89–010 

111TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 2d Session 111–224 

SECURING THE PROTECTION OF OUR ENDURING AND 

ESTABLISHED CONSTITUTIONAL HERITAGE (‘‘SPEECH’’) 

ACT 

JULY 19, 2010.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. LEAHY, from the Committee on the Judiciary, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 2765] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on the Judiciary, to which was referred the bill 

(H.R. 2765), to amend title 28, United States Code, to prohibit recognition and enforcement of foreign defamation judgments in 

United States Courts where those judgments undermine the First 

Amendment, and to provide a cause of action for declaratory judgment relief against a party who has brought a successful foreign 

defamation action whose judgment undermines the First Amendment, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon, with 

an amendment, and recommends that the bill, as amended, do 

pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

I. Background and Purpose of the Securing the Protection of Our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage Act .................................... 2 

II. History of the Bill and Committee Consideration ....................................... 5 

III. Section-by-Section Summary of the Bill ...................................................... 6 

IV. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ................................................ 6 

V. Regulatory Impact Evaluation ...................................................................... 8 

VI. Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 8 

VII. Additional Views of Senator Kyl .................................................................. 9 

VIII. Changes to Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ........................... 11 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
2 

1See Hart-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657, 684 (1989); see also 

Editorial, ‘‘Libel Tourism,’’ N.Y. Times, A18, May 25, 2009, available at http://www.nytimes.com/ 

2009/05/26/opinion/26tue2.html?lr=1. 2 376 U.S. 254, 268 (1964) (‘‘[L]ibel can claim no talismanic immunity from constitutional limitations. It must be measured by standards that satisfy the First Amendment.’’). 3See id. 

4See Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990) (‘‘a statement on matters of public 

concern must be provable as false before there can be liability under state defamation law, at 

least in situations, like the present, where a media defendant is involved’’). 5See Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 26 (1971) (‘‘[A]bsent a more particularized and compelling reason for its actions, the State may not, consistently with the First and Fourteenth 

Amendments, make the simple public display here involved of [a] single four-letter expletive a 

criminal offense.’’). 6 Rachel Ehrenfeld, ‘‘The Chill of Libel Tourism,’’ Guardian, June 9, 2009, available at http:// 

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/jun/09/libel-tourism-rogues-gallery. 7Drew Sullivan, ‘‘Libel Tourism: Silencing the Press through Transnational Legal Threats,’’ 

Report for the Center for International Media Assistance, 24, Jan. 6, 2010, available at (http:// 

cima.ned.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/CIMA-LibellTourism-Report.pdf) (‘‘Lawyers and 

media organizations say one of the reasons for these lawsuits is to intimidate media organizations. Threatening media with expensive suits can force them to hold off on stories or remove 

materials from stories. It can discourage them from publishing future materials.’’). 

I. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF THE SECURING THE PROTECTION OF

OUR ENDURING AND ESTABLISHED CONSTITUTIONAL HERITAGE ACT

In the United States, the First Amendment to the Constitution 

protects writers and publishers from libel lawsuits that would discourage otherwise protected speech.1 Since the landmark New York 

Times v. Sullivan,2 a plaintiff must establish that an author, writer, or publisher of an allegedly libelous statement against a public 

figure acted with ‘‘actual malice’’ to prevail in a defamation suit.3

Even a private figure must demonstrate that speech at issue is 

provably false to prevail in a libel action over a matter of public 

interest.4 This is rooted in the basic First Amendment principle 

that vulgar and distasteful speech merits the same protections as 

speech that does not offend.5

Many other countries do not provide these same free speech protections. As a result, American authors, reporters, and publishers 

are sometimes sued in foreign countries where free speech protections are lower than those guaranteed by our First Amendment. 

These lawsuits occur even where the parties do not have any substantial connection to the foreign forum. That phenomenon, where 

a party has sought out the foreign court simply because of its 

plaintiff-friendly libel laws, is known colloquially as ‘‘libel tourism.’’ 

