Yup, to the extent that the US decided that it needed to ensure that UK libel law could not be enforced against US writers: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-10940211

Yes. Worse, as I understand it, public figures may have lawful claims for defamation even if all statements are already known true to the court! This is a mind-boggling situation, and helps contextualize why the United Nations Human Rights Committee recommends that libel and slander be decriminalized. It makes the USA's defamation laws, SLAPP-happy as they are, look positively humane by comparison.

> even if all statements are already known true to the court

Can you expand on what that means?

In my understanding, courts don't presumptively "already know" anything at all, except law and precedent. The whole point of a suit is that two parties are contesting knowledge, interpretation, or law. Even if a court's judge(s) suppose(s) something to be true, isn't the whole point that the defendent claims it to be false and is therefore entitled to a hearing?

> Can you expand on what that means?

Not OP, but the way I understood it was that the court already holds hard evidence confirming the statements to be undoubtedly true.

I believe the point OP is making is that you can be accused of libel for speaking the truth.

I think you mean convicted, anyone can be accused of anything at any time.

This changed with the 2013 Defamation Act, although not in Northern Ireland.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation_Act_2013

https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2012-13/defamation.html

Not really. It made it harder to sue for defamation and easier to defend but it still doesn't remove the burden of proof from the defendant.

Hence this quote from media coverage at the time: "The McLibel case has achieved what many lawyers thought impossible: to lower further the reputation of our law of defamation in the minds of all right thinking people." English libel law already had quite the reputation even by the time of this case.