When the National Enquirer ran a scandalous story alleging that Cameron Diaz had cheated on then-boyfriend Justin Timberlake in 2005, the actress sued the American Media publication in England -- where the article only appeared online, on the tabloid's American-based website, and had 279 hits before it was removed.
Diaz is only one of a number of high-profile Americans who in recent years have opted to file libel or invasion-of-privacy lawsuits in the U.K. because libel laws there are less stringent.
It was the issue at hand Monday evening at "Why Hollywood Celebrities Flock to the U.K. Courts," a Variety-sponsored panel at the Paley Center in Beverly Hills to discuss the differences in the ways defamation and privacy cases are dealt with in the respective regions.
Both the U.K. and the U.S. agree that they should protect people's reputations. But in the U.K., the burden of proof rests on the publisher, while in the U.S., that onus is reversed -- defendants must show that they are reasonably identified in the publication, that the publisher had a reckless disregard for the truth, that the statement made is truly defamatory and that there is damage as a result of that defamation.
In addition, in the U.S., public figures -- such as celebrities, politicians or business leaders -- have a harder time winning libel suits. They are considered by the courts to be fair game for the media because of their greater access to counter speech than regular people.
The U.K. welcomes U.S. citizens who want to sue for libel, allowing them to make claim against U.S. publications which have any sort of distribution in the U.K. -- be it in a blurb on a single web page or in a book or newspaper that is sold in the U.K., even if it’s a paper like USA Today or the New York Times.
"The U.K. is regarded as a safe haven for people to prosecute libel action," said Paul Tweed, a leading U.K. libel lawyer who has represented Britney Spears and Jennifer Lopez in the British court system. "U.K. courts are attempting to ensure fair and balanced reporting with both points of view included in the article," he said, implying that the U.S. media does not always present all sides of the story.
Andrew Thomas, First Amendment lawyer who has represented TV networks and movie studios, disagreed. He said there are greater dangers in imposing “balanced” limits on the media. "In framing the Constitution, there was a recognition that if you're going to have uninhibited debate about public issues, you have to tolerate a certain amount of error," he said.
Other than the burden of proof being on the litigant, there are a variety of reasons attorneys might refer their clients to the British courts, said Lynda Goldman, a partner with Lavely & Singer who has represented Diaz, Vince Vaughn and Lisa Marie Presley, among others.
In England, there are no depositions; so if a public figure "is not excited about spending days in depositions, that can be a positive thing," she said.
