{
  "id": "R41417",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "R41417",
  "active": true,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 370598,
      "date": "2010-09-16",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-06T22:14:54.689141",
      "title": "The SPEECH Act: The Federal Response to \u201cLibel Tourism\u201d",
      "summary": "The 111th Congress considered several bills addressing \u201clibel tourism,\u201d the phenomenon of litigants bringing libel suits in foreign jurisdictions so as to benefit from plaintiff-friendly libel laws. Several U.S. states have also responded to libel tourism by enacting statutes that restrict enforcement of foreign libel judgments. On August 10, 2010, President Barack Obama signed into law the Securing the Protection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage Act (SPEECH Act), P.L. 111-223, codified at 28 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 4101-4105, which bars U.S. courts, both state and federal, from recognizing or enforcing a foreign judgment for defamation unless certain requirements, including consistency with the U.S. Constitution and section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. \u00a7 230), are satisfied.\nAlthough the SPEECH Act does not have an express preemption provision, it appears designed to preempt state laws on foreign libel judgments. It explicitly applies to all \u201cdomestic\u201d courts, which it defines to include state courts notwithstanding contrary state law. Moreover, its legislative history suggests that Congress perceived a need for, and understood the SPEECH Act as establishing, a single uniform approach to the problem of foreign libel judgments against U.S. persons.\nThe SPEECH Act may, however, implicate aspects of international comity. One concern is that foreign countries may opt to decline to enforce U.S. libel judgments or become less receptive to calls for enforcement of U.S. judgments in legal areas in which U.S. law is perceived as relatively friendly to plaintiffs.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": true,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R41417",
          "sha1": "b48d9d28774bf0088793b5f8183187a0f1643063",
          "filename": "files/20100916_R41417_b48d9d28774bf0088793b5f8183187a0f1643063.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R41417",
          "sha1": "c0472614076a7a4f279a42e907871b65871d82bf",
          "filename": "files/20100916_R41417_c0472614076a7a4f279a42e907871b65871d82bf.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Constitutional Questions",
    "Foreign Affairs",
    "Intelligence and National Security"
  ]
}