Actually, the “Sword and Shield” criticism of the House bill is not all that relevant. California and other states have had Anti-SLAPP (“Suits Lodged Against Public Participation”) laws for years, and they really do discourage a lot of the frivolous libel/disparagement claims. Under an Anti-SLAPP statute, when you face a libel claim for exercising expressing yourself within NYT v. Sullivan, you basically counterclaim for your attorney’s time plus some measure of damages.
Since you can’t “defend” the foreign suit in a U.S. Court, the House bill seems to be aimed at letting you bring the counterclaim for whatever damages some sleazy British court awards, plus your attorney’s fees and some measure of Anti-SLAPP damages. I’m no fan of the Dems who introduced the bill, but if it’s a clean version of a foreign judgment Anti-SLAPP, it will do wonders to protect Americans overseas to the same extent they are protected here.
I may be wrong, but I don’t see the bill as a bad thing.
