<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704376704574606172532355510.ht...

The Wall Street Journal OPINION: INFORMATION AGE DECEMBER 20, 2009, 8:16 P.M. ET A Town Called Sue London doesn't want to be a destination for 'libel tourism.' By L. GORDON CROVITZ For hundreds of years, England chose the protection of people's reputations over encouraging free speech. After little more than a decade, the Internet is about to defeat ancient tradition. Chalk up another revolution to the Web. Members of Parliament plan changes to ancient libel laws in response to London's having become the preferred venue for litigious Saudi bankers, Russian oligarchs, squabbling academics and American celebrities. The plaintiffs are increasingly authors and bloggers who are more sympathetic than the big-media defendants of past years. Justice Secretary Jack Straw says he'd like to stop "libel tourism," while giving people in England more of the free speech that the Web enables. In the U.S., plaintiffs have to prove statements about them are false, and public figures must prove reckless disregard for the truth. In England, defendants have the burden of proof, with statements presumed to be false. Plaintiffs from around the world sue in England based on the fact that Web sites can be viewed anywhere, including there, even if few Brits read the alleged libel or care about the plaintiff's reputation. One proposed reform is that 10% of the readers of an article must be in England to justify a lawsuit. England's speech-chilling libel law grew out of an earlier technological revolution. The invention of the printing press caused the king and his advisers to fear popular opinion. Manuscripts once written for limited circulation gave way to pamphlets and mass newspapers. In 17th-century England, the Court of the Star Chamber targeted political speech, with criticism of the government viewed as an offense. Truth was no defense. Indeed, a maxim was that "the greater the truth, the greater the libel." Americans preferred free speech. In 1735, a New York City jury acquitted newspaper publisher John Peter Zenger, who'd been charged with seditious libel for criticizing the English governor. The jury established that in the colonies, truth was a defense against libel charges. Although England eventually recognized truth as a defense, it retained the balance in favor of protecting reputations at the cost of discouraging robust debate. Lawyers now joke that London has become "A Town Called Sue." Litigants may have only a most tenuous connection to England. For example, a Boston company sued a British cardiologist in London for criticism he made at a U.S. conference about the clinical trials of a device used in heart surgery. An article about the criticism was posted on an American medical news site accessible from England. As one critic put it, "An English scientist gives an interview in America to a Canadian journalist and an American online magazine about an American company and ends up getting sued in London. If he loses he will be bankrupt." An Icelandic businessman used London courts to sue an Icelandic academic for comments he'd posted on the University of Iceland's Web site. A Ukrainian businessman sued in England against a Ukrainian- language, Ukraine-based online news site. A Tunisian successfully used English courts to sue an Arabic-language television network based in Dubai that could be viewed via satellite in Britain. Some high-profile cases have been brought by people accused of bankrolling terrorists. American author Rachel Ehrenfeld sold just 23 copies in England of a book called "Funding Evil," which accused a Saudi banker of channeling money to al Qaeda. He sued. Ms. Ehrenfeld refused to acknowledge the court's jurisdiction. The court entered a default judgment against her. New York state responded with a law making it hard to enforce English libel judgments. But centuries of jurisprudence can't hold back the power of the Web to alter the balance between free expression and reputation. In a world of global real-time communication, England sees it is harming itself by suppressing the free flow of information. Science writer Simon Singh, author of "Fermat's Enigma," was sued by the British Chiropractic Association for an opinion article he wrote last year describing chiropractic remedies for asthma and ear infections as "bogus." To Americans, this sounds like the usual back- and-forth of opinion. But English courts have told Mr. Singh that he'll lose the case unless he can prove that the chiropractic industry association was deliberately dishonest. Editors of medical journals in England told Parliament that they fear being sued if they publish studies that criticize earlier research. It is true that American law makes it hard to protect reputations. But the Web, with its instantaneous global publishing, provides a balance, allowing more voices to be heard, including those of aggrieved parties. The Web has become the ultimate court of public opinion, where reputations can be attacked but also defended and rehabilitated. Libel law makes judges the arbiters. On the Web, we're the arbiters.