When Angelina Jolie headed to Nice, France, to unload her two kids, it wasn't because the doctors there were any better than the U.S. It's because the privacy laws there forbid photographers from taking publishing her picture, or that of her newborns, without her permission. Knowing those photos would fetch a hefty sum — $14 million, it turns out — she set up camp among the French until she blew.

In the United Kingdom, there's a similar phenomenon going on: "libel tourism," where lawsuits get filed in British courts over news reports that celebrities and other plaintiffs couldn't even get on a court docket in their own countries.

That's because the U.K. has some of the strictest libel laws in the world, if you discount North Korea's tendency to make anybody who says something questionable disappear.

Plenty of publishers around the world aren't happy with the British way of doing things, especially because the Internet and global distribution of many publications put their works inside U.K. jurisdiction, opening them up to lawsuits.

But now there's a tiny organization who's on their side. Perhaps you heard of it?

The United Nations.

CONTINUED »

Having won his invasion of privacy lawsuit against News International last week, Foruma 1 chief and S&M enthusiast Max Mosley filed formal libel charges against the media company's News of the World for claiming his videotaped spanking romp carried a Nazi theme. He's also going after Germany's largest newspaper, Bild, which repeated the News' claims and licensed its video and photos. Also, in Germany, isn't accusing somebody of Nazi cheerleading kind of a serious accusation to get wrong?

"A U.S. appeals court on Monday upheld the dismissal of a libel lawsuit by former Army scientist Steven Hatfill against The New York Times Co. over a series of columns he said implicated him in the 2001 anthrax attacks. A unanimous three-judge panel of the appeals court based in Richmond, Virginia, sided with the newspaper over the lawsuit that claimed that columns by Nicholas Kristof published in 2002 defamed Hatfill and caused him emotional distress." [Reuters]

It appears paparazzi agency X17 and its ethically questionable founders Brandy and François Navarre – who don't care much when their photographers nearly kill people – are reaching some sort of settlement agreement with Eva Longoria and Tony Parker, who launched a $40 million suit libel against the pap company in December after X17 claimed Parker cheated on Longoria with French model Alexandra Paressant.

This nondescript apology – originally riddled with grammar and spelling mistakes, even referring to themselves as "X7," but since corrected – was buried on X17Online.com:

In December 2007, X17online.com published over ten articles concerning Tony Parker and a woman named Alexandra Paressant. Various of the articles asserted that, after Mr. Parker was introduced to Ms. Paressant by Thierry Henry at this wedding to Eva Longoria, Mr. Parker engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Paressant. Since the publication of these articles, X17online.com and X17, Inc. have discovered that Mr. Parker has never met with, or spoken to, Ms. Paressant nor has he ever had sexual relations with her. X17online.com and X17, Inc. regret having been misled by Ms. Paressant and her representatives and apologize to Mr. Parker for any damage or inconvenience this may have caused him or his wife.

Even more interesting: It's paparazzi photo purchaser TMZ.com who took a turn dumping on the agency over the weekend.

In the fallout from X17's irresponsibility, the ones piling it on the most are their own commenters, who are leaving notes like, "Guys, guys. Don't be so hard on x-17. It's gotta be hard to see all the facts when you're stuck up Britney's ass 24 hours a day," "ROFLMFAO!!!!!! YOU BEEN SLAPPED DOWN ASS HOLES. I HOPE BRITS DAD AND MOM GET YOUR ASSES TOO FUCKERS," and one particular doozy.

CONTINUED »

Oh goodie! Celeb-on-celeb legal action gets us hot and bothered in a way David Beckham never could. Unless he sued Will Smith! But we'll settle for Nicolas Cave v. Kathleen Turner, where the washed up actor (hard to tell which is which) sued the old windbag (same problem!) for libel, alleging, in her book Send Yourself Roses and in an excerpt in the Daily Mail, Cage had been arrested twice for drunk driving and that he stole a … dog.

(For the record, the Daily Mail is known for settling libel charges for calling someone fat.)

In the book, . Naturally, Cage took Turner to court in Britain, where libel laws are looser, and forced out apologies, legal fee reparations, and donations to the National Adult Protective Services Foundation, an elder abuse organization. Cage won't sue Turner in the United States because Turner's publisher is adding a correction to future editions. And agreed not to spread rumors he's a big closet case.

The Daily Express isn't the only British paper (or publication) making a libel payment this week. The Daily Mail, whose owner Associated Newspapers is already shelling out cash to Lisa Marie Presley for calling her fat, is paying an undisclosed sum to "world's 12th richest man" Sheldon Adelson, the CEO of Las Vegas Sands Corp., who the paper claimed "engaged in cut-throat, ruthless and despicable business practices and had held secret talks with Malcolm Glazer to take over Manchester United." Apparently that was a "grave slur" against his personal integrity. To us, it's a matter of opinion.

In an extremely unusual move, Britain's The Daily Express finds itself apologizing on its own front page. To settle libel charges brought against it by the parents of missing 4-year-old Madeleine McCann, the newspaper splashed the story "Kate and Gerry McCann: Sorry" across its front page — that's "sorry," as in "Sorry for wrongfully accusing you guys of murdering your daughter, covering it up, and pretending to be sorrowful."

