In the Senate of the United States, 
July 19, 2010. 
Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representa-
tives (H.R. 2765) entitled ‘‘An Act to amend title 28, United 
States Code, to prohibit recognition and enforcement of for-
eign defamation judgments and certain foreign judgments 
against the providers of interactive computer services.’’, do 
pass with the following 
AMENDMENT: 
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert: 
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Securing the Protection 
of our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage 
Act’’ or the ‘‘SPEECH Act’’. 
SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 
Congress finds the following: 
(1) The freedom of speech and the press is en-
shrined in the first amendment to the Constitution, 
and is necessary to promote the vigorous dialogue nec-
† HR 2765 EAS 
essary to shape public policy in a representative de-
mocracy. 
(2) Some persons are obstructing the free expres-
sion rights of United States authors and publishers, 
and in turn chilling the first amendment to the Con-
stitution of the United States interest of the citizenry 
in receiving information on matters of importance, by 
seeking out foreign jurisdictions that do not provide 
the full extent of free-speech protections to authors 
and publishers that are available in the United 
States, and suing a United States author or publisher 
in that foreign jurisdiction. 
(3) These foreign defamation lawsuits not only 
suppress the free speech rights of the defendants to the 
suit, but inhibit other written speech that might oth-
erwise have been written or published but for the fear 
of a foreign lawsuit. 
(4) The threat of the libel laws of some foreign 
countries is so dramatic that the United Nations 
Human Rights Committee examined the issue and in-
dicated that in some instances the law of libel has 
served to discourage critical media reporting on mat-
ters of serious public interest, adversely affecting the 
ability of scholars and journalists to publish their 
work. The advent of the internet and the inter-
† HR 2765 EAS 
national distribution of foreign media also create the 
danger that one country’s unduly restrictive libel law 
will affect freedom of expression worldwide on matters 
of valid public interest. 
(5) Governments and courts of foreign countries 
scattered around the world have failed to curtail this 
practice of permitting libel lawsuits against United 
States persons within their courts, and foreign libel 
judgments inconsistent with United States first 
amendment protections are increasingly common. 
SEC. 3. RECOGNITION OF FOREIGN DEFAMATION JUDG-
MENTS. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—Part VI of title 28, United States 
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘CHAPTER 181—FOREIGN JUDGMENTS 
‘‘Sec. 
‘‘4101. Definitions. 
‘‘4102. Recognition of foreign defamation judgments. 
‘‘4103. Removal. 
‘‘4104. Declaratory judgments. 
‘‘4105. Attorney’s fees. 
‘‘§ 4101. Definitions 
‘‘In this chapter: 
‘‘(1) 
DEFAMATION.—The 
term 
‘defamation’ 
means any action or other proceeding for defamation, 
libel, slander, or similar claim alleging that forms of 
speech are false, have caused damage to reputation or 
emotional distress, have presented any person in a
† HR 2765 EAS 
false light, or have resulted in criticism, dishonor, or 
condemnation of any person. 
‘‘(2) DOMESTIC
COURT.—The term ‘domestic 
court’ means a Federal court or a court of any State. 
‘‘(3) FOREIGN COURT.—The term ‘foreign court’ 
means a court, administrative body, or other tribunal 
of a foreign country. 
‘‘(4) FOREIGN
JUDGMENT.—The term ‘foreign 
judgment’ means a final judgment rendered by a for-
eign court. 
‘‘(5) STATE.—The term ‘State’ means each of the 
several States, the District of Columbia, and any 
commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United 
States. 
‘‘(6) 
UNITED
STATES
PERSON.—The 
term 
‘United States person’ means— 
‘‘(A) a United States citizen; 
‘‘(B) an alien lawfully admitted for perma-
nent residence to the United States; 
‘‘(C) an alien lawfully residing in the 
United States at the time that the speech that is 
the subject of the foreign defamation action was 
researched, prepared, or disseminated; or
† HR 2765 EAS 
‘‘(D) a business entity incorporated in, or 
with its primary location or place of operation 
in, the United States. 
‘‘§ 4102. Recognition of foreign defamation judgments 
‘‘(a) FIRST AMENDMENT CONSIDERATIONS.— 
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other 
provision of Federal or State law, a domestic court 
shall not recognize or enforce a foreign judgment for 
defamation unless the domestic court determines 
that— 
‘‘(A) the defamation law applied in the for-
eign court’s adjudication provided at least as 
much protection for freedom of speech and press 
in that case as would be provided by the first 
amendment to the Constitution of the United 
States and by the constitution and law of the 
State in which the domestic court is located; or 
‘‘(B) even if the defamation law applied in 
the foreign court’s adjudication did not provide 
as much protection for freedom of speech and 
press as the first amendment to the Constitution 
of the United States and the constitution and 
law of the State, the party opposing recognition 
or enforcement of that foreign judgment would 
have been found liable for defamation by a do-
† HR 2765 EAS 
mestic court applying the first amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States and the con-
stitution and law of the State in which the do-
mestic court is located. 
