“Libel Tourism” in the News Again

It’s an issue of obvious import to academics, and Ramesh Ponnuru calls this approach “sensible.”

Basically, the authors endorse a federal law allowing U.S. citizens who’ve been sued overseas to countersue here. Often, they admit, this will result in a useless verdict — if you win your countersuit, you can’t collect until the defendant comes into the U.S. However, people who file libel suits against U.S. citizens in other countries, and then lose countersuits in American courts, won’t be able to come here without paying up.

I agree that this is sensible, but I’d like to stress something the WSJ authors didn’t see fit to mention, and often gets conveniently left out when people seek to depict “libel tourism” as a serious threat: U.S. courts, as a practice, do not enforce foreign libel judgments that are inconsistent with the First Amendment. I’m fine with codifying that, or with making sure people who engage in libel tourism never set foot in the U.S. — but this is a safeguard, not a response to some huge threat. I argued this here and here also.

See more on this Topic
Interim Harvard Dean of Social Science David M. Cutler ’87 Dismissed the Faculty Leaders of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies
George Washington University’s Failure to Remove MESA from Its Middle East Studies Program Shows a Continued Tolerance for the Promotion of Terrorism