The prevalence of these foreign libel lawsuits is significantly 

chilling American free speech and restricting both domestic and 

worldwide access to important information. Given the international 

circulation of many U.S.-based publications, as well as the worldwide access to U.S.-based content over the Internet, concerns over 

foreign libel lawsuits confront many American authors, reporters, 

and publishers. Regardless, whether the foreign libel judgment is 

enforced in the United States or not, the mere filing of a foreign 

libel lawsuit can result in damage to an author, reporter or publisher’s reputation.6 As a result, these lawsuits have a chilling effect on U.S. authors, reporters and publishers who are forced to 

abide by the libel laws of the most restrictive countries in order to 

completely shield themselves from harm—a result that runs 

counter to the free speech guarantees of the First Amendment.7

The magnitude of this problem is well documented. In 2008, the 

United Nations Human Rights Committee reported that one foreign country’s libel laws are so plaintiff-friendly that they have 

‘‘served to discourage critical media reporting on matters of serious 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
3 

8 U.N. Human Rights Comm., Consideration of Reports Submitted by States, p. 25, Commc’n 

No. CCPR/C/GBR/CO/6 (July 7–25, 2008), 47 Eur. Ct. H.R. SE 19; see also Sarah StaveleyO’Carroll, Libel Tourism Laws: Spoiling the Holiday and Saving the First Amendment, 4 N.Y.U. 

J.L. & LIBERTY 252, 265 (2009). 9 U.N. Human Rights Comm., at 25. 

10 RACHEL EHRENFELD, FUNDING EVIL: HOW TERRORISM IS FINANCED AND HOW TO STOP IT

(Bonus Books 2003). 11Samuel A. Abady and Harvey Silvergate, ‘‘ ‘Libel Tourism’ and the War on Terror,’’ Boston 

Globe, Nov. 7, 2006, available at http://www.boston.com/ae/media/articles/2006/11/07/ 

libelltourismlandlthelwarlonlterror/. 12See id. 13See ‘‘Florida Becomes Latest State to Pass Libel Tourism Bill; California Could be Next,’’ 

Weil Briefing: Intellectual Property and the Media, 2, May 13, 2009, available at (http:// 

www.weil.com/files/upload/WeilBriefinglIP-Ml090513.pdf) (‘‘In addition to awarding roughly $250,000 in damages, the court also issued a declaration of falsity and ordered that the book 

be removed from public libraries, that Ehrenfeld publish an apology, and that any unsold copies 

in England be destroyed.’’). 14See, e.g., Rendleman, supra note 1, at 468 (detailing Saudi cleric Bin Badden’s suit against 

American professor, Helene Herron in the United Kingdom); Ehrenfeld, supra note 3 (describing 

legal threats made to American writer Michael Gross after he wrote a book portraying socialite 

Annette de la Renta in a manner that she did not approve). 15Libel Tourism: Hearing on H.R. 6146 Before the Subcomm. on Commercial and Administrative Law of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 111th Cong. 9–10 n. 30 (2009) (written statement 

of Bruce D. Brown, Partner, Baker & Hostetler, LLP). 16 N.Y. C.P.L.R. 5304(b)(8) (2008). 

public interest, adversely affecting the ability of scholars and journalists to publish their work.’’ 8 This U.N. report explained that the 

additional concern with these defamation suits is that the ‘‘advent 

of the Internet and the international distribution of foreign media 

. . . creates the danger that a State party’s unduly restrictive libel 

law will affect freedom of expression world-wide on matters of valid 

public interest.’’ 9

Over the past several years, this fear has come to pass. The most 

prominent example of the harm caused by foreign libel lawsuits involves Rachel Ehrenfeld, an investigative reporter and New York 

Times journalist, who is a United States citizen. Ms. Ehrenfeld was 

sued in the United Kingdom for defamation over the content of a 

book that she authored and published in the United States. In that 

book, Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop 

It,10 she reported, among other things, that Saudi billionaire 

Khalid bin Mahfouz deposited millions into terrorist accounts.11

Though Mr. Bin Mahfouz was neither a British citizen nor a resident, he sued Ms. Ehrenfeld in England, a country whose libel laws 

are much less protective of journalists than the protections guaranteed by the First Amendment.12 Mr. Bin Mahfouz won a default 

judgment against Ms. Ehrenfeld, and the British judge awarded 

damages and enjoined the publication of Ms. Ehrenfeld’s book in 

the United Kingdom.13

While Ms. Ehrenfeld’s suit is the most recognizable, similar examples have become all too common.14 Today, lawyers must advise 

their journalist-clients of the legal repercussions of reporting on 

transnational issues such as international finance, terrorism, and 

celebrity scandals.15 This advice influences the decision of what 

materials to publish both overseas and domestically, and stifles the 

free flow of information. 

