SPEECH Act

Last updated
Securing the Protection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage Act
Great Seal of the United States (obverse).svg
Long titleAn Act to amend title 28, United States Code, to prohibit recognition and enforcement of foreign defamation judgments and certain foreign judgments against the providers of interactive computer services
NicknamesSPEECH Act
Enacted bythe 111th United States Congress
EffectiveAugust 10, 2010
Citations
Public law Pub. L. Tooltip Public Law (United States)  111–223 (text) (PDF)
Statutes at Large 124  Stat.   2380–2384
Codification
U.S.C. sections created 28 U.S.C.   §§ 4101–4105
Legislative history

The Securing the Protection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage (SPEECH) Act is a 2010 federal statutory law in the United States that makes foreign libel judgments unenforceable in U.S. courts, unless either the foreign legislation applied offers at least as much protection as the U.S. First Amendment (concerning freedom of speech), or the defendant would have been found liable even if the case had been heard under U.S. law.

Contents

The act was passed by the 111th United States Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama.

Purpose

The act was written as a response to libel tourism. [1] It creates a new cause of action and claim for damages against a foreign libel plaintiff, if they acted to deprive an American (or certain lawful aliens) of their right to free speech. [2] Despite its goals, it has been criticized as an insufficiently strong response to the problem of libel tourism. Although it establishes a new cause of action in § 4104, and allows for the collection of "reasonable" attorneys' fees in § 4105, [note 1] it does not allow for damages to plaintiffs, in contrast with stronger provisions in proposed bills which did not pass such as the Free Speech Protection Act of 2009 (H.R.1304, 111th Congress). [3]

It was inspired by the legal battle that ensued between Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld and Saudi businessman Khalid bin Mahfouz over her 2003 book Funding Evil . [4]

Provisions

The Act amends Part VI of title 28, United States Code, by adding a new section 181 titled "Foreign Judgments". The legislation as signed contains findings that overseas libel claims have a chilling effect on free speech, matters of "serious public interest", and investigative journalism, and that internationally, little has been done about this. The Act provides that:

  1. Domestic U.S. courts shall not domestically recognize or enforce any judgment for defamation issued in a foreign court, unless the jurisdiction concerned offers at least as much protection of free speech as the First Amendment, or alternatively, that the defendant would still have been found liable even under U.S. law in a U.S. court, applying the First Amendment;
  2. The foreign court's conduct of the case must have respected the due process guarantees of the U.S. Constitution to the same extent as a U.S. court;
  3. Claims that would be barred in the U.S. under s.230 of the Communications Act (47 U.S.C. 230, providing protection for online web host services) remain barred unless their outcome would be consistent with that which a U.S. court would have reached on the facts, if the defamation had been in the United States;
  4. A defendant's prior appearance in a foreign court in connection with the case does not prevent that person opposing or defending a claim for enforcement in a U.S. court;
  5. Claims may be removed to a federal court if any plaintiff and any defendant are from different states, or not from the United States;
  6. Any United States person subjected to a foreign judgment for defamation may bring an action in a U.S. court to obtain a declaratory judgment that the overseas defamation judgment is "repugnant to the Constitution or laws of the United States" for any of these reasons; if successful then the foreign case cannot be enforced in the U.S.

Various burdens of proof and cost allocations are also specified.

Legislative history

The Act was passed unanimously in both the House of Representatives and the Senate (as H.R. 2765) before being signed by President Obama on August 10, 2010. [4] Two earlier bills had aimed to address the topic of libel tourism, both with the proposed title of the "Free Speech Protection Act"; they were introduced in 2008 and 2009, in the 110th and 111th United States Congress respectively, but neither was passed.

The SPEECH Act has been endorsed by several U.S. organizations, including the American Library Association, [5] the Association of American Publishers, [6] the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, [7] and the American Civil Liberties Union. [8] [9]

Use in courts

In April 2011, Pontigon v. Lord was the first case addressing application of the SPEECH Act. It was heard in Missouri courts. [10] InvestorsHub.com v. Mina Mar Group was the first federal judgment that referenced the act, but the matter was ultimately settled out of court. [11]

Trout Point Lodge v. Doug K. Handshoe was the first appellate level ruling issued under the act, affirming a lower court decision holding that a Nova Scotia judgment was unrecognizable and unenforceable in the United States. [12] Pursuant to the fee-shifting provision of the act, in 2013, the trial court awarded Handshoe $48,000 in legal fees. [13]

The only examples[ as of? ] of law journal treatment of the application of the SPEECH Act in the Trout Point Lodge case have criticized the Act. In the Roger Williams Law Review [14] author Nicole Manzo wrote: "the Act fails to differentiate between legitimate forum selection and illegitimate forum shopping. Moreover, I assert that the Act affords too little protection to foreign defamation plaintiffs. I argue that the exceptions to non-enforcement are illusory and fail to provide courts with appropriate guidance. More pointedly, the Act does not explicitly state how speech protection should be applied in a given case." An article in the Journal of International & Comparative Law of the Chicago-Kent College of Law [15] has supported those conclusions to find that the SPEECH Act, as applied by both the district court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Trout Point Lodge v. Handshoe, is overly broad and in sorry need of reform: "the instant case ... exposes a potential over inclusivity of the SPEECH Act because of its universal applicability in defamation cases and lack of distinction between illegitimate and legitimate fora. Without the proper ability to distinguish between the two types of fora, the SPEECH Act penalizes those plaintiffs filing claims in good faith in appropriate fora." The article goes on to discuss the "fundamental failing" of the SPEECH Act, and to state that the Act "should be amended".

In 2014, the same federal district court rejected Handshoe's attempt to have a Canadian copyright infringement judgment against him removed to federal court using the SPEECH Act; the case was remanded. [16] [ self-published source? ] Handshoe tried to bring the case to federal court again in 2015 citing the SPEECH Act and diversity jurisdiction, after it was re-enrolled in Mississippi state court; the case was again remanded. [17] [ self-published source? ] The judge stated: "unlike the judgment at issue in the claim previously before the Fifth Circuit and this Court, the judgment at issue here does not involve allegations of false or damaging forms of speech et al. Instead, the judgment concerns purported property rights in photographic images."

In state court, Handshoe again filed motions arguing the SPEECH Act should block enforcement of the Canadian judgment against him. His motion was denied in January 2017. "The judgment of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court is not repugnant to Mississippi law. And the judgment does not conflict with the SPEECH Act of 2010 as determined by the United States District Court's February 17, 2016 remand order." [18] [ self-published source? ]

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) successfully used the SPEECH Act in EFF v. Global Equity, a 2017 case stemming from the EFF's criticism of a patent claim by Global Equity; the EFF called Global Equity "a classic patent troll", for which Global Equity made a defamation claim in a South Australian court and an injunction was subsequently ordered. In American courts, this was deemed to be a violation of First Amendment protections under the SPEECH Act. [19] [1]

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ In the United States, in contrast to most other jurisdictions, this is not normally the case unless enumerated in statute. See also: Attorney's fee § Who pays, English Rule and American rule.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Defamation</span> Any communication that can injure a third partys reputation

Defamation is a communication that injures a third party's reputation and causes a legally redressable injury. The precise legal definition of defamation varies from country to country. It is not necessarily restricted to making assertions that are falsifiable, and can extend to concepts that are more abstract than reputation – like dignity and honour. In the English-speaking world, the law of defamation traditionally distinguishes between libel and slander. It is treated as a civil wrong, as a criminal offence, or both.

Strategic lawsuits against public participation, or strategic litigation against public participation, are lawsuits intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision ruling that the freedom of speech protections in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution restrict the ability of public officials to sue for defamation. The decision held that if a plaintiff in a defamation lawsuit is a public official or candidate for public office, then not only must they prove the normal elements of defamation—publication of a false defamatory statement to a third party—they must also prove that the statement was made with "actual malice", meaning the defendant either knew the statement was false or recklessly disregarded whether it might be false. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan is frequently ranked as one of the greatest Supreme Court decisions of the modern era.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Food libel laws</span> Laws passed in some US states to make it easier for food producers to sue their critics for libel

Food libel laws, also known as food disparagement laws and informally as veggie libel laws, are laws passed in thirteen U.S. states that make it easier for food producers to sue their critics for libel. These thirteen states are the following: Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Texas. Many of the food-disparagement laws establish a lower standard for civil liability and allow for punitive damages and attorney's fees for plaintiffs alone, regardless of the case's outcome.

Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court establishing the standard of First Amendment protection against defamation claims brought by private individuals. The Court held that, so long as they do not impose liability without fault, states are free to establish their own standards of liability for defamatory statements made about private individuals. However, the Court also ruled that if the state standard is lower than actual malice, the standard applying to public figures, then only actual damages may be awarded.

Forum shopping is a colloquial term for the practice of litigants taking actions to have their legal case heard in the court they believe is most likely to provide a favorable judgment. Some jurisdictions have, for example, become known as "plaintiff-friendly" and thus have attracted plaintiffs to file new cases there, even if there is little or no connection between the legal issues and the jurisdiction.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Diversity jurisdiction</span> U.S. court jurisdiction over persons of different states or nationalities

In the law of the United States, diversity jurisdiction is a form of subject-matter jurisdiction that gives United States federal courts the power to hear lawsuits that do not involve a federal question. For a federal court to have diversity jurisdiction over a lawsuit, two conditions must be met. First, there must be "diversity of citizenship" between the parties, meaning the plaintiffs must be citizens of different U.S. states than the defendants. Second, the lawsuit's "amount in controversy" must be more than $75,000. If a lawsuit does not meet these two conditions, federal courts will normally lack the jurisdiction to hear it unless it involves a federal question, and the lawsuit would need to be heard in state court instead.

Rachel Ehrenfeld is an American political commentator on terrorism and corruption-related topics, and serves as director of a conservative think tank, the American Center for Democracy, and its Economic Warfare Institute.

In law, the enforcement of foreign judgments is the recognition and enforcement in one jurisdiction of judgments rendered in another ("foreign") jurisdiction. Foreign judgments may be recognized based on bilateral or multilateral treaties or understandings, or unilaterally without an express international agreement.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2005 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down sixteen per curiam opinions during its 2005 term, which lasted from October 3, 2005, until October 1, 2006.

Dennis Jacobs is a senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Libel tourism is a term, first coined by Geoffrey Robertson, to describe forum shopping for libel suits. It particularly refers to the practice of pursuing a case in England and Wales, in preference to other jurisdictions, such as the United States, which provide more extensive defenses for those accused of making derogatory statements.

<i>Funding Evil</i> 2003 book by Rachel Ehrenfeld

Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It is a book written by counterterrorism researcher Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, director of the American Center for Democracy and the Economic Warfare Institute. It was published by Bonus Books of Los Angeles, California in August 2003.

Modern libel and slander laws in many countries are originally descended from English defamation law. The history of defamation law in England is somewhat obscure; civil actions for damages seem to have been relatively frequent as far back as the Statute of Gloucester in the reign of Edward I (1272–1307). The law of libel emerged during the reign of James I (1603–1625) under Attorney General Edward Coke who started a series of libel prosecutions. Scholars frequently attribute strict English defamation law to James I's outlawing of duelling. From that time, both the criminal and civil remedies have been found in full operation.

The origins of the United States' defamation laws pre-date the American Revolution; one influential case in 1734 involved John Peter Zenger and established precedent that "The Truth" is an absolute defense against charges of libel. Though the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was designed to protect freedom of the press, for most of the history of the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court failed to use it to rule on libel cases. This left libel laws, based upon the traditional "Common Law" of defamation inherited from the English legal system, mixed across the states. The 1964 case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, however, radically changed the nature of libel law in the United States by establishing that public officials could win a suit for libel only when they could prove the media outlet in question knew either that the information was wholly and patently false or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not". Later Supreme Court cases barred strict liability for libel and forbade libel claims for statements that are so ridiculous as to be obviously facetious. Recent cases have added precedent on defamation law and the Internet.

A Doe subpoena is a subpoena that seeks the identity of an unknown defendant to a lawsuit. Most jurisdictions permit a plaintiff who does not yet know a defendant's identity to file suit against John Doe and then use the tools of the discovery process to seek the defendant's true name. A Doe subpoena is often served on an online service provider or ISP for the purpose of identifying the author of an anonymous post.

<i>Grant v Torstar Corp</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Grant v Torstar Corp, [2009] 3 S.C.R. 640, 2009 SCC 61, is a 2009 Supreme Court of Canada decision on the defences to the tort of defamation. The Supreme Court ruled that the law of defamation should give way to the rights of a party to speak on matters of public interest, provided the party exercises a certain level of responsibility in verifying the potentially defamatory facts. This decision recognizes a defence of responsible communication on matters of public interest.

Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374 (1967), is a United States Supreme Court case involving issues of privacy in balance with the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and principles of freedom of speech. The Court held 6–3 that the latter requires that merely negligent intrusions into the former by the media not be civilly actionable. It expanded that principle from its landmark defamation holding in New York Times v. Sullivan.

<i>Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox</i> 2011 US legal case concerning online defamation

Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox is a 2011 case from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon concerning online defamation. Plaintiffs Obsidian Finance Group and its co-founder Kevin Padrick sued Crystal Cox for maintaining several blogs that accused Obsidian and Padrick of corrupt and fraudulent conduct. The court dismissed most of Cox's blog posts as opinion, but found one single post to be more factual in its assertions and therefore defamatory. For that post, the court awarded the plaintiffs $2.5 million in damages. This case is notable for the court's ruling that Cox, as an internet blogger, was not a journalist and was thus not protected by Oregon's media shield laws, although the court later clarified that its ruling did not categorically exclude blogs from being considered media and indicated that its decision was based in part upon Cox offering to remove negative posts for a $2,500 fee. In January 2014 the Ninth Circuit Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's judgment awarding compensatory damages to the bankruptcy trustee. It also ordered a new trial on the blog post at issue.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Defamation Act 2013</span> United Kingdom law reforming defamation law in England & Wales

The Defamation Act 2013 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, which reformed English defamation law on issues of the right to freedom of expression and the protection of reputation. It also comprised a response to perceptions that the law as it stood was giving rise to libel tourism and other inappropriate claims.

References

  1. 1 2 "SPEECH Act". World Intermediary Liability Map. Stanford University. Retrieved June 4, 2023.
  2. ↑ "Libel Tourism - Federal Bill". Media Law Resource Center. Archived from the original on 9 July 2011. Retrieved 2010-08-11.
  3. ↑ Elias, Elizabeth (2011-01-01). "Nearly Toothless: Why the Speech Act is Mostly Bark, with Little Bite". Hofstra Law Review. 40 (1): 22.
  4. 1 2 Greenslade, Roy (2010-08-11). "Obama seals off US journalists and authors from Britain's libel laws". The Guardian . Retrieved 2010-08-11.
  5. ↑ "American Library Association Washington Office Report to Council" (PDF). American Library Association. 30 December 2010. Retrieved 29 April 2012.
  6. ↑ Albanese, Andrew (12 August 2010). "Obama Signs 'Libel Tourism' Law". Publishers Weekly. Retrieved 28 April 2012.
  7. ↑ Abello, Cristina (10 August 2010). "Obama signs federal 'libel tourism' bill". Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. Retrieved 29 April 2012.
  8. ↑ Murphy, Laura W.; Michael W. Macleod-Ball (15 July 2010). "Re: ACLU Supports H.R. 2765 - Securing the Protection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage Act ("SPEECH Act")" (PDF). American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved 29 April 2012.
  9. ↑ Leahy, Patrick J. (19 July 2010). "Securing The Protection Of Our Enduring And Established Constitutional Heritage". Sunlight Foundation. Archived from the original on July 7, 2012. Retrieved 29 April 2012.
  10. ↑ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2014-10-26. Retrieved 2014-10-26.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  11. ↑ "InvestorsHub.com, Inc., et al. vs. Mina Mar Group, Inc. et al" (PDF).
  12. ↑ "Trout Point Lodge et al. vs. Doug K. Handshoe" (PDF).
  13. ↑ "Order granting fees to Defendant Handshoe" (PDF).
  14. ↑ Manzo, Nicole. "If You Don't Have Anything Nice to Say, Say It Anyway: Libel Tourism and the SPEECH Act" (PDF). Roger Williams Law Review. 20 (1). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2015-12-22. Retrieved 2015-12-17.
  15. ↑ Bates, Kelsey (April 30, 2015). "Trout Point Lodge, Ltd. v. Handshoe". Journal of International & Comparative Law. Spring 2015.
  16. ↑ "Order granting motion to remand" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2015-04-02. Retrieved 2015-03-03.
  17. ↑ "Order granting plaintiffs' motion to remand" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2017-02-07. Retrieved 2017-02-06.
  18. ↑ "Circuit Court of Hancock County Order" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2017-02-07. Retrieved 2017-02-06.
  19. ↑ "EFF's US court challenge to Global Equity's Australian injunction". World Intermediary Liability Map. Stanford University. Retrieved June 4, 2023.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.