H.R. 2765 (111th): Securing the Protection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage Act

Introduced:
Jun 09, 2009 (111th Congress, 2009–2010)
Status:
Signed by the President
Slip Law:
This bill became Pub.L. 111-223.
Sponsor
Steve Cohen
Representative for Tennessee's 9th congressional district
Party
Democrat
Text
Read Text »
Last Updated
Aug 25, 2010
Length
5 pages
Related Bills
S. 3518 (Related)
Securing the Protection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage Act

Referred to Committee
Last Action: Jun 22, 2010

 
Status

This bill was enacted after being signed by the President on August 10, 2010.

Progress
Introduced Jun 09, 2009
Referred to Committee Jun 09, 2009
Reported by Committee Jun 10, 2009
Passed House Jun 15, 2009
Passed Senate with Changes Jul 19, 2010
House Agreed to Changes Jul 27, 2010
Signed by the President Aug 10, 2010
 
Full Title

To amend title 28, United States Code, to prohibit recognition and enforcement of foreign defamation judgments and certain foreign judgments against the providers of interactive computer services.

Summary

No summaries available.

Cosponsors
11 cosponsors (7D, 4R) (show)
Committees

House Judiciary

Senate Judiciary

The committee chair determines whether a bill will move past the committee stage.

 
Primary Source

THOMAS.gov (The Library of Congress)

GovTrack gets most information from THOMAS, which is updated generally one day after events occur. Activity since the last update may not be reflected here. Data comes via the congress project.

Widget

Get a bill status widget for your website »

Citation

Click a format for a citation suggestion:

Notes

H.R. stands for House of Representatives bill.

A bill must be passed by both the House and Senate in identical form and then be signed by the president to become law.

GovTrack’s Bill Summary

We don’t have a summary available yet.

Library of Congress Summary

The summary below was written by the Congressional Research Service, which is a nonpartisan division of the Library of Congress.


8/10/2010--Public Law.
(This measure has not been amended since it was passed by the Senate on July 19, 2010. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Securing the Protection of Our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage Act or SPEECH Act -
Section 3 -
Prohibits a domestic court from recognizing or enforcing a foreign judgment for defamation unless the domestic court determines that:
(1) the defamation law applied in the foreign court's adjudication provided at least as much protection for freedom of speech and press in that case as would be provided by the First Amendment to the Constitution and by the constitution and law of the state in which the domestic court is located; or
(2) even if the defamation law applied in the foreign court's adjudication did not provide as much protection for freedom of speech and press as the First Amendment to the Constitution and law of the state, the party opposing recognition or enforcement of that foreign judgment would have been found liable for defamation by a domestic court applying the First Amendment to the Constitution and the constitution and law of the state in which the domestic court is located.
Prohibits a domestic court from recognizing or enforcing a foreign judgment for defamation unless the domestic court determines that the exercise of personal jurisdiction by the foreign court comported with the due process requirements imposed on domestic courts by the Constitution. Requires the party seeking recognition or enforcement of the foreign judgment to bear the burden of making the showing that the foreign court's exercise of personal jurisdiction comported with such due process requirements.
Prohibits a domestic court from recognizing or enforcing a foreign judgment for defamation against the provider of an interactive computer service unless the domestic court determines that the judgment would be consistent with provisions of the Communications Act of 1934 affording protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material, if the information that is the subject of such judgment had been provided in the United States. Requires the party seeking recognition or enforcement of the foreign judgment to bear the burden of establishing that the judgment is consistent with such provisions.
Provides that an appearance by a party in a foreign court rendering a foreign judgment to which this Act applies shall not deprive such party of the right to oppose the recognition or enforcement of the judgment under this Act, or represent a waiver of any jurisdictional claims.
Allows removal by any defendant to the U.S. district court for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending, without regard to the amount in controversy, of any action brought in a state domestic court to enforce a foreign judgment for defamation in which:
(1) any plaintiff is a citizen of a state different from any defendant;
(2) any plaintiff is a foreign state or a citizen or subject of a foreign state and any defendant is a citizen of a state; or
(3) any plaintiff is a citizen of a state and any defendant is a foreign state or citizen or subject of a foreign state.
Provides that any U.S. person, against whom a foreign judgment is entered on the basis of the content of any writing, utterance, or other speech by that person that has been published, may bring an action in a U.S. district court for a declaration that the foreign judgment is repugnant to the Constitution of laws of the United States.
Allows the award of reasonable attorney fees under certain conditions if the party opposing recognition or enforcement of the judgment prevails.
Expresses the sense of the Congress that, for the purpose of pleading a cause of action for a declaratory judgment, a foreign judgment for defamation or any similar offense shall constitute a case of actual controversy under the federal judicial code.

House Republican Conference Summary

The summary below was written by the House Republican Conference, which is the caucus of Republicans in the House of Representatives.


No summary available.

House Democratic Caucus Summary

The House Democratic Caucus does not provide summaries of bills.

So, yes, we display the House Republican Conference’s summaries when available even if we do not have a Democratic summary available. That’s because we feel it is better to give you as much information as possible, even if we cannot provide every viewpoint.

We’ll be looking for a source of summaries from the other side in the meanwhile.

Use the comment space below for discussion of the merits of H.R. 2765 (111th) with other GovTrack users.
Your comments are not read by Congressional staff.

comments powered by Disqus