US Senate Passes 'Libel Tourism' Bill 467
Hugh Pickens writes "AFP reports that the US Senate has passed (by a 'unanimous consent' voice vote) a bill that prevents US federal courts from recognizing or enforcing a foreign judgment for defamation that is inconsistent with the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech. If the bill becomes law it will shield US journalists, authors, and publishers from 'libel tourists' who file suit in countries where they expect to get the most favorable ruling. 'While we cannot legislate changes to foreign law that are chilling protected speech in our country, we can ensure that our courts do not become a tool to uphold foreign libel judgments that undermine American First Amendment or due process rights,' said Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy. Backers of the bill have cited England, Brazil, Australia, Indonesia, and Singapore as places where weak libel safeguards attract lawsuits that unfairly harm US journalists, writers, and publishers. The popular legislation is headed to the House of Representatives, which is expected to approve it. 'This bill is a needed first step to ensure that weak free-speech protections and abusive legal practices in foreign countries do not prevent Americans from fully exercising their constitutional right to speak and debate freely,' said Senator Jeff Sessions, the top Republican on Leahy's committee."
Hmmm (Score:5, Interesting)
Not that I encourage deliberately starting wildfires, but does this encompass protection if you draw Mohammed now?
Re: (Score:2)
And if *a* guy was to show up and state his case it would go slightly along the lines of: "He can't draw a satirical picture of me because I proclaimed a rule that he cant!". I think that no court would ever convict anyone for this... not even the most medieval Sharia court in the world (unless the dude before them is the counties dictator of the moment, but I digress...).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You did read the part of 'It is a problem with all religious forms of marriage as far as I know.' - Meaning he certainly wasn't considering it solely a problem of the Catholic church.
Personally, I'd say 'arranged marriage' instead of 'religious marriage'.
As for the 14 part - that wouldn't be prepubescent, as puberty 'typically' occurs between 11-14 in girls and 13-16 in boys.
14 is still 'ick' for me, but I have to be honest that there are a number of 14 year olds who's hormones are telling them that they'r
Re: (Score:2)
Catholicism has a history of marrying off prepubescents until very recently, it still happens in Africa. It is a problem with all religious forms of marriage as far as I know.
Whereas the non-religious just have the paedophilia problem, without the marriage. That must make it so much better.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Catholicism has a history of marrying off prepubescents until very recently, it still happens in Africa. It is a problem with all religious forms of marriage as far as I know.
According to everything I can find, the earliest age that Catholicism ever allowed a girl to marry at was 12, which while very young is almost never prepubescent. So please provide a reference to your claim.
Re:Hmmm (Score:4, Informative)
You are applying the modern onset of puberty to the "earliest age ever" that Catholicism allowed marriage? What kind of logic is that?
The onset of puberty has been earlier and earlier over the last 200 years. In the early 1800s it started (for girls) between the ages of 15-17, much older than your cited 12.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pubescence#Historical_shift [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Don't forget the change in life expectancy.
Classical Greece and Rome only had a life expectancy of 28 years. Medieval Britain had a life expectancy of 30. Early 20th Century had a life expectancy of 30-45 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy [wikipedia.org]
So in order to marry, have children and live long enough to care for them, you would have t
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Informative)
Don't forget the change in life expectancy.
Classical Greece and Rome only had a life expectancy of 28 years. Medieval Britain had a life expectancy of 30. Early 20th Century had a life expectancy of 30-45 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy [wikipedia.org]
So in order to marry, have children and live long enough to care for them, you would have to marry at an early age of around 14 through 16. This probably the reasoning behind the NC state law mentioned earlier in this thread.
From the same article [wikipedia.org], under "Misconceptions":
A popular misconception about life expectancy is that people living beyond the staged age was unusual.
...
This ignores the fact that life expectancy changes depending on age and the one often presented is the "at birth" number. For example, a Roman Life Expectancy table at the University of Texas shows that at birth the life expectancy was 25 but if one lived to the age of 5 one's life expectancy jumped to 48.
Life expectancy rates throughout history look weak because a huge proportion of children never lived to adulthood. When half your population dies by age 5 and the other half lives to 45, you get a life expectancy of around 25. I can't think of any time period where people who lived through childhood couldn't presume to live long enough to raise a family without having to get started at 14.
"Average" life expectancy is misleading as hell. (Score:3, Insightful)
You said it yourself, 40% of children failed to reach adulthood. Most numbers that are thrown around are the average at birth; the high infant mortality rates of the past lead to artificially low numbers (e.g. you have 6 babies, 4 of them die within a year but the remaining two live to be 65, your average expectancy is...well, a lot lower than 65, the math [wikipedia.org] is more involved than I want to get atm). In Rome, the average expectancy was 24, but if you made it to 5 years old your new average was 48 [utexas.edu], more than en
Catholic attack fail (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Catholic attack fail (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Catholic attack fail (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Naah, you can't include Godwin in that until you get to those who believe that Mary was impregnated by a travelling German mercenary.
Re: (Score:2)
It has nothing to do with religion, it was just the way the world was in the past. I suppose it makes more sense in periods when life expectancies were 35 or lower. That being the case, marrying and having children in ones early teens suddenly doesn't seem as distasteful.
It's one of many reasons I always hate when people try to judge historical figures or activities according to modern sensibilities.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
We may even be dooming ourselves to extinction by breeding so late and making young marriages an anathema.
It's going to be a race to see what kills us off as a nation sooner. Not breeding enough to replace ourselves or legislate ourselves unto oblivion.
- Dan.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How does it ever 'make sense' for adults to start having sex with children before they have reached puberty? It does not matter how short life expectancies are. Sex with children just isn't going to produce more children.
From what I remember, I'm not a professional historian, a lot of the records we DO have are for the better off types of the time. The lowest of the Peasents don't have the record-keeping until later.
That means assets. Back in the day most marriages(where assets were involved) were economic alliances, if not political ones. The parents would make the deal whenever they could, keeping in mind that 'most' did want the best for their kids. Sometimes marrying a daughter off at nine might make the best sense
Re: (Score:2)
via the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (IRTPA) terms like "service,” “training,” “expert advice or assistance” or “personnel" might just be found in your written words.
Just make sure your helping this generations freedom fighters and it will be fine.
Re:Hmmm (Score:4, Informative)
excuse me... but a madman armed with an axe and knife breaking into your house intent on killing you for having drawn a cartoon is not something to ignore... see here [nwsource.com]
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but only from law suits. It will not protect you from actual bombers or bullets. --This is not really a joke because it is way to accurate.
You're exaggerating. As far as I know not a single shot has been fired anywhere on earth because of a picture.
Does a moving picture count? Because Theo van Gogh has definitely been shot. (8 times. And then stabbed.)
Re:Hmmm (Score:4, Informative)
Wowsa (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, although I applaud this, I don't see how it's necessary; wouldn't any US judge say the same thing? The Constitution says we have free speech, and that should be it.
Can someone here, preferably a lawyer or judge, explain?
Re: (Score:2)
You're right, American courts already generally refuse to enforce libel judgments when they run afoul of fair speech, and I was a little puzzled myself at this news article. I guess the idea is to encode in actual statute what was already in common law.
Re:Wowsa (Score:4, Insightful)
Now all we need is for other countries to protect their citizens from similar patent tourism.
Re: (Score:2)
campaign finance and free publicity (Score:2)
If you go to open secrets you'll notice that TV/MOVIES/MUSIC are a decent distance up the list. And notice how many contributions come from Time Warner. That's the smaller part of the reason though. The rest of it is that the media can spin any story to manipulate us one way or the other. Every legislator knows this, so none of them want to be the guy that stops this and gets pointed at. Big media wants its journalists to feel safe, and a public pat on the back or pointed finger isn't too far to go to
Re:campaign finance and free publicity (Score:5, Funny)
The real reason is that Disney wants to make a new movie about the life of Muhammad and wants protection from pairing him with an effeminate wise-cracking camel.
Good, sensible decision (Score:4, Insightful)
Good on you, Americans. So, now can you stop complaining if we try to stop our courts enforcing *your* mad decisions, like Gary McKinnon?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Like I said, I might argue the McKinnon case if I had unlimited time, and a desire to dive off-topic. I think there are serious flaws in the argument if we look at the McKinnon case specifically, so it probably isn't the best way to illustrate the point as I read it. However, that still leaves the question of for which laws and under what circumstances should a court in one co
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I wasn't being anti-American. I applaud this move, as I think our libel laws are stupid and should indeed be ignored.
I was merely pointing-out that most suggestions by British people on Slashdot that the US are out for blood when it comes to McKinnon are usually greeted by "He broke our rules!" sort of rants. You can't have it both ways - every country makes stupid laws, and when they start trying to force them to be applied in other countries, a line has been crossed. In our case it's our stupid libel laws
Re:Good, sensible decision (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry, hacking into secure military sites - and not just for UFO information (seems more paranoia than anything else, even if a bit of a benign case).
His case makes sense to me (as would be the case if a Brittan, France, Germany, Brazil, Japan, whoever wanted a US citizen for a similar premise, I'd say 'send him/her over...'
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What if China or Korea or some other shady country asked for someone, would you still hand them over? Given the USAs track record in treating prisoners (and basic human rights violations) I'd be reluctant to give anyone up to them.
Re:Good, sensible decision (Score:4, Informative)
Well, *you* might say that, but your government wouldn't. The US doesn't let other countries judge its citizens nearly as easily. Take, for example, the refusal of the US to hand over Robert Seldon Lady, guilty of kidnap and torture (who was given 8 years in his absense). Or what about Captain Richard J. Ashby, who is one of four pilots responsible for the deaths of 20 people in Italy (and destroying the evidence)?
These are far worse crimes, and the US refused to hand them over to other countries for trial. They were also black-and-white crimes, whereas what McKinnon did was not even serious enough for prison time here, where he 'committed' it. That's what gets people - the double standards.
Re:Good, sensible decision (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, not really "other countries" plural, just one, Italy. Which, as the Knox trial showed, does not have a functioning justice system.
Re:Good, sensible decision (Score:4, Insightful)
As with the US, which, as the OJ Simpson trial showed, does not have a functioning justice system.
Re:Good, sensible decision (Score:4, Insightful)
Nice troll. What it shows is that the city of Los Angeles did not have a functioning police department.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Italy. Which, as the Knox trial showed, does not have a functioning justice system.
And that assessment is based on what, exactly? The fact that the court convicted an American based on overwhelming evidence of her guilt?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Fabrication of evidence? Absence of evidence? Or in your country is it allowed for a prosecutor to state on the record that there was a "ritual killing" despite no evidence of such? After a troubled drifter who actually confessed to being at the crime scene, a confession that was supported by actual physical evidence, was already convicted? Where is the "overwhelmin
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I've no idea what you are talking about in the Knox case. There was a trial, the atmosphere in the Italian media was not tense at all, no one assumed really anything about her being guilty or innocent. The case was complicated and there were plenty of bogeymen.
She was found guilty of murder because she participated in it after being on drugs and having, probably, her judgement impaired.
At the very least, it is beyond discussion that she knowingly accused an innocent man, token nigger Patrick Lumumba. Becaus
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I know Slashdotters generally love McKinnon for sticking it to the Man, but the computer systems he tampered with were physically ON US soil, not in some fourth dimension of teh intarwebs.
Of course, I'll take the trade if you make it legal for US crackers to remotely crack systems in your country. Information wants to be free. ;)
Good (Score:3, Insightful)
There are several projects of a "bill of rights" for "the virtual place named internet". One will maybe stick. Information may not want to be anthropomorphized, but a lot of people surely want it to be free.
Re:Good (Score:5, Funny)
Now that one can do investigation journalism in US, reverse-engineering in Finland, publish leaks in Sweden could we please recognize that preventing the publication of a file on internet is utterly silly ?
As long as you don't get your countries mixed up, and create leaks in Holland, or attempt to reverse-engineer Swedish.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as you don't get your countries mixed up, and ... attempt to reverse-engineer Swedish.
And never, ever attempt to Reverse Polish [wikipedia.org] unless you have a whole stack in your defense fund!
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Now that one can do investigation journalism in US, reverse-engineering in Finland, publish leaks in Sweden could we please recognize that preventing the publication of a file on internet is utterly silly ?
Nope. Servers live places. The people who do the uploading live places. The people who run the servers can be punished. The people who do the uploading can be punished. There's no legal basis for your theory that criminalizing the publication of a file on the internet (I assume that's what you meant since nobody is preventing the publication of anything, if I assume incorrectly please let me know WTF you were thinking) is "silly". First we'd need to throw away IP law entirely, which is pretty much the opposite of what is going on in the world today. A significant part of IP law is written into international conventions to which the USA and GB are both signatories.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I still think its a slippery slope. If specific rights are enumerated that leaves the door open to restrict everything else.
It can also sometimes lead to a "you have those rights only because 'we' were nice enough and generous enough to give them to you", or a "rights are only granted by the government and not an inherent property of people" kind of mentality. Both carry the unstated implication of "we can take them away if we want".
But then, if you don't list them at all, what safety net do you have to help protect them?
Damned if you do, damned if you don't, I guess.
Confused (Score:5, Funny)
I'm trying to figure this one out. A bill that passed the senate that reinforces some portion of our individual liberties. I'm having trouble seeing where the corporate benefit is here. I didn't think anything made its way through any part of congress without some corporation getting something out of it. I must be missing something.
Re:Confused (Score:5, Informative)
A bill that passed the senate that reinforces some portion of our individual liberties. I'm having trouble seeing where the corporate benefit is here.
I know you're being facetious, but most magazines, radio stations & tv stations are owned by corporations, they can't just have foreigners suing them for their dramatic, yet wildly inaccurate and poorly researched news stories.
Other way around. (Score:2, Interesting)
A bill that passed the senate that reinforces some portion of our individual liberties. I'm having trouble seeing where the corporate benefit is here.
I know you're being facetious, but most magazines, radio stations & tv stations are owned by corporations, they can't just have foreigners suing them for their dramatic, yet wildly inaccurate and poorly researched news stories.
Actually, it's the other way around.
Where this law came from is because of England. Basically, journalists would publish something about a dictator and regardless of how true it was or where it was published (they always found a way to sue in the UK), the dictator would sue and many times win (England's liable laws are idiotic) - costing the newspaper millions in the process and then they have to retract what they said.
The Economist reports on this every once in a while.
Actually, that'd be a trip of the Ec
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it's the other way around.
My reply was partly tongue-in-cheek, I think it's probably more accurate to say it's both ways.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Ya my first reaction was to look at the date, nope not Apr 1.
The US Senate did something useful (Score:3, Insightful)
Now that is news!
And more seriously, this is definitely useful, because otherwise a foreign country could set up rules that heavily favors the plaintiff and abuse US citizens for, say, writing negatively about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Posh Spice.
Re:The US Senate did something useful (Score:5, Funny)
Now that is news!
And more seriously, this is definitely useful, because otherwise a foreign country could set up rules that heavily favors the plaintiff and abuse US citizens for, say, writing negatively about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Posh Spice.
Or even the two of them as lovers!
This is great, but... (Score:4, Interesting)
... this won't help cases like Spamhaus being sued by spammers in the US for defamation and tortious interference.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
... this won't help cases like Spamhaus being sued by spammers in the US for defamation and tortious interference.
Well it's easy to point out unfair legal systems in other countries, but fixing your own.. not so easy.
Good move... (Score:2)
Wow, that actually sounds pretty righteous (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wow, that actually sounds pretty righteous (Score:4, Insightful)
What happens when other countries join the game? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There are potential law suits against a British oil company? I didn't realise we still had any. I know there are former British companies that are now multi-national conglomerates, and I know they're having issues that could lead to legal situations, but I didn't know there was another oil company in a similar situation.
From my American informants, apparently only Fox is still making that mistake and most TV sta
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I approve of any measure that enhances national sovereignty. The world is far too corrupt for the idea of world government by treaty to be anything but a way to screw people who obey those treaties, so the sooner nations reject the laws of others the better.
"The US legal systems for IP and class action recovery are the poster-children for 'abusive',"
International law itself is abuse, because it is internal government of nations by treaty with other nations while excluding voters. Such concessions should hav
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You have no perspective.
The US already has one-way extradition treaties with numerous countries, including major ones. A situation which is decidedly more abusive than just choosing to ignore a few foreign court judgments. Considering this only applies to speech, it's not going to get anyone in much more of a huff than they already are
Re:What happens when other countries join the game (Score:5, Insightful)
I dunno. It might not be a bad thing for foreign legal systems to start ignoring us when we want to punish their citizens for things they did while not on US soil.
Would that mean (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
... you have to use the preview button to get to the submit button ... unless I'm missing something. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:A republican in favor of free speech ? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you think the republicans have a monopoly on censorship, you've had your head buried in the sand too long.
Heard of the fairness doctrine?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure you're not the only one, but I hope you're
UN out of US, and vice versa! (Score:2)
If the UN suddenly claimed the power to force member states to pass laws on their citizens, the "US out of UN" movement would probably quintuple in size overnight and they'd be looking for new office space to lease.
Well shoot, when you put it that way it almost makes me want to support it!
Re: (Score:2)
Contrary to what other people seemed to read - I did NOT suggest a global government nor did I suggest giving particular force to the U.N.
What I suggested was globalising human rights and using the UN as a vehicle to do that. If every state recognized your right to free speech for example as a constitutional right and (this one can be taken from my side) was forced to ensure the constitution is the highest authority in the land (MORE power than the government) then human rights would be protected EVERYWHERE
Re:A republican in favor of free speech ? (Score:4, Insightful)
On the contrary, from my point of view, the Democrats are much bigger on censorship (such as so-called "hate speech", AKA opinions) and political correctness than the Republicans, but let's not fight. These opposing fundamental viewpoints are really not arguable effectively; i.e., stating this one way or the other will never sway anyone on the other side. Can we just agree that it is very gratifying that both sides of the aisle joined together on this?
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? Hate speech? When have Democrats passed or even proposed hate speech laws?
