This Comment explores the possibilities for international forum shopping, particularly for suits filed in England. It discussed how English courts classify a media defendant and whether a defamed plaintiff can collect a favourable judgment overseas. In conclusion, this Comment suggests that the potential for forum shopping will negatively impact cyberspace travel, ultimately chilling the freedom of speech and individual expression.

This Article analyses the decision of an Australian High Court in Dow Jones and argues that though this decision does have the potential to chill freedom of speech on the Internet, there are significant substantive and practical reasons why it will be unlikely to have the dire implications some have predicted.

The author analyses the major issues regarding cyber libel, that is, jurisdiction and conflict of laws. He suggests that a unified rational approach be developed to handle the variety of complex issues that arise in this unique area of law.

This article discusses how the American Courts deal with libel judgments that have been obtained from foreign jurisdictions. Invoking the First Amendment under a public-policy exception to comity, U.S. courts have rejected foreign-nation defamation judgments. Against this tide, the following Article maintains that courts in the United States ought to take a more cautious and nuanced approach and recognize at least some overseas defamation judgments.

This article analyses the efficacy of the Draft Defamation Act and its impact on the enforcement of English defamation judgments in U.S. courts. Specifically, it proposes that the Draft Act’s procedural clauses will effectively reduce the prevalence of libel tourism in England.