Via the Boston Globe, the current predicament of Rachel Ehrenfeld, Director of the American Center for Democracy and author of Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It, a book exposing the role of a wealthy Saud in funding Al Qaeda. (No link to Amazon as you’ll soon understand.)
AN IMPORTANT question will be argued tomorrow before the federal Court of Appeals in Manhattan: should American journalists who write about controversial issues be subjected to legal intimidation from abroad? More precisely, will American courts halt the growing practice of “libel tourism” whereby wealthy foreigners sue American writers and publishers in England, despite little chance of enforcing the judgment in this country?…
Rather than confront bin Mahfouz on England’s libel-friendly turf, Ehrenfeld sued him in a New York federal court seeking a declaration that his English judgment is unenforceable in the United States as repugnant to the First Amendment.
The English judgment has impaired her ability to find publishers for her other work. Remarkably, the district court dismissed her case, ruling in effect that Ehrenfeld must await legal action in the United States by bin Mahfouz to enforce the English judgment before raising her First Amendment defense. …
Writers are now subject to intimidation by libel tourists. Little wonder that the American Society of Newspaper Editors, the Association of American Publishers, and 14 other media groups have filed a “friend of the court” brief to support Ehrenfeld’s quest to raise her First Amendment defense now. Until she is able to do so, she will have problems finding American publishers willing to risk publishing her research and writing.
Judge Robert Casey of The Southern District Court in Manhattan dismissed her case:
But Judge Casey ignored Ehrenfeld’s plea for her First Amendment rights, and decided that he had no jurisdiction over the case. Ehrenfeld is filing an appeal and faces a daunting challenge of raising enough money to support a case that she believes will help determine whether or not American writers will be able to continue to expose America’s enemies.
According to an excellent and alarming article by Robert Locke originally appearing in Dhimmi Watch in July of this year:
The laws of Saudi Arabia, based upon the sharia law mandated by the Koran, do not recognize the rights and freedoms guaranteed Americans by the Constitution. The Saudi government makes no secret of its ambition to export Islamic tyranny worldwide, as the Koran commands. What most Americans don’t realize, is that American courts are helping it in a number of ways. For example, they are collaborating with Saudi attempts to squash the free-speech rights of Americans with abusive libel lawsuits….
British law requires the loser in a court case to pay the winner’s court costs. This is the real attraction for shady millionaires: the chance to bankrupt their opponents into silence. Because of this, Britain has become a Mecca for rich but shady characters seeking to purchase the appearance of legal vindication. There’s even a name for it: libel tourism….
… the larger issue, of course, is how it became the business of a British court to render judgments against American authors. The legal pretext here is laughably flimsy: despite the fact that the book was never published, or even offered for sale, in the UK, 26 Britons bought copies over the Internet from American booksellers like Amazon.com (which, to its credit, joined an amicus brief supporting Dr. Ehrenfeld in this.) And a few downloaded the first chapter, which was posted on the Internet.
By this standard, every author in the United States is now subject to Britain’s Victorian libel laws, and the Declaration of Independence has failed.
Although you’d think that the issue would be crystal clear, you would be wrong:
Whether American courts can block those judgments, or at least certain of their provisions, is a question none of the judges yesterday appeared especially eager to tackle. And the court expressed little interest in the First Amendment concerns that legal observers say are present in the case.
One judge on the panel, Jose Cabranes, seemed worried that a ruling in the researcher’s favor could open up American courts to suits challenging the judgments of other courts across the globe.
And you’ll be pleased to note that in related news:
Democratic strategist and former Michael Dukakis campaign manager Susan Estrich, and the former American Civil Liberties Union president in Massachusetts, Harvey Silvergate, recently joined the attorneys representing two alleged Boston al Qaeda funders.
Emadeddin Z. Muntasser and Muhammed Mubayyid face charges in U.S. District Court of Massachusetts for the soliciting and expenditure “of funds to support and promote the mujahideen and jihad, including the distribution of pro-jihad publications.” Their Care International “charity,” a now-defunct Boston-based al Qaeda front organization, published, among other things, the English version by al Qaeda co-founder Abdullah Azzam of “Join the Caravan,” which states: “[t]he obligation of Jihad today remains [individually required] until the last piece of land, which was in the hand of the Muslims, but has been occupied by disbelievers, is liberated.”
It’s a religious freedom case.
Now, if the issue were copyright and piracy, it would be a completely different thing.