A few American states have enacted laws to protect American 

writers and publishers from foreign libel laws. In 2008, New York 

passed the Libel Terrorism Protection Act, which prohibits enforcement of foreign libel judgments in New York State that are inconsistent with the ‘‘freedom of speech and press protections guaranteed by the United States or New York Constitutions.’’ 16 That law 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
4 

17 N.Y. C.P.L.R. 5304(d). 18 Cal. C.C.P. CODE § 1716 (2010). 19 Compare 735 ILL. COMP. STAT. ANN. 5/12–621(b)(7) (2008), with FLA. STAT. ANN. §§ 55.601, 

55.605 (2009). 20 47 U.S.C. § 230(f)(2) (2006). 

also expanded New York’s long arm statute to enable the American 

party to seek separate declaratory relief to determine liability for 

the foreign judgment under U.S. law, even where the foreign party 

does not attempt enforcement.17 In 2009, California enacted a similar law.18 Illinois and Florida implemented libel tourism nonrecognition legislation in 2008 and 2009, although neither state addressed the jurisdictional issues necessary to facilitate effective declaratory relief.19 Though a few other states are considering similar 

bills, the majority of states have not addressed this issue. 

Federal legislation is necessary to ensure that American authors, 

reporters, and publishers have nationwide protection from foreign 

libel judgments, even when the foreign party has not yet sought enforcement of those judgments in the United States. Additionally, 

federal legislation is needed to provide a single, uniform standard 

for addressing these foreign libel judgments. 

The Committee bill, as reported, combats the chilling effect that 

foreign defamation lawsuits are having on American free speech in 

two significant respects. First, the bill prohibits the enforcement of 

any foreign libel judgment that is inconsistent with United States 

First Amendment protections or Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment 

due process requirements. In that enforcement action, the burden 

falls on the foreign plaintiff to demonstrate that the foreign judgment is consistent with U.S. law. If the foreign plaintiff nonetheless seeks enforcement in an American court, the domestic party 

opposing enforcement of the judgment is entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees if it prevails in the enforcement action. This provision 

should serve to further deter enforcement actions of foreign judgments that threaten free speech. 

Second, the Committee bill, as reported, provides a mechanism 

for American authors, reporters, or publishers to clear their names 

even when the foreign party does not attempt to enforce its judgment in the United States. The bill creates a cause of action for declaratory relief where the foreign judgment is repugnant to the 

Constitution or laws of the United States. Such an action may be 

brought against a party with sufficient contacts anywhere in the 

United States. In this declaratory judgment action, the burden falls 

on the domestic author, writer, or publisher to demonstrate that 

the foreign judgment is inconsistent with the Constitution or the 

laws of the United States. Attorneys’ fees are not available to the 

U.S. plaintiff in this declaratory judgment action, since it would be 

initiated by a U.S. author, reporter or publisher. 

In addition, the Committee bill, as reported, protects Internet 

service providers (defined as providers of ‘‘interactive computer 

service’’ under section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934) 20

from libel litigation stemming from the content published on its 

network. The bill also includes an important provision to ensure 

that a U.S. party’s appearance in a foreign court to contest a libel 

lawsuit does not bar that party from opposing domestic enforcement of the judgment as provided by this legislation. Further, the 

bill provides for removal to Federal court of any enforcement action 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
5 

brought in State domestic court, where the foreign defamation 

judgment meets certain diversity requirements. 

Finally, the Committee bill, as reported, provides further that it 

is the ‘‘sense of Congress’’ that for the purposes of pleading a cause 

of action for a declaratory judgment, a foreign judgment for defamation constitutes a ‘‘case of actual controversy’’ under section 

2201(a) of title 28, United States Code. This provision pertains to 

a jurisdictional requirement of Article III of the Constitution requiring a case or actual controversy. 

II. HISTORY OF THE BILL AND COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION 

On June 9, 2009, Representative Cohen introduced H.R. 2765. 

