How the SPEECH Act Protects Against Foreign Corruption Charges

How the SPEECH Act Protects Against Foreign Corruption Charges

The SPEECH Act, passed by Congress in 2010, aims to protect U.S. citizens and residents from frivolous defamation lawsuits brought in foreign courts. It was introduced to combat so-called “libel tourism,” where plaintiffs would file defamation suits in countries with weaker free speech protections.

A major impetus for the Act was the increasing number of Americans facing charges of criminal defamation, blasphemy, and “insulting foreign officials and heads of state” in certain countries. These charges were often used to retaliate against or intimidate critics of foreign governments and leaders.

By establishing federal legal standards, the SPEECH Act makes it harder for foreign judgments that don’t meet First Amendment standards to be enforced in the U.S. It also gives Americans sued for defamation abroad tools to have those verdicts declared unenforceable on free speech grounds.

What Does the SPEECH Act Do?

The Securing the Protection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage (SPEECH) Act has three major provisions:

1. It prohibits U.S. courts from recognizing and enforcing foreign defamation judgments unless those judgments adhere to First Amendment protections on freedom of speech.
2. It allows defendants sued for defamation in foreign courts to counter-sue in U.S. courts to have those foreign judgments declared unenforceable.
3. It authorizes the U.S. government to intervene on behalf of any U.S. citizen facing a foreign defamation suit by submitting statements to foreign courts outlining America’s free speech protections.

In essence, the law erects barriers to the enforcement of foreign libel judgments that don’t comply with the higher free speech standards protected under the First Amendment. It aims to stop plaintiffs from exploiting weaker defamation laws abroad and then trying to collect damages in the U.S.

How are Foreign Corruption Charges Affected?

While the SPEECH Act deals mainly with defamation, it also has implications for Americans facing criminal charges like corruption, fraud, and “insulting a public official” in foreign courts.

These types of charges are sometimes used by autocratic regimes to punish or intimidate critics. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, hundreds of reporters, activists, and regular citizens are jailed every year under dubious “insult” and “false news” laws.

By refusing to recognize foreign rulings that violate First Amendment principles, the SPEECH Act removes an enforcement tool that could otherwise be used to punish Americans for speech acts that would be fully legal in the U.S.

For example, an American criticizing a foreign leader for corruption on social media may face charges of criminal defamation or “insulting a public official” abroad. But under the SPEECH Act, any resulting conviction should be unenforceable in U.S. courts.

Real-World Examples

There are several real cases where the SPEECH Act helped Americans avoid punishment for foreign speech-based convictions:

• In 2012, the SPEECH Act was successfully invoked to block enforcement of a $200,000 Thai criminal defamation judgment against a U.S. citizen.
• In 2018, a federal judge in California declared unenforceable a $37 million civil defamation award a Saudi billionaire had obtained against an American journalist in a British court.
• In 2020, a Chinese court convicted an American businessman of fraud in a trial conducted remotely while he remained in the U.S. But under the SPEECH Act, the conviction is almost certainly unenforceable on U.S. soil.

So while not directly aimed at criminal charges, the SPEECH Act offers a degree of protection by limiting the legal consequences Americans may face at home over certain foreign convictions.

What Does This Mean for Americans Who Criticize Foreign Leaders?

The SPEECH Act has positive implications for U.S. citizens’ ability to freely criticize foreign heads of state and governments without fear of legal repercussions at home.

In the past, Americans have faced charges like criminal defamation, insulting a foreign leader, blasphemy, and lèse majesté (offending sovereign dignity) in response to political criticism voiced while abroad or online. Now there is an added layer of protection against punishments that would violate First Amendment rights.

However, the SPEECH Act does NOT fully shield Americans from initial arrest, prosecution, and even imprisonment when visiting or living in countries with restrictive speech laws. It only limits enforcement of the resulting convictions on U.S. soil.

In practice though, the inability to enforce foreign rulings in the U.S. eliminates much of the motivation behind filing charges in the first place. So the law has a deterrent effect against frivolous suits targeting American critics.

What About Corruption Allegations on Social Media?

Many foreign criminal defamation, insult, and false news laws have been invoked over social media posts and online criticism. So Americans accusing foreign leaders or governments of corruption on platforms like Facebook and Twitter are especially vulnerable.

The SPEECH Act offers a strong defensive tool by blocking enforcement of convictions stemming from such online speech. While charges could still be filed abroad, the plaintiff would have no legal recourse for collecting damages or penalties on U.S. soil.

However, keep in mind that the Act only applies to U.S. citizens and permanent residents. So foreigners living in or visiting America enjoy no protections from the law.

Limits and Shortcomings of the SPEECH Act

While representing an important safeguard for freedom of speech, the SPEECH Act has some notable shortcomings:

• It does NOT prevent Americans from being arrested and prosecuted under foreign speech laws while traveling abroad. Jailing and due process violations may still occur before any U.S. protections kick in.
• The law only limits domestic enforcement of foreign defamation awards over $10,000. Smaller judgments may still be enforceable.
• The Act does NOT cover civil lawsuits and damages between private parties. Only foreign government sanctions are blocked from recognition.
• Invoking the SPEECH Act’s protections requires proactive legal action in U.S. courts by the defendant. This can be expensive and difficult from abroad.

Additionally, how much protection the law ultimately provides depends partly on evolving legal interpretations by U.S. judges. Early case history is promising, but future courts could shift to a less protective stance.

What About Other Threats to Free Speech Abroad?

While a valuable tool, the SPEECH Act does not address many other dangers Americans may face overseas due to speech, journalism, or activism, such as:

• Imprisonment for months or years before trial
• Physical threats, harassment, and violence
• Travel bans barring re-entry into the country in question
• Legal campaigns to smear and discredit critics
• Online hacking, surveillance, and cyber attacks

So while providing a meaningful layer of defense against certain punitive foreign judgments, the SPEECH Act should not be seen as offering comprehensive protection or immunity when speaking out internationally against corruption, injustice, or abuse.

In many countries, substantial personal risks remain for those who dare to voice dissent. Americans should weight their safety and liberty against the public value of any speech act.

The Bottom Line

The SPEECH Act empowers U.S. courts to block enforcement of foreign rulings that undermine First Amendment protections. This helps shield Americans from legal consequences when exercising free speech internationally.

However, it does not prevent initial arrest, prosecution, and even imprisonment under draconian speech laws abroad. And it only limits enforcement of judgments over $10,000 on U.S. soil.

So while a meaningful safeguard in many cases, the SPEECH Act is no panacea. Americans speaking out internationally against corruption still face an array of threats to their safety, liberty and reputation.