In tourism, even libel can be a world away
|
Libel tourism has been catapulted into the headlines of what is left of the US print media, after aviation writer Joe Sharkey was served a writ in his New Jersey home for defamatory statements he says he didn’t make in Brazil after surviving a mid-air collision in 2006 between an airliner and the corporate jet in which he was a passenger. All 154 people on the GOL Airlines jet died. The seven occupants of the damaged Brazilian-made biz jet (which was being delivered to its new owners in the US) were unharmed after it made an emergency landing at an airstrip in the Amazon jungle. Sharkey is, among other things, accused of insulting the dignity or honour of Brazil in his reporting of the collision. A Brazilian crash inquiry has largely blamed the US pilots of the small jet, who are now being tried in absentia on criminal charges, and a US inquiry has largely found fault with Brazil’s air-traffic controllers, who through negligence allowed both jets to fly at the same altitude in opposite directions. The Sharkey case has added to pressure on Capitol Hill for the passing of the Free Speech Protection Act of 2009, which is currently on the agenda of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Bill provides protections for Americans sued for libel in foreign countries whose laws are inconsistent with the freedom of speech granted by the US Constitution. In addition to journalists, corporate travellers, university researchers, analysts and organisations that issue travel warnings, including corporate travel departments, are argued to be at risk. The situation reflects the pressure Australia’s Foreign Affairs Department comes under from issuing travel warnings about Indonesia, Fiji, and no doubt as the 2016 Olympic Games approach, the reputedly dangerous and crime-ridden streets of Rio de Janeiro. Sharkey was served with a complaint seeking $US279,850 ($A320,348) in damages. In its summary of the case, the Business Travel Coalition in the US says:
The Free Speech Protection Bill was introduced in February as a consequence of a case brought against US terrorism expert Dr Rachel Ehrenfeld in a UK court by a Saudi tycoon, who claimed he was libelled in her 2003 book Funding Evil. The Saudi plaintiff won $US250,000 in damages, enforceable in the UK, where she would be subject to arrest on arrival and where sales of her book are prohibited by court order. The Business Travel Coalition says:
The Bill has clear potential to inflame Brazil/US relations, and illustrates the risks Australian journalists may encounter in writing about the modern-day barbarity of genocidal attacks on Amazonian Indians, and death squads hunting down and murdering feral children and other alleged petty criminals in the slums of its major cities. In short, modern-day Brazil has much ugliness to hide in its contemporary history. What happens in the Sharkey case has the potential to exclude him and other reporters from Brazil, and given the UK precedent, seek to intimidate even Australian publications that circulate online and in print in Britain and parts of Europe. |
|
|
|







