🚀 go-pugleaf

> >> >If the defamer is in America, you'd have to sue them here, would you
not?
> >>
> >> No.
> >
> >Our courts generally won't enforce a judgment obtained overseas due to
the
> >First Amendment.
> >
> >If I'm wrong, correct me.
>
> Okay - this will make it a little easier for you. I am certainly not
> an expert on American law, but roughly speaking it works like this.
> The first amendment, which it appears that you have never read or have
> completely forgotten, states: "Congress shall make no law respecting
> an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
> thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
> right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
> government for a redress of grievances".
>
> Notice that it deals only with interference by the *state* (through
> Acts of Congress) in the exercise of freedom of speech. For reasons I
> am not even going to begin to try to explain, "state" has been
> interpreted increasingly broadly by the American courts. The right to
> free speech acquired under the FA has been recognised by the courts as
> being subject to American defamation law, which law is inherited
> directly from English common law. The FA also allows for the state to
> prohibit other types of speech.  In American terms, you would say (as
> things presently stand in the US) that <<protected speech does not
> include defamatory or obscene speech or harassing speech>> (I have no
> idea how or if "harassing" is strictly defined in this context, but as
> far as I can tell from reading US judgments, it is interpreted
> broadly).
>
> If you have followed it so far, I will add a little more detail in
> respect of defamation. US case law has interpreted the FA to give the
> state the power to punish certain classes of "disfavoured speech",
> which are not constitutionally protected, such as obscene speech and
> defamatory speech and harassing speech. While the FA does not prohibit
> the state from regulating obscene, harassing or defamatory speech, its
> power to do so is normally only exercisable ex post in that it has the
> power to punish after the event but only in limited circumstances does
> it have the power to restrain ex ante (prior restraint). It would
> therefore normally be unconstitutional for the *state* to punish, for
> example, political speech (which is constitutionally protected), but
> *not* unconstitutional for it to punish obscene or defamatory speech
> or other disfavoured speech. It would normally be unconstitutional for
> the state to restrain ex ante either favoured or disfavoured speech,
> subject to certain exceptions. It is not unconstitutional for an actor
> *not* the state (eg. a private company) either to exercise restraint
> ex ante or to punish ex post (eg. by firing an employee), subject to
> such action being otherwise lawful.
>
> Having said that, there have of course been celebrated cases in which
> the US courts have declined to enforce foreign judgments. Most of
> these have nothing to do with teh FA, since most judgments (foreign or
> otherwise0 have nothing to do with freedom of speech.
>
> It really is not for me to explain your country's law to you, first
> because I have not had any formal training in American law and
> secondly because I happen to think that in this particular area it is
> in a complete mess and hard for anyone to explain, much less justify.

Right, and my position was that UK libel judgments are not enforced in the
US because of the first amendment.

Please cite for me a UK libel judgment which was.