‘‘(2) BURDEN OF ESTABLISHING APPLICATION OF 
DEFAMATION LAWS.—The party seeking recognition or 
enforcement of the foreign judgment shall bear the 
burden of making the showings required under sub-
paragraph (A) or (B). 
‘‘(b) JURISDICTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS.— 
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other 
provision of Federal or State law, a domestic court 
shall not recognize or enforce a foreign judgment for 
defamation unless the domestic court determines that 
the exercise of personal jurisdiction by the foreign 
court comported with the due process requirements 
that are imposed on domestic courts by the Constitu-
tion of the United States. 
‘‘(2) BURDEN OF ESTABLISHING EXERCISE OF 
JURISDICTION.—The party seeking recognition or en-
forcement of the foreign judgment shall bear the bur-
den of making the showing that the foreign court’s ex-
ercise of personal jurisdiction comported with the due 
process requirements that are imposed on domestic 
courts by the Constitution of the United States.
† HR 2765 EAS 
‘‘(c) JUDGMENT AGAINST PROVIDER OF INTERACTIVE 
COMPUTER SERVICE.— 
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other 
provision of Federal or State law, a domestic court 
shall not recognize or enforce a foreign judgment for 
defamation against the provider of an interactive 
computer service, as defined in section 230 of the 
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230) unless 
the domestic court determines that the judgment 
would be consistent with section 230 if the informa-
tion that is the subject of such judgment had been pro-
vided in the United States. 
‘‘(2) BURDEN
OF
ESTABLISHING
CONSISTENCY 
OF JUDGMENT.—The party seeking recognition or en-
forcement of the foreign judgment shall bear the bur-
den of establishing that the judgment is consistent 
with section 230. 
‘‘(d) APPEARANCES NOT A BAR.—An appearance by 
a party in a foreign court rendering a foreign judgment 
to which this section applies shall not deprive such party 
of the right to oppose the recognition or enforcement of the 
judgment under this section, or represent a waiver of any 
jurisdictional claims. 
‘‘(e) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this sec-
tion shall be construed to—
† HR 2765 EAS 
‘‘(1) affect the enforceability of any foreign judg-
ment other than a foreign judgment for defamation; 
or 
‘‘(2) limit the applicability of section 230 of the 
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230) to 
causes of action for defamation. 
‘‘§ 4103. Removal 
‘‘In addition to removal allowed under section 1441, 
any action brought in a State domestic court to enforce a 
foreign judgment for defamation in which— 
‘‘(1) any plaintiff is a citizen of a State different 
from any defendant; 
‘‘(2) any plaintiff is a foreign state or a citizen 
or subject of a foreign state and any defendant is a 
citizen of a State; or 
‘‘(3) any plaintiff is a citizen of a State and any 
defendant is a foreign state or citizen or subject of a 
foreign state, 
may be removed by any defendant to the district court of 
the United States for the district and division embracing 
the place where such action is pending without regard to 
the amount in controversy between the parties. 
‘‘§ 4104. Declaratory judgments 
‘‘(a) CAUSE OF ACTION.—
† HR 2765 EAS 
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Any United States person 
against whom a foreign judgment is entered on the 
basis of the content of any writing, utterance, or other 
speech by that person that has been published, may 
bring an action in district court, under section 
2201(a), for a declaration that the foreign judgment 
is repugnant to the Constitution or laws of the United 
States. For the purposes of this paragraph, a judg-
ment is repugnant to the Constitution or laws of the 
United States if it would not be enforceable under sec-
tion 4102 (a), (b), or (c). 
‘‘(2) BURDEN
OF
ESTABLISHING
UNENFORCE-
ABILITY OF JUDGMENT.—The party bringing an ac-
tion under paragraph (1) shall bear the burden of es-
tablishing that the foreign judgment would not be en-
forceable under section 4102 (a), (b), or (c). 
‘‘(b) NATIONWIDE SERVICE OF PROCESS.—Where an 
action under this section is brought in a district court of 
the United States, process may be served in the judicial dis-
trict where the case is brought or any other judicial district 
of the United States where the defendant may be found, re-
sides, has an agent, or transacts business. 
‘‘§ 4105. Attorneys’ fees 
‘‘In any action brought in a domestic court to enforce 
a foreign judgment for defamation, including any such ac-
† HR 2765 EAS 
tion removed from State court to Federal court, the domestic 
court shall, absent exceptional circumstances, allow the 
party opposing recognition or enforcement of the judgment 
a reasonable attorney’s fee if such party prevails in the ac-
tion on a ground specified in section 4102 (a), (b), or (c).’’. 
(b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the Sense of the Con-
gress that for the purpose of pleading a cause of action for 
a declaratory judgment, a foreign judgment for defamation 
or any similar offense as described under chapter 181 of 
title 28, United States Code, (as added by this Act) shall 
constitute a case of actual controversy under section 
2201(a) of title 28, United States Code. 
(c) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The 
table of chapters for part VI of title 28, United States Code, 
is amended by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘181. Foreign judgments ...................................................................... 4101.’’. 
Attest: 
Secretary.