Unless, for example, you're an American author like Rachel Ehrenfeld who couldn't get her book about financing terrorism published because most publishing houses have assets in the UK. The New York Times has blocked access to certain stories only in the UK because even though the stories didn't contain any demonstrably false statements, there were concerns about whether some statements could be proven to be true.

I second the points that NotBornYesterday made. Even if one of those defenses could be proved, the vast majority of people simply don't want to litigate because it's expensive, time-consuming and nerve-wracking. This leads to self-censorship and the chilling of some legitimate speech as people steer wide of any gray areas. The problem with UK defamation law is not the contingent fee arrangements, but that the laws are so plaintiff-friendly. From what I recall (perhaps incorrectly), a plaintiff must merely show that the statement has been published and allege (not prove) that the statement is false. In the U.S., the plaintiff has the burden of proving that the statement is false because it's far more difficult to prove truth (or substantial truth) than falsity. The threat of a lawsuit is more than enough to silence nearly any speaker an the UK makes it far too easy to file a colorable claim against speech that is true but embarrassing or disfavored. See, e.g., Phorm.

Glad it isn't just me; I was getting paranoid. I can't even access keionline.org.