* International Libel & Privacy Handbook: A Global Reference for Journalists, Publishers, Webmasters, and Lawyers, 2d ed. Charles J. Glasser Jr., ed. New York, NY: Bloomberg Press, 2009. 496 pp. $49.95 pbk. International Libel & Privacy Handbook is a highly relevant reference source, particularly in the current era of libel tourism. Libel tourism is a global spin on forum shopping - aggrieved parties shop for nations with plaintiff-friendly libel laws rather than media-friendly jurisdictions such as the United States in which to sue news media outlets and book publishers. The global reach of news Web sites has made media outlets far more vulnerable to plaintiffs or claimants looking for the best deal or market for their complaint than ever before. Great Britain has become a favorite destination for libel tourists, and that is of great concern to free expression advocates, judges, and lawmakers there. England's lord chief justice, Lord Judge, last year told the Society of Editors conference that England needed legislation to discourage such forum-shopping, saying, take no pleasure in reading that London is the libel capital of the world. Thus, a libel reform campaign is under way; among the five major reforms the campaign seeks is for British libel law to shift the burden of proof from media defendants to plaintiffs. So it is surprising that Charles J. Glasser, this volume's editor and global media counsel for Bloomberg News, downplays the issue of burden of proof. The Handbook allows readers to contrast and compare aspects of libel law among more than twenty nations and regions. It does that by asking experts in each nation or region the same twenty-one key questions, but the question, Who has the burden of proof? is not among them. Yet Glasser acknowledges in the Handbook's preface that burden of proof in libel is a global concern for U.S. media outlets: Unlike U.S. law, the laws of many nations assume that a sued-upon story is false, and places the burden of proof on the publisher. That being the case, that pattern should be reflected in the list of key questions, enabling a reader to separate the media-friendly quickly from the plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions. Glasser does not agree. In an e-mail response to my query, he said: While I agree that burden of proof and assumption of falsity are the most important changes that I am hoping Lord Judge addresses in the UK, and while they are indeed the distinctions most responsible for the differences between Commonwealth and U.S. law, respectfully, your query kind of misses the point of the book's organization. The book is primarily for journalists, not defense lawyers. You'll also notice I didn't include statutes of limitations either. …