The Guardian has an interesting piece on the debate now ongoing in the UK over the issue of British libel laws. The piece mentions, as it must, the fact the two American states have passed laws—and the US Congress is considering a new law—to stop the implementation of libel judgments from British courts against Americans if those judgments run contrary to constitutional guarantees of free speech. The poster child for the US is the case of the Bin Mahfouz suit against author Rachel Ehrenfeld. The discussion in the comments to the piece are worth reading, too.

Destination libel
Is the fear of legal action creating a chilling effect for investigative journalism? Campaigners want British laws changed so libel tourists stay away
Afua Hirsch

As the row over the salaries of onscreen talent made headlines last week, the BBC quietly came to an out-of-court settlement with one of the UK’s best-known fertility doctors. The case received little attention and yet goes to the heart of an important battle over libel in this country.

The BBC faces a payout of about £1m after agreeing to settle a libel action brought by Dr Mohammed Taranissi over a Panorama programme, IVF Undercover, broadcast in January 2007. Taranissi claimed the report, which relied on undercover filming at his Assisted Reproduction and Gynaecology Centre clinic, made defamatory allegations about his controversial but effective techniques. The claim was vigorously defended by the BBC, which initially argued the documentary represented responsible journalism acting in the public interest, before withdrawing that defence citing the “hazards” of protecting confidential sources.
…