Talk:Libel tourism

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Libel tourism article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Misc

As this article is still being developed and has only recently been started, I will not immediately slap a copyright violation notice on it, but note that virtually all this articles' current contents have been lifted verbatim from the boston.com article http://www.boston.com/ae/media/articles/2006/11/07/libel_tourism_and_the_war_on_terror/

Please substantially rewrite this article without delay. -- Arwel (talk) 01:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to whoever removed my sig from the article: I plead guilty to newbie-ism! The original stub was nowhere near plagiaristic, IMO. I'll try to flesh it out later, but it would be best if someone with actual legal knowledge had a go at it. --The Sanity Inspector 19:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added another source and some more material, but still needs expansion. Elizmr 23:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arabs?

I am concerned about this sentence:

"Libel tourists" have beome a source of significant source of profit for the English Libel Bar as many wealthy, non-UK-resident Arabs accused of funding terrorism have brought libel suits against authors and media outlets in the UK bringing awards against media defendents worth millions of pounds.

The only person who is cited as an example here is Mahfouz. It is perhaps more accurate to state that one wealthy non-UK-resident Arabs is responsible for many lawsuits. It also seems pretty racist; why single out wealthy Arabs for this, when this phenomenon has been around for a long time and has been used by many people who feel defamed by books or articles distributed in the UK as well as their home country (often the US). Mahfouz is the only Arab example I've heard of (though I don't doubt there are others), and I have heard about this happening with plenty of non-Arabs. csloat 00:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was paraphrasing the source in this very short stub. Please feel free to participate in editing the article and bringing in more sources. Elizmr 00:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did the source have other examples? The sentence says "many wealthy" arabs -- "many" implies a lot more than "one." If the source only cited Mr. Mahfouz, then it would be appropriate to say "one wealthy arab." I am concerned about this because this is not at all an "Arab" phenomenon. I was myself threatened with such a lawsuit by a non-Arab several years ago, and I have heard of others. It is strange that this article would single out Arabs for this claim, when there is nothing about the law that says it can only be used by Arabs. csloat 00:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IT was a short piece but I believe the plural was used for Arabs. I believe it said that Arabs and non arabs are using the British legal system to SLAPP media outlets. This particular example had to do with the author of a book on the funding of terrorism and the particular guy who came after her was Mahfouz. Let's get the article right, OK? I don't want it to sound racist. It needs to have more sources brought in. This is an important issue. Elizmr 00:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it needs more sources. If it says "arabs and non-arabs," well, that includes everyone :) I'll go ahead and take out the Arab stuff for now.--csloat 00:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I looked at the source and feel it makes more sense to quote the source directly. This brings the Arab stuff back, and it does sound like the phenomenon is especially commonly used by wealthy Arabs based on the source. I appreicate that you've had real life experience, but it would be helpful if you could bring in new sources for this stub rather. Elizmr 01:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with the direct quote in, at least until we find better sources, but I have to add that it's quite obviously racist and it seems to exaggerate the phenomenon beyond recognition. They only cite one example of an Arab doing this. If I see other articles about this topic I'll certainly work on this but it's not a priority for me; I only came here following a link you posted elsewhere. I'm still not sure this neologism deserves its own page, however; an AfD might be in order if other sources are not easily found. Again, though, it will have to wait.-csloat 02:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would show better faith to work on it rather than AFDing it. This google link shows about 12,000 hits for the phrase "libel toursim" [1] so this seems notable enough as a phrase. And there is certainly a difference between making a racist remark and pointing out a fact. If the Saudis are taking advantage of this more than others then this is a fact and to say this is not racist, it is just true. We need to get the facts here before we go around saying something is racist and whitewashing it on that basis. The intent is not to incite hate or random or specific anti-Arab acts, but only to bring attention to a phenom which might be imparing the ability of our journalists to report fairly and freely. Elizmr 02:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elizmr, you might have noticed that I didn't AfD it and said I wasnt interested in that at this time before you attacked me for bad faith. If the phrase is that prominent, surely you can find some accounts of it that don't single out a particular cultural group for vilification. What is racist here is that we have an account of one Saudi doing this and it is being described as the "Arab effect." Nobody mentioned the "British expat effect" when this was done to me by a British national living in the US (actually it was just threatened; I was never actually sued by the guy). Nobody was talking about a "yank effect" when white Americans were doing this. Liberace did this in 1959 and nobody spoke of the "gay effect." Don King did it a couple years ago and nobody was up in arms about the "black effect." With the source used, I don't see any evidence of an "Arab effect" -- just one Arab who was pissed off at being called a terrorist. I agree that this poses a problem for journalists who want to report on terrorism issues (especially if the guy actually is a terrorist), but I'm not sure that it's a bigger problem there than for other issues where people must be called out on criminal activity.--csloat 09:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you even brought up an AFD is a little bad faith-y, but whatever. I didn't write the article, I'm just quoting it. Why don't you read the cited piece or work on the article instead of being dismissive that this is actually a problem. Elizmr 15:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WTF? I come here to help out with this page and you accuse me of bad faith. Anyway, putting up an article for AfD that should be deleted is not bad faith, it is wikipedia policy. Why don't you read the arguments I presented above? Why is this more a problem than Liberace doing it? I did some research and only found evidence of two Arabs doing this. Just forget it, ok?csloat 20:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll forget it. Sorry to offend. And I didn't say it was more a problem that this guy did it than someone else. I was just quoting an article I read. Please AGF. Elizmr 20:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC) By the way, I'm not sure you noticed that I had already shortened the quote earlier today to take the bit about Arabs OUT per your concern. Elizmr 20:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been AGF'ing; my problem arose when you accused me of bad faith. I think the quote is fine as it is -- actually, I didn't object to leaving the Arab effect part in earlier either; I just pointed out that it was racist. I wasn't saying you were racist or that this article was racist, just that the argument was -- I recognize that you were not endorsing the argument. (And, actually, "racist" is the wrong word, since "Arab" is a language, not a race -- I suppose "culturally bigoted" might be more appropriate). No reason for either of us to continue taking offense at this :) csloat 22:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, really, I did take out the "Arab effect" sentence on the strength of your comment above and legal expertise. If it is overstating the case, it shouldn't be in the article. And sorry to be jumpy about AFD--sometimes people just AFD articles on Wikipedia if they don't like the topics. I'm not saying you were doing that, but I'm a bit battle scarred so when you mentioned afd I got twitchy. :=) Elizmr 23:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.dailyestimate.com/article.asp?id=9957 contains a summary

