Islamo-fascists Use British Courts
to Stop American Free Speech
Congress Fights Back
Condensed from www.washingtontimes.com/
And from Act! For America
One of the most potent weapons that global jihadists have to advance their cause is one of the least-remarked: censorship.
Billionaire Saudi financier Khalid Salim bin Mahfouz, sued Rachel Ehrenfeld, founder and director of the American Center for Democracy, for libel: in her book, "Funding Evil," she wrote that he was involved in funding Hamas and al Qaeda.
bin Mahfouz denied that he had knowingly given any money to either. Taking advantage of British libel laws that place the burden of proof on the defendant, rather than the plaintiff, Mr. bin Mahfouz sued not in the United States, where Miss Ehrenfeld lives and published her book, but in Britain, where neither he nor Miss Ehrenfeld live and where his entire case depended upon a handful of copies sold in that country mostly through special orders from Amazon.com, and the appearance of one chapter of the book on the Internet, where it may have been read by British readers.
Britain's libel laws have given rise to the phenomenon of wealthy "libel tourists," who sue there on the slimmest British connection in order to ensure a favorable ruling.
bin Mahfouz had the good fortune of having the case heard by Judge David Eady, who has a long history of strange rulings in libel cases — rulings that generally ran in favor of censorship and against free speech. In May 2005 Justice Eady ruled that Miss Ehrenfeld must apologize to Mr. bin Mahfouz and pay over $225,000. This fine remains uncollected, and Miss Ehrenfeld sees no reason to apologize. Now she cannot travel to Britain, and her writing and research work has of course been banned there.
Ehrenfeld countersued in New York, asking the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals for a declaration that the British judgment was contrary to the First Amendment and hence unenforceable on an American citizen. June 8, the appellate court handed down a landmark decision, ruling that Ehrenfeld's case was valid, and that she could appeal for relief from American courts in order to keep the British court order from being carried out in this country.
Said Circuit Court Judge Wilfred Feinberg: "The issue may implicate the First Amendment rights of many New Yorkers, and thus concerns important public policy of the state." He also declared that the case had implications for all writers — since they, like Miss Ehrenfeld, could be subjected to harassment. This decision could also have great impact on the September 11 victims lawsuits, in which Mr. bin Mahfouz is also a defendant.
The U.S. House of Representatives has passed H.R. 6146, crucial legislation that will protect American citizens from foreign libel judgments that undermine their fundamental First Amendment free speech rights. Commonly known as “Rachel’s Law,” it was signed into law in New York earlier this year, and declared that foreign libel judgments are unenforceable in New York courts.
Ehrenfeld said, “more still needs to be done to deter libel tourists from ruining our great tradition of free speech. Specifically, we must allow authors and reporters to countersue for damages. This way, those who exploit foreign libel laws will think twice before bringing these junk lawsuits.”
The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists is the sm of the
Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism tm, the educational arm of the Assemblage.
© 2008 by Curtis Edward Clark and Naturalist Academy Publishing ®
Posts
