American Court Overturns Restrictive British Libel Judgment

British libel laws make it very difficult to expose corruption, political or otherwise. If you accuse anybody of dishonesty or corruption, you can be sued, of course. But to defend yourself in Britain you then have to become the equivalent of an official prosecutor and prove your case fully against the corrupt person. You have to become the equivalent of a team of detectives and a prosecutor all rolled up into one.

That is so difficult that free speech about dishonesty and corruption is impossible in Britain for anybody except the media -- who have recently won an exemption from the laws concerned.

In American law, by contrast, the onus is on the person "libelled" to prove that the allegations about him are untrue. The American system gives primacy to protecting free speech, in accordance with the First Amendment.

So when a Saudi financier of terrorism was exposed as such in a book by an American writer, the Saudi sued her in a British court and won. Her response was to go to court in New York and seek a declaration that the British judgment was unenforceable in America. The Second Circuit has now backed her up.

So restrictive British law can not now prevent Americans writing in America from exposing British corruption. I look forward to the fireworks!

Details here.