McCann went missing in May '07 while the family was on holiday in Portugal. Parents Kate and Gerry said she had been abducted; the Express, knowing they could sell papers by the forest load, disagreed. In the weeks and months that followed, reporters accused the parents of all sorts of wrongdoing, attributing their information to Portuguese officials who were merely rumormongering about what might have happened.

Now the Express has a different tone of voice in its copy: "“We acknowledge that there is no evidence whatsoever to support this theory and that Kate and Gerry are completely innocent of any involvement in their daughter’s disappearance,” the paper said. It added, “Kate and Gerry, we are truly sorry to have added to your distress." The paper's officials will also read the apology aloud in court and pay damages of more than $1 million, all thanks to English libels laws that, unlike American courts, put the burden of proof on the defendant. Unable to prove its statements true, the Express had little choice but to cave, or face a much harsher fate.

Now, editor Peter Hill finds his job is on the line. And the Express' tagline, "The World's Greatest Newspaper," remains intact.

Wait, that snide email newsletter Popbitch has people behind it? Who make money? And they've got hundreds of thousands of subscribers? So much news about a text-only email that arrives in our inbox with various frequency from this story about British actor Max Beesley and how he sued for libel over allegations he tried lining up three girls to have sex with him. Popbitch has agreed to issue an apology in its next email and pay Beesley and undisclosed sum. "We now accept that the item was totally untrue," they said in a statement, even though their tagline "devoid of reality" is basically a blanket disclaimer against reporting fact.

The Daily Mail, the respected British news source that today leads with Jennifer Aniston in a pink bikini, is picking up a report from Star magazine that Lisa Marie Presley, daughter of Elvis and terrible singer, is pregnant with twins.

Funny, because wasn't the Mail most recently reporting Presley was fat because she was binging?

Yes, actually, they were — and it pissed her off so much that she's suing them under the U.K.'s less stringent libel laws.

Maybe we're witnessing the settlement agreement in effect?

Being called fat upsets Lisa Marie Presley, the daughter of the legendary rocker who died in his bathroom, well, fat. So upset is she with the Daily Mail, Presley is suing them in Britain over claims she was piling on the pounds due to excessive eating. Not lost on Presley: Libel laws are grossly more stringent abroad than they are in the U.S., so proving the newspaper acted maliciously is a helluva lot easier.

For the record, Presley is gaining weight because she is pregnant. And overeating for two.

Okay, so the internet is destroying our children's lives, the journalism industry and the way we relate to one another. But, for if you're in advertising, the internet is awesome because you can assign users to generate your work for you.

That's what Quiznos did, asking users to make ads that “a comparison between Quiznos and Subway with Quiznos being superior” in the fall of 2006. We're split on the issue. They're both kind of gross, but for an ironic Valentine's Day, we prefer Subway.

The video below didn't win, but gets to the heart of what's wrong with user generated video. Namely, they all seem to be shot in New Jersey.

Subway, sick of having its good name tarnished on the internet, is suing Quiznos and iFilm, the site that hosted these videos, for libel.

CONTINUED »

Jennifer Lopez and Marc Anthony got furious when the National Enquirer accused them in being involved in a herion smuggling ring; they're now in the middle of filing a legal claim. Anthrax mailer suspect Steven Hatfill got back at Vanity Fair and Reader's Digest for printing claims about his alleged wrong-doings; he sued (and won in a settlement). Vince Vaughn threatened London's The Sun and Daily Mirror and the New York Post for alleging he cheated on Jennifer Aniston; he let that lawsuit fade away.

Those are three of the various stages a celebrity libel lawsuit might be in.

And then there's Keira Knightley, who just joined the ranks of Roman Polanskis.

CONTINUED »

Jennifer Lopez and Marc Anthony might be tax evaders, but they are not the right hand of a heroin cartel, like the National Enquirer claimed. So upset are the Lopez-Anthonys with the accusations, they are taking the American Media Inc. title to court. But not in the stodgy realm of U.S. courts — they're headed to Europe to make their libel case, since they're are so much more lenient with their definition of "you made me look bad" across the pond.

CONTINUED »

We know what it's like to hear from Steve Bing's attorneys. After this item ran on tabloid cuz MollyGood, we had the pleasure of a few emails and phone calls with the lovely Lynda Goldman at (and where else would she work?) Lavely & Singer. In the end, Bing laughed off the whole incident.

But that's not how things went down with London's Daily Mail in 2003, when they claimed Bing hired Anthony Pellicano to dig up dirt on then-lover Liz Hurley, after she claimed she was pregnant with his child. Cue Bing's passion for threatening to sue, and the Mail caved — issuing a retraction and a cash apology.

Now, the NYT's David Halbfinger and Allison Hope Weiner are laying the groundwork for inviting Bing's infamous litigation with a report that evidence from the Pellicano trial shows Bing paid the P.I. thousands of dollars as early as 2000 and continued through 2002, though it's not clear whether that money was earmarked for investigating Hurley.

CONTINUED »

After much legal back and forth, suspected anthrax mailer Dr. Steven Hatfill is done dragging Reader's Digest and Vanity Fair through the courts on libel accusations.

Hatfill, as you'll recall, was the center of a 2003 VF article (later picked up by RD) that essentially fingered him as being behind the deadly anthrax envelopes that popped up post 9/11. The magazines issued their requisite half apologies and, with the help of a little pocket padding, it seems that's enough for Hatfill.

Like a certain diner upset at The Waverly Inn's expensive truffles, the threesome have settled the matter.

CONTINUED »