Well, the law does serve the people.
This is totally ridiculous. The court should be able to say, “Based on the fact that this book was NOT published in England, whether or not the British can import it does not make it possible libel in the British courts. This is a matter only for American courts. And we reject this sh*t, bitches!”
It’ll never happen, but it would be awesome to see a judge get all Rick James on those AQ’ers.
By the way, I do support copyright law, but I think that the RIAA and MPAA have stepped out of their bounds on this one; bootlegging is DEFINITELY illegal, but copying? Nebulous. If you want people not to copy, they have to want to buy. Suing them if they don’t is bullsh*t.
RIAA/MPAA are dying and won’t admit it. Eff their couch!
(Bootlegging implies that you are SELLING the information, not just copying it. I feel that file sharing is totally fair. If you don’t want your stuff shared, then be more clever about it, morons, and stop suing little kids.)
But people DID import it. At least on the example given with amazon.
***sigh**
actus, for the love of pete, could you clearly state where you stand on this issue? Do you or do you not think that there is a reasonable First Amendment concern about Saudis suing Americans in British courts for libel because they wrote something about their religion that they didn’t like? A yes or no with explaination will do and I’ll defer to your Law Degree and give it some weight in the discussion.
Or are you only concerned about the 10 commandments on an American courthouse’s wall?
I believe that we fought a Revolution over issues such as this one. But for actus, it’s just a matter of international law.
Time for another Boston Tea Party. And I’m quite serious—something staged but symbolic that will address these concerns and bring them to the attention of more Americans.
I have a modicum of pull with some media types, so come up with a few ideas. Meanwhile, I’ll pass this along to a few people.
How about a Long Island Iced Tea Party?
We could always get a bunch of high-profile bloggers (and media types) to videotape themselves reading parts of it, and then pump it through YouTube and Powerline, etc.
Help me out here. Are you for or against copying? It’s one thing to whine that the RIAA/MPAA are keeping you from maintaining a backup or using the media you *paid* for in a way that suits you. It’s quite another to turn right around and justify giving someone a copy they haven’t paid for, or filesharing as some so euphemistically put it, and then blame the RIAA/MPAA for not keeping you from doing so. The RIAA/MPAA have done themselves no favors in the past with their behavior, but when I see pretzeled-up tortured logic like this trying to justify out and out thievery, I don’t feel quite so bad when they drop a stack of lawsuits on the offenders.
No innocent parties anywhere in sight on this one…
Holy crap!! From the Washington Times Article:
(emphasis mine)
Are you absolutely fickin’ frackin’ kidding me? Comparing arms for the preservation of the Jewish state to money funneled for jihadists as the same “religious freedom” argument? The best part is it’s in the Mass court system, so who the frig knows how that will come out.
Jeff, you are so right. Time for another Tea Party. Maybe a demonstration of journalistic dhimmitude with reporters wearing burkas holding microphones and digital recorders. Something!
For the time being I sent the link to this post along to Glenn Reynolds, Michelle Malkin, Charles Johnson, Ace, Allah, and Pajamas Media.
Not sure how serious they take me these days—out of sight, out of mind and all that—but I’ll try to get this some more exposure.
What the lefties have never understood about many of us so-called “conservatives” is that we are actually hawkish classical liberals—not quite libertarian, really, because we appreciate that the role of government is to provide for the national defense, and this includes (I believe) the kinds of war time powers this Executive has undertaken—and that one of the things many of us find most repugnant (and this goes for me especially) is the subversion of free speech and expression to the cancer of political correctness and assertions of multicultural differences which we must bend our Constitutional rights to “respect.”
Horseshit. Remember, we conceive of our rights as unalienable. And because liberty depends upon the free exchange of ideas, we should in no way accede to such cynical legal machinations.
I look forward to what appears to be the inevitibility of Sharia law in this country.
It should open up a lot of jobs for men and traffic should be a lot easier with women banned from driving.
I mean, thats what the media and Democrats fought the last election for … the right to surrender to the inevitable.
Exactly!
I’m a Reagan Conservative but the ideals on this topic are a match. I can engage “hippy” liberals in any number of debates without my rage meter spiking one degree. When civil rights idealists are more than happy to run roughshod over basic constitutional values in order to make a statement on one aspect of civil rights then somebody needs to bring me to the padded room. The fact that actus is making excuses is infuriating. Maybe I should post his comments about religion being relegated to “entertainment” in England and then, as an outraged Christian, sue him for libel.
