is, in effect, government censorship accomplished by the courts.
In a way, it
is a culture clash, given how the UK is subject to madness of its own making. Hilden suggests solving the mess this way:
Rather than contending with these elusive trans-hemispheric cases as the Internet slowly makes borders and oceans less and less relevant for distribution and reputation purposes, it might make the most sense for the U.S. and U.K. to enter into a defamation treaty. The treaty would ask both U.S. and U.K. courts to give up jurisdiction in defamation cases in which the other country has a stronger interest, based on factors such as the intended dissemination of the allegedly defamatory statement, personal jurisdiction over the defendant, and the location of the plaintiff’s primary reputation, and therefore, of his or her alleged damages.
Is this a workable answer to the problem? So far, most likely not, because it could still give the UK jurisdiction what's published in the US. With the way that the UK is being run on prejudice, Americans cannot afford to have a country that the Pilgrims sought to leave for the right reasons ruling over them from a distance.
No comments:
Post a Comment