It particularly refers to the practice of pursuing a case in England and Wales, in preference to other jurisdictions, such as the United States, which provide more extensive defenses for those accused of making derogatory statements.
[1] A critic of English defamation law, journalist Geoffrey Wheatcroft attributes the practice to the introduction of no win no fee agreements, the presumption that derogatory statements are false, the difficulty of establishing fair comment and "the caprice of juries and the malice of judges.
In 2000, the House of Lords gave Boris Berezovsky and Nikolai Glushkov permission to sue Forbes for libel in the English courts.
[14] Ehrenfeld was advised by English lawyer Mark Stephens to claim that the suit in England violated her First Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution and chose not to defend the action.
[citation needed] Instead, she countersued in the U.S.[15] In his 2005 judgment, Justice Eady criticised Dr. Ehrenfeld for attempting to cash in on the libel action without being prepared to defend it on its merits and specifically rebutted her suggestion of forum shopping.
Eady ruled that Ehrenfeld should pay £10,000 to each claimant plus costs, apologize for false allegations and destroy existing copies of her book.
The advent of the internet and the international distribution of foreign media also create the danger that a State party's unduly restrictive libel law will affect freedom of expression worldwide on matters of valid public interest.
On 13 January 2008, two members of the New York State Legislature, Assemblyman Rory I. Lancman (D-Queens) and Senator Dean Skelos (R-LI), introduced a "Libel Terrorism Protection Act" in both legislative houses (bills no.