Last fall our piece about Britain’s outrageous libel laws (Can’t Sue for Libel in US? Take Your Beef to Britain, Libel Capital of the World) got a lot of attention, and perhaps some of the howls of horror it provoked were heard across the pond. “Embarrassed by London’s reputation as ‘a town called sue’ and by unusually stinging criticisms in American courts and legislatures,” writes New York Times‘s sarah Lyall, “British lawmakers are seriously considering rewriting England’s 19th-century libel laws.”

What the beef? “English libel law is the opposite of America’s in many ways,” says Lyall. “In the United States, the plaintiff, or accuser, must prove that the statement in question was false; public officials must also prove that it was made maliciously, with ‘reckless disregard’ for the truth.” Whereas in England, “the burden of proof rests on the defendant, whose statements are presumed false and who has to establish that they are true.”

As a result, authors and publishers have been intimidated from writing anything that might get them hauled into a British court. In one case a handful of copies of an American book made their way into England but that was enough to get the author sued. The costs alone can be ruinous, and damages? Don’t ask! “A protracted case could bankrupt an organization,” said one victim. “Even if a plaintiff is completely in the wrong, they could break you.”

Feel your blood boiling? There’s now hope: read Britain, Long a Libel Mecca, Reviews Laws by Sarah Lyall.

Richard Curtis

Every Blogger owes a debt of gratitude to newspapers and magazines. This posting relies on original research and reporting performed by the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times.