Why isn’t the ACLU rushing to protect this journalist? Obviously, they really don’t care that much about freedom of the press or journalists. It’s much more satisfying to their intellectual utopian ideals to shit all over a creche than to tackle a real, hardcore civil liberties issue that has some kind of real world application like…oh, I don’t know… the fucking preservation and security of our fucking citizens and the defense of freedom of the press!!!
For just this once; could the people who earned their spurs couragiously standing up for blacks and against racism in the deep south go up to their attics and find the set of balls that, apparantly, are lost in an old steamer trunk with the National Geographics and grandma’s doilies.
Advil! Where is my Advil…
Ostrich–said to stick its head in the sand at the approach of danger
Estrich–known to stick its head up its ass in same circumstances
What does a British court have to do with the First Amendment, and how would an American court wasting its time repeating what’s already known to be true – that a British judgement of libel has no effect in the US – change anything or be anything but a waste of the court’s time?
Judge Casey is right; a US court doesn’t have any jurisdiction over a judgment made by a foreign court in another country. How could it?
The First Amendment says that the government of the United States (and via the 14th amendment, that of the individual States as well) can’t keep you from speaking freely.
It doesn’t say anything about actions of foreign governments in other nations; nor can it in any practical sense.
Every author in the US is subject to British libel laws … as far as their interactions with Britain go. Until there’s extradition for a libel finding, however, or the US government starts enforcing findings of monetary damages, this is a non-issue for authors in the United States.
People displeased by this (as I can well imagine they would be; hell, it’s sure stupid) should write the nearest UK Embassy a polite letter suggesting that they refer the issue to Parliament.
Tempest. Teapot. Mmm, tea. How British.
PS. Actus, er, you do realise that copyright enforcement, internationally, is a matter of treaty (WIPO), and that there’s no international libel treaty, right?
So, yes, the matter would be different if it was a matter of copyright, because states have agreed that it would be… different.
BJ: I imagine the ACLU is quite wisely noting that it can’t do anything about the British courts finding a verdict in Britain, where the US Constitution doesn’t apply.
I mean, the ACLU could politely ask British judges not to make such rulings, but that’s it.
The case isn’t even really about erosion of the First Amendment; the decision resulted from from possible inadequacies of New York’s long-arm statute. Talk to the legislature.
But let us say that one commits an act that is legally not an offence in one jurisdiction, but that is one in another. For example, publishing something in the US that might be considered libellous elsewhere. Does the same principle extend to a US resident videotaped smoking hash in an Amsterdam pot den? Can that person be arrested if she sets foot in that country? Can his or her assets be seized from that locale?
Actus never does that. It would require him to have principles beyond “you suck”.
I am no lawyer, but the problem with this not being an issue that our courts can rule on is that the writer in question is being punished based upon a judgment in Britain. If citizens of this country can have their livelihood taken away by a decision in a court in another country, we need to make it our problem, as a country. We rightly believe in free speech, and just because other countries don’t have the same standards is no excuse for us to allow our citizens to be screwed by their backwards laws.
Of course, maybe we’re looking at this from the wrong end of the stick. Maybe we should be contacting the companies that are uncomfortable publishing her works, and remind them that she has done nothing wrong, and that we have protection in this country from such nonsense.
US resident filmed while doing something LEGAL in Amsterdam….What type of argument is that….and where would it get you…. OH! …the “Yes, but I didn’t inhale” defense would kick in.
Our Judges should tell them to “SOD OFF”… and pursue real legal issues….. and get their fingers out of our bums!!!
Yes,yes,yes,Jeff. I don’t know too many true liberals but I know a lot of leftists – many leftist fundamentalists. The truest “liberals” I know are “conservatives” – really classical liberals. Freedom of expression translates most dearly to me, as an American, to the freedom of self-definition. This includes choosing our labels and clearly defining them.
Vigorous debate and the free exchange of ideas (all fraught with the danger of offense – given and taken) is such a wonderful legacy – why in the world would any of us hand it away?
We need to stop choking on p.c., multiculturalism, identity politics, speech codes, and find our individual voice fight for this uncommon gift of true freedom.
I heard some leftist admit the other day (wish I could remember who – it was a moment of honest reflection)that “heck, I’ve only enjoyed freedom, I’ve never had to fight for it.” I think this can be said of a lot of us.
