•  
  •  
 

Abstract

A libelplaintiffsued an American defendant in aforeign nation where he took advantage ofplaintiff-favoring defamation Law to obtain a heftyjudgment. He brings this judgment to the defendant's state in the United States to collect from her bank account. The defendant 's state's court could not have entered the plaint /ffs judgment because offirst-Amendment doctrines that stem from New York Times v. Sullivan. How should the U.S. court respond to the "libel tourist" and his judgment? This succinct Article summarizes the tangled tale that emerges. Invoking the First Amendment under a public-policy exception to comity, U.S. courts have rejectedforeign-nation defamation judgments. State legislation has buttressed these decisions. Bills have been introduced in Congress to repel these judgments at the water's edge. Against this tide, the following Article maintains that courts in the United States ought to take a more cautious and nuanced approach and recognize at least some overseas defamation judgments.

Included in

Jurisdiction Commons

Share

COinS
 

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.