Amnesty International backing down (hiding its report) when threatened with JKR's lawsuits just shows how weak the liberal human rights framework really is. It never seems to flinch when governments criticize it, but the moment an influential Westerner pushes back, it suddenly loses its nerve.
It likely also has to do with the difference between UK and US libel law.
In the US, true statements are never libelous (or slanderous). Further, since Rowling is a public figure, she would have to prove that Amnesty International acted with reckless disregard for the truth (with "actual malice").
In the UK, as far as I can tell, true statements can be libelous. (edit based on a reblog:) truth is still a defense, but it is much harder to prove than in the US.
I suspect Amnesty International did the calculus of "How many people have already seen this? Will they keep circulating the tapes? How much will it cost us to defend this? Can we successfully defend it under UK law?" and decided that Streisand-effect-ing the report would be a better use of their time and money.



