The bill was referred to the House of Representatives Committee 

on the Judiciary, which reported it favorably by voice vote. On 

June 15, 2009, the bill passed the House of Representatives, as 

amended, by voice vote. The bill was then sent to the Senate, 

where it was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. A full history of the House Judiciary Committee’s consideration of H.R. 

2765, including related hearings, can be found in House of Representatives Report 111–154. 

On February 23, 2010, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

held a hearing on ‘‘Are Foreign Libel Lawsuits Chilling Americans’ 

First Amendment Rights?’’. This hearing was chaired by Senator 

Leahy. The following witnesses testified: Bruce Brown, Partner at 

Baker & Hostetler LLP; and Kurt Wimmer, Partner at Covington 

& Burling LLP. The following materials were submitted for the 

Record: statement of Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, Director of American 

Center for Democracy; statement of the American Civil Liberties 

Union; statement of Doug Rendleman, Huntley Professor Of Law 

at Washington and Lee Law School; letter from Lynne E. Bradley, 

Director of Government Relations, American Library Association; 

and an article authored by Robert D. Rachlin, Lecturer, Vermont 

Law School, entitled The Sedition Act of 1798 and the East-West 

Political Divide in Vermont. 

On June 22, 2010, Chairman Leahy introduced the SPEECH Act, 

S. 3518, which is cosponsored by Senator Sessions, Senator Specter, Senator Schumer, Senator Lieberman, and Senator Kaufman. 

This bill was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. The following persons or groups submitted letters of support for the 

SPEECH Act: Michael B. Mukasey, former Attorney General; R 

James Woolsey, former Director, Central Intelligence Agency; Allan 

Adler, Vice President for Government and Legal Affairs, Association of American Publishers; Corey Williams, Associate Director, 

American Library Association; Marti Fiske, President, Vermont Library Association; Lucy Dalglish, Executive Director, Reporters 

Committee for Freedom of the Press; Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, Director, American Center for Democracy; Markham Erickson, Executive 

Director, NetCoalition; Daniel Kornstein, Partner at Kornstein, 

Veisz, Wexler & Pollard; and Floyd Abrams, of Cahill Gordon and 

Reindel LLP. 

On July 13, 2010, the Committee on the Judiciary considered 

H.R. 2765. One amendment was considered during this debate. 

Senator Leahy offered a substitute amendment, which was adopted 

by unanimous consent. That amendment contained the full text of 

the SPEECH Act. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
6 

The Committee then voted to report H.R. 2765, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute, favorably to the Senate by voice 

vote. 

III. SECTION-BY-SECTION SUMMARY OF THE BILL

Section 1. Short title 

This section provides that the legislation may be cited as the ‘‘Securing the Protection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage Act’’ or the ‘‘SPEECH Act’’. 

Section 2. Findings 

This section contains congressional findings about the scope of 

the problem known as libel tourism. 

Section 3. Recognition of foreign defamation judgments 

Subsection (a). This subsection creates a new Chapter 181 in 

Part VI of title 28, United States Code, as follows— 

Sec. 4101 provides definitions. 

Sec. 4102 outlines circumstances under which domestic courts 

should not recognize a foreign defamation judgment. Specifically, 

this includes (1) First Amendment considerations, and the applicable burden of proof; (2) jurisdictional considerations, and the applicable burden of proof; (3) treatment of judgments against interactive computer services, and the applicable burden of proof; (4) 

treatment of appearances in foreign courts; and (5) rules of statutory construction. 

Sec. 4103 provides grounds for removal of an enforcement action 

brought in a State domestic court to a United States District Court. 

Sec. 4104 provides a cause of action for any United States person 

to obtain a declaratory judgment stating that a foreign defamation 

judgment entered against that person is repugnant to the Constitution or laws of the United States, where the foreign judgment 

would not be enforceable under the criteria provided in section 

4102. This section also addresses the applicable burden of proof, 

and provides criteria for nationwide service of process. 

Sec. 4105 provides that any party opposing enforcement of the 

foreign defamation judgment who prevails in a domestic court may 

recover a reasonable attorney’s fee. 