This is why I LOVE the blogosphere! My favorite voices out their are intelligent smart-asses – so I seem to be coming back to Protein Wisdom a lot.
I’m gonna plead “post back molar crown with novacaine poisoning” for my barely legible screed above. I was way more pissed about the Boston case than I was about England but somehow they blurred together. 3 Advil and everything is again right with the world.
This has been a brave but ultimately futile attempt to convince the blogosphere that I’m not a psychotic moron. Must nap now…
I guess that begs the question- and I’m only hastily reading the article so please let me know if I missed anything- what are the ramifications of a juornalist or author being charged with libel in an English court? I’d presume any punishment could only be enforced if the the journalist/author went to England…it almost sounds like the market would self-correct. If England wishes to make it tough for honest journalists to do their job, they will find that honest journalists don’t want to be there. Are publishers/newspapers with subsidiary offices in England subject to any rulings in these cases?
What is the standing these affected authors have?
I stand with Sigvald on this one. As the case was construed any involvement by a US court would be a form of judicial activism. And any proposed remedy would be as uneforceable there as the libel verdict is here.
But I do think the issue is serious and does deserve some attention – perhaps via legislation, treaty, or some good old strong arming of the Saudi scum who perpetrate these affront to freedom and human rights. I’m sure a little time and effort would yield multiple mechanisms for putting a financial squeeze on them.
I’m against bootlegging, but have no actual solid opinion on copying. It’s an issue too mired in various interests and ideologies. In a black-and-white world it would clearly be stealing. But we don’t live in that world.
How would you differentiate copying from file sharing? How is one stealing, but the other not? Or are they both stealing, or neither?
From what I understand, it has to do with the way libel is prosecuted in the UK. In the US, the person being libeled has to prove that the statement is wrong; in the UK the libel-er has to prove it’s right and has to pay the entire court cost if the judgement goes against them. So now they’re trying to collect $200k from her. She’s appealing the collection, which is why she’s in court. According to the Globe article cited above:
What this effectively seems to mean is that you can’t market your work online in the UK, which means you can’t market your work online period, which means you’re less likely to get a publisher. Her book was also banned in the UK. It also means that you think twice about posting the truth about these villains because it’s going to cost you. How likely are the NYT, Post and WSJ to print excerpts of her book now?
I don’t know what can be done, but, clearly something must.
Some Guy in Chicago
I believe that is the problem: since so many (if not all) major publishers are multinational conglomerates, a New York-based publisher with a subsidiary in London would be held financially liable in this sort of case, even if the book is never offered for sale in the UK. Not a risk any of them wish to chance, apparently.
I was thinking about it, it and it really depends on who is the copyright holder and what they have to say about it.
Gee I wonder how CAIR will spin this story.
The Hell with the ACLU
and Estrich too!
It is not just these Shariaphiles who are going to use this, don’t people realize if the floodgates open on this kind of stuff they are going to go after everyone?
British libel laws are crazy. Take your lumps in the world of public opinion like a man.
I thought I was being pretty clear when I mentioned that there was a significant difference between you making a copy for your own use and passing a copy around to someone else and the copyright holder doesn’t get… and here’s the operative word here… PAID.
Theft is not that unclear a concept no matter how you try to justify it or obfuscate the issue.
hidden among all the initial outrage over this is the underlying problem festering in this country. The ACLU will NOT defend this author simply because it believes in a world order, just as some of our Supreme Court JUstices do. Remember, some of our justices site international law, and look to other countries for guidance when making rulings. And when they, they usually go against mainstream America. This case is about a lot more than just freedom of speech. It is also about how our Declaration of Independence is interpreted, and how it will stand up to some of the liberal judges on the Supreme Court. Just a thought.
Does anybody know the facts of the declaratory relief claim? If the standard in New York is the same as California, the only showing for standing is an “actual controversy”. I would think that this could be shown by a refusal of the judgment creditor to, upon demand, expressly waive enforcement of the judgment in the United States. I would hope that their attorney did that in order to create the actual controversy. Does anybody know if they did?
Is that related to that full page advert apology from the authors to the Saudia guys in the last edition of the Economist?
It is amazing how a topic such as this can get so hairballed up by those who don’t understand the question.
The original post had nothing whatever to do with copyright infringement, the copying of sound recordings or any other aspect of copyright law. The post only concerned itself with (a) the impact and validity of foreign civil judgments against American citizens and (b) the news that Susan Estrich and an ACLU veteran are contributing their skills to the defense of two alleged jihadists.
