No. The UK doesn't get to enforce its law everywhere just because it says its law is enforceable everywhere. There's already precedent here: https://en.wikip

No. The UK doesn't get to enforce its law everywhere just because it says its law is enforceable everywhere. There's already precedent here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPEECH_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPEECH_Act > The Securing the Protection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage (SPEECH) Act is a 2010 federal statutory law in the United States that makes foreign libel judgments unenforceable in U.S. courts, unless either the foreign legislation applied offers at least as much protection as the U.S. First Amendment (concerning freedom of speech), or the defendant would have been found liable even if the case had been heard under U.S. law. > The act was passed by the 111th United States Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama. [snip] > The act was written as a response to libel tourism.[1] It creates a new cause of action and claim for damages against a foreign libel plaintiff, if they acted to deprive an American (or certain lawful aliens) of their right to free speech.[2] Despite its goals, it is seen as a weak response to the problem of libel tourism as, although it establishes a new cause of action in § 4104, and allows for the collection of "reasonable" attorneys' fees in § 4105,[note 1] it does not allow for damages to plaintiffs in contrast with stronger provisions in proposed bills which did not pass such as the Free Speech Protection Act of 2009 (H.R.1304, 111th Congress).[3]: 22 > It was inspired by the legal battle that ensued between Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld and Saudi businessman Khalid bin Mahfouz over her 2003 book Funding Evil.[4] Just to make it even clearer: "Libel tourism" basically means taking your case to British courts, which are hilariously pro-plaintiff when it comes to libel. That's what happened with Ehrenfeld.