Subsection (b). This subsection provides that it is the ‘‘sense of 

congress’’ that for the purposes of pleading a cause of action for a 

declaratory judgment, a foreign judgment for defamation constitutes a ‘‘case of actual controversy’’ under section 22012(a) of 

title 28, United States Code. 

Subsection (c). This subsection provides technical and conforming 

amendments. 

IV. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

The Committee sets forth, with respect to the bill, H.R. 2765, the 

following estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of the 

Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional 

Budget Act of 1974: 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
7 

JULY 19, 2010. 

Hon. PATRICK J. LEAHY, 

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, 

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2765, the Securing the 

Protection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage Act. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Martin von Gnechten. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS W. ELMENDORF. 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 2765—Securing the Protection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage Act 

H.R. 2765 would prohibit U.S. district and state courts from enforcing foreign defamation judgments that are inconsistent with 

Constitutional protections and certain telecommunications laws. In 

general, foreign courts do not have jurisdiction over the United 

States, and U.S. courts would not recognize a foreign judgment 

against the United States. (Under the Federal Tort Claims Act, the 

federal government waived its sovereign immunity and consented 

to being sued in federal courts only in particular cases). Therefore, 

CBO estimates that H.R. 2765 would have no significant effect on 

the federal budget. Because the legislation would not affect direct 

spending or revenues, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply. 

H.R. 2765 contains an intergovernmental mandate as defined in 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) because it would preempt state laws related to foreign judgments. CBO estimates that 

state courts would incur no significant costs to comply with the 

preemption; therefore, the costs of the mandate would not exceed 

the annual threshold established in UMRA for intergovernmental 

mandates ($70 million in 2010, adjusted for inflation). 

H.R. 2765 would impose private-sector mandates as defined in 

UMRA on individuals seeking to have certain foreign defamation 

judgments enforced in the United States. New requirements on 

those individuals would limit an existing right to recover damages 

and direct them to reimburse attorney’s fees in the event a domestic court does not uphold a foreign judgment. The cost of the mandate would be the net value of forgone awards and settlements in 

such claims and any fees paid to opposing parties. Based on information about foreign defamation cases, CBO expects that the cost 

of the mandates would fall below the annual threshold established 

in UMRA for private-sector mandates ($141 million in 2010, adjusted annually for inflation). 

On June 12, 2009, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for H.R. 

2765, a bill 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, as ordered reported by the House Committee on the 

Judiciary on June 10, 2009. The two versions of the legislation are 

similar, and the CBO cost estimates are the same. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
8 

The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Martin von 

Gnechten (for federal costs) and Marin Randall (for the private-sector impact). This estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy 

Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

V. REGULATORY IMPACT EVALUATION

In compliance with rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee finds that no significant regulatory impact will 

result from the enactment of H.R. 2765. 

VI. CONCLUSION

The SPEECH Act will ensure that no domestic court can be used 

to diminish the First Amendment rights of American authors, reporters and publishers by enforcing a foreign libel judgment that 

is inconsistent with U.S. law. Moreover, the bill provides a new affirmative cause of action for any U.S. citizen who is the victim of 

a foreign defamation judgment that is inconsistent with the First 

Amendment or the due process guarantees of the U.S. Constitution. 

This bill will prevent the chilling of American free speech that is 

the inevitable result of these foreign libel lawsuits. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
(9) 

VII. ADDITIONAL VIEWS

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR KYL 

The complementary freedoms of speech and the press enshrined 

by our founding fathers in the First Amendment are cornerstones 

of American society. As Thomas Jefferson famously said, ‘‘Our liberty cannot be guarded but by the freedom of the press, nor that 

be limited without danger of losing it.’’ The importance of these 

freedoms has not diminished with time. 

Regrettably, many other countries place lesser value on free expression and do not provide the strong legal protection for speech 

and the press that exists in the United States. These nations’ judicial systems have, in many instances, become home to a practice 

known as ‘‘libel tourism,’’ which occurs when an individual brings 

a libel or defamation suit against an American in a country with 

less protective free speech laws. Plaintiffs are increasingly engaging in global forum shopping in an effort to silence journalists, authors, publishers, and others who are merely exercising their First 

Amendment rights. 