Re:A republican in favor of free speech ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. Yes, it does.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Newsflash! Daniel Patrick Moynihan, is not one of the founding fathers. Seriously, put down your copy of Harrison Bergeron and realize that story wasn't a guidebook for the future. Also you need to recognize the difference between thought and action. I as an American(yes that's the correct word) citizen can think all kinds of things, that may or may not be true, and it doesn't impact your life one bit.
Re:A republican in favor of free speech ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well that's where we differ. If you let your racist hiring decisions affect how you run your business, I may dislike it but it's your business. You should be able to choose not to hire me because you don't like my skin color, or eye color, or because the your hallucination of St. Peter told your enfeebled brain that if you hired me your moustache would turn green. Freedom is freedom; if you have to qualify it like you want to do it's not freedom anymore.
Re:A republican in favor of free speech ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Since it's a provable fact that I am NOT less than you, and nobody else is either
How would you go about proving that? I believe that all people are of equal value, but I would be hard pressed to prove that as a fact. In truth, I think it would be trivial to "prove" that some people are of less value than others (for certain definitions of "value").
Re: (Score:2)
where do I sign to force the US to inact hate-speech and GLBT marriage laws?
Re: (Score:2)
I thought they were the party that's big on censoring. I guess libel-cases don't push the "morality" button like pr0n does.
Because Democrats don't do any censoring...
No zero-tolerance chilling effects... or "think-of-the-children" surveillance...
At least we know that Obama has been successful in getting the world to blame a specific subset of Americans for everything...
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure you can come up with more charitable interpretation than this one, but my initial impression is that it's a reaction (read "typical knee-jerk Republican reaction based wholly on idealogy") to anything that involves foreign "powers" with respect to how the US behaves collectively, or its individual citizens individually.
You only need to be a casual follower of current events to find evidence of that. A general distrust of the UN (when it doesn't suit the purposes of the US), trade legislation, or t
Re: (Score:2)
We live in a global world now
Well, it's really been a global world for hundreds of years. The only thing that's changed is the speed of transportation and delivery of goods, and the internet. If you break Adobe's ROT13 encryption in Russia where there's no DMCA and don't visit the US, Russia will not agreee to extradition. However, if you then go to a security conference here, you'll go to jail. If I say Britain's Prime Minister is a retard (or whatever; I have no idea if he is or not), as long as I don't g
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Raises an interesting question, am I the only one who thinks we'd be better of as a world if the UN Bill of Rights was as absolute in it's protections as particular clauses in some of our constitutions (like the first in America for example) and ALL U.N. member states were REQUIRED to implement it as part of their own constitutions (and where no constitution exists as in Britain be required to create one and make said bill of rights the entirey there-off ?)
Considering that there's been a push multiple times by many countries in the UN to make religious beliefs protected from ridicule and blasphemy http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2008/1113/p09s02-coop.html [csmonitor.com] this would lead to bad stuff very quickly. Also, note that not having a constitution works ok. Britain protects most rights pretty well compared to most of the world, and in some respects does a better job protecting rights than the US does. However, both Syria and Jordan have written protection
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Admirable to ask this question. Vigilance is always required.
In the case of this bill, the text appears to be straightforward, well targeted, reasonably concise, and free from extraneous tack-ons.
Check it out: Full text of bill at Thomas [loc.gov]
I hope that URL will last, but the cgi looks suspiciously transient. If it stops working, just google "hr 2765 text".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, but they're created by the Senate (or at least approved by it) so they're *obviously* not silly laws if they're exported. After all, American senators would never waste their time passing silly laws that weren't in the interest of the people...
Re: (Score:2)
Agree about those horrible exports, but methinks their sale abroad is too easy. That's my gentle way of hinting that corrupt institutions abound in various countries.
Re: (Score:2)
Excuse me; what?
Re: (Score:2)
This is just too intriguing a question not to have answered. Can anyone provide some pointers on how this happened?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I have profound sympathy with the citizens of all foreign lands on which these pernicious obscenities such as DMCA have spread. But I must tell the citizens of these foreign lands this: look to your own corruptocracies, and not the US corruptocracy, as the guilty parties in this matter. The US does not have the power to dictate legislation to foreign lands.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The US does not have the power to dictate legislation to foreign lands.
Unfortunately, this does not stop the U.S. from trying to do so, at gunpoint if necessary.
Re: (Score:2)
"Why not? The US effectively legislates copyright law in my country (Australia). "
Sack up and fight that nonsense, for the good of Oz and the US. It's OK to vilify US corporations. USians do it daily.
The US needs Australian support for its economic Empire and cannot abandon it. (The US public would see it as feeding Crocodile Dundee to the ChiComs!)