Richard Perle?

Why was that bit deleted? I included the source and everything.

Sorry, I thought that a "threatened" suit probably didn't warrant mention. If you strongly disagree, go ahead and put it back. Elizmr 20:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Outside of the United States, truth is not a defense against allegations of defamation.'

Really? According to article Libel, in English law:

'The allowable defences against libel are:

Justification: the defendant proves that the statement was true. ...'

Passingtramp (talk) 00:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've received no reply, so have removed the sentence. Passingtramp (talk) 23:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article from The Economist "Libel tourism" to be included in article

Article from The Economist "Libel tourism - Are English courts stifling free speech around the world?"[2]MaxPont (talk) 18:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the advantage of libel tourism?

The only time this article mentions libel suits from one country affecting another is in the Proposed US Legislation section, which says that "the bill would bar U.S. courts from enforcing libel judgments issued in foreign courts against U.S. residents".

This seems like a bizarre position to me. Since when has a ruling in one independent country also applied in another (specific agreements like extradition aside)? The article won't make much sense until this is explained.

It also needs to provide more context than the US and UK: is the problem that the UK is too restrictive, or that the US is too lax? A better idea of the global baseline could help the reader answer this. --Tom Edwards (talk) 12:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated sources

The source for footnote 16 does redirects to the homepage of the NY governor. I don't want to eliminate the footnote, but it doesn't work right now. ConDissenter (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've marked that source as a dead link; unfortunately, there's no copy on the Internet Archive. It's possible that it can be repaired later by a bit of judicious searching. Wingman4l7 (talk) 00:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Libel tourism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100129204027/http://www.state.ny.us:80/governor/press/press_0501082.html to http://www.state.ny.us/governor/press/press_0501082.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Libel tourism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:49, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]