There can be no doubt that American citizens’ rights of free expression are being abridged by this practice. Indeed, some Americans are falling victim to an international race to the bottom—they 

are able to write or publish only material that would be allowed 

in countries with the weakest free speech protections. 

Although libel tourism conflicts with American values, it has 

proven to be an effective way to silence criticism. Several high profile cases illustrate how libel tourism stifles free speech, perhaps 

none better known than the case of Rachel Ehrenfeld. In 2003, Dr. 

Ehrenfeld published Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and 

How to Stop It, which detailed how Saudi billionaire Khalid bin 

Mahfouz financed terrorism. In response, bin Mahfouz and two 

members of his family filed suit against Dr. Ehrenfeld in Britain 

to take advantage of that country’s expansive libel laws. Despite 

the fact that neither the plaintiff nor the defendant was a British 

citizen, the courts permitted the case. Dr. Ehrenfeld refused to acknowledge the jurisdiction of the British court and chose not to defend the action. The British court issued a default judgment and 

ordered Dr. Ehrenfeld to pay each plaintiff £10,000 (and their accompanying legal fees), apologize, and destroy existing copies of her 

book. 

Dr. Ehrenfeld was not bin Mahfouz’s only victim. Reports indicate he has sued or threatened suit in Britain at least 33 times in 

order to silence those who have accused him of knowingly funding 

terrorism. He has taken similar legal actions in Belgium, France 

and Switzerland. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
10 

The record is clear that libel judgments can lead to the financial 

ruin of authors and severely restrict their ability to publish in the 

future. Moreover, the mere prospect of a meritless foreign libel suit 

can chill speech by deterring the publication of books and articles 

that may subject the author to financial loss and reputational 

harm. 

Libel tourism also affects publishers. In 1997, Russian oligarch 

Boris Berezovsky sued Forbes magazine in a British court for publishing an article accusing him of substantial illegal activities and 

ties to organized crime. Rather than engage in a prolonged legal 

battle, Forbes reportedly settled with Mr. Berezovsky. Subsequently, Brazil issued a warrant for Mr. Berezovsky’s arrest on 

charges of fraud and money laundering. 

Several states including New York, Illinois, California and Florida have taken action to prevent their citizens from suffering the 

penalties of foreign libel judgments; however, Federal action is necessary to ensure that all Americans are protected by the rights 

they are afforded under U.S. law. 

This bill takes important steps toward achieving this goal. First, 

the bill would protect U.S. citizens by barring the enforcement of 

baseless foreign libel judgments in the United States. It would also 

permit U.S. citizens targeted by foreign libel judgments to seek and 

obtain a declaratory judgment in U.S. court that a foreign libel 

judgment is repugnant to the Constitution or laws of the United 

States. This will help U.S. victims of libel tourism clear their 

names. Because a libel judgment can prevent an author from publishing in the future, this section is critical to protecting Americans 

from the destructive effects of libel tourism. 

Finally, the bill takes an initial step toward making practitioners 

of libel tourism financially responsible for their actions. Specifically, the bill would allow Americans to recover attorney’s fees incurred defending themselves against efforts to enforce a foreign 

libel judgment’s enforcement in the United States. 

But this bill will not, standing alone, eliminate the harm caused 

to Americans by baseless foreign libel lawsuits. After all, many 

plaintiffs never seek to enforce their judgments in the United 

States; Bin Mahfouz, for example, was content to deter publishers 

from distributing books overseas. And this law does not provide 

any recourse to Americans who have had foreign assets attached 

by a foreign court. 

We believe that the Congress needs to pass broader measures 

that permit U.S. citizens accused of libel in foreign courts to force 

their accusers to pay for legal fees incurred abroad and, in certain 

cases, additional damages. Libel tourism will continue to pose problems for Americans until those who bring foreign libel lawsuits are 

faced with the same kinds of financial risks they seek to inflict on 

others. 

We support this bill as a good first step toward addressing an 

important problem, but there is more that can, and should, be 

done. We look forward to working on additional measures to protect Americans from efforts to infringe on their free speech rights. 

JON KYL. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
11 

VIII. CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

Pursuant to paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of 

the Senate, the Committee finds no changes in existing law made 

by H.R. 2765, as ordered reported. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS