Though this is true about the UK, Canada’s libel laws are worse. Not only, as in the UK, do we have reverse onus laws for libel, and not only does the plaintiff not have to prove damages in order to receive an award, we also lack a clear defense for the criticism of public figures. The UK at least has the Reynolds defense which allows for that.

Google “wayne crookes” to pick up on the risk in Canada.

Kudos to the New York Times for the finally explaining how foreign libel suits are undermining First Amendment protections in the United States.

As a New York author whose work on international terrorism has been chilled by one such libel tourist, Khalid bin Mahfouz, I want to clarify some aspects which are misrepresented in the article.

The NYT writes that Mahfouz �won damages� against me in England, which could be interpreted to mean that he achieved victory in an adversarial process. In fact, Mahfouz received a default judgment against me because I chose on principle not to defend myself in England, where my book was never published and where I would not have received the equivalent of First Amendment protections.

Donadio also states, in the paragraph following the description of Mahfouz�s lawsuits against me and others, that �[i]n each case, defendants have paid settlements before trial.� I have neither apologized nor paid any settlements to Mahfouz.

Instead, I have sued Mahfouz in New York for a declaratory judgment that his English judgment is unenforceable here and that he could not prevail on a libel claim against me in New York.

As far as I know, I am the only author who has taken affirmative legal action against Mahfouz. On November 15, 2007, the New York Court of Appeals will hear oral argument on whether a New York court has jurisdiction over Mahfouz in my case.