As to the first matter, jurisdictional questions are often not easily decided. Inasmuch as no effort has been made to enforce the English judgment in the United States or to domesticate the judgment in some way, it is difficult to see just how an American court would have jurisdiction either over the foreign parties or the subject matter.
Now, if the judgment holder were to initiate action to domesticate or enforce the judgment in the U.S. he would be subjecting himself to the jurisdiction of U.S. courts, and he would be placing the subject matter in front of the court as well. But, this has not happened.
Clearly, an American court cannot reverse the judgment of a British court to any purpose or effect. On the other hand, neither are American courts obliged to give faith or credit to the judgments of British courts.
The bare fact that a foreign judgment may be impairing an author’s ability to receive new assignments, commisions or otherwise market his/her written pieces may be lamentable, but it does not in itself bestow jurisdiction in the matter upon American courts.
Many a Christian t-shirt manufacturer would love to sell their products in Saudi Arabia. Unfortunately, the sale of shirts bearing Christian messages is illegal in Saudi Arabia. One would hardly think of bringing legal action against the Saudi government in an American court complaining that Saudi law violates the American concept of free speech and, in this instance, deprives American t-shirt makers of a market for their products.
As to the second issue (Estrich, et al), who cares? The alleged jihadists are entitled to legal representation, and if Estrich et all were not representing them someone else would be. Yes, I know that many folks here don’t much care for Susan Estrich or Harvey Silvergate. I must confess that I find Ms. Estrich more than a little irritating if for no other reason than the grating character of her voice.
If the case that Estrich et al is presenting on behalf of these defendants is reduced to the level of citing passages from the Koran one would think that the defendants are in trouble.
I recall a murder case some years back in which the only defense that counsel could muster was that the defendant was demon possessed. It just goes to show that, in the best of American legal traditions, defense counsel goes with the best defense it has available. Sometimes it isn’t very good.
It seems to me that when you are at war, acts such as these are just more acts of war. I don’t think US courts should be involved. It’s up to the US government to protect its citizens at time of war from attacks of this nature in a war of this nature. Isn’t it? Any Chance Peloso will do that?
Freeze equal Saudi or even British assets until they knock it off. Is that constitutional?
There is no first amendment issue with someone being sued in britain for a libel in britain. There will be an issue if someone tries to enforce that suit here.
actus: But that’s what they’re doing by coming after her for the $200k, right? At that point, it’s effectively an attempt to infringe on her 1st Amendment rights, yes?
But that’s what they’re doing by coming after her for the $200k, right?
Bin Mahfouz has made no move to enforce the judgment here in the US. In fact, he’s affirmatively declared that he will not do so.
This case isn’t even an example of the application of liberal British libel standards–it was a default judgment because Ehrenfeld never entered a defense.
Read the lower court’s decision.
I agree to beat the crap out of George Galloway on “Pay-Per-View” to raise funds for the appeal!
They’re not coming after her.
Not so clear. You dont have a first amendment right to commit libel in britain. You don’t have a first amendment right to preach christianity in saudi arabia.
To the extent that this is someone intending a libel in britain, there isn’t a right to that. To the extent that it’s an accident that it was a libel in britain, then we’re in the area of rights being curtailed.
Cyberlaw saw issues like this before. I think it was a french law against selling nazi memorabilia.
This link confused me, because ahem got no love. I guess the comments hash it out though, as Jeff e-mailed the heavy hitters, and I assume that is where the missing quote comes from. I could be wrong as sockpuppets are not known for their deductive reasoning.
I never took issue with how the court acted; instead, I called for some political theater to help, hopefully, bring about some sort of legislative awareness and perhaps a diplomatic fix.
The symbolic repercussions here are enormous; and as somebody noted above, with so many corporations become multinational conglomerates, the threat to take the easy way out—not rocking the boat—is very attractive to bottom-line thinking.
Capitalism is not necessary idealistic; which of course doesn’t mean we can’t be. Or shouldn’t be.
Bottom line, this kind of libel tourism could have the practical effect of chilling free speech—and in so doing, in weakening western values.
In regards to intent it is. But coming across the wire– not so much.
What offends me most here is not your position- it is defensible. Instead, it is your assumption about my character. Its insulting. I don’t know who you think I am, but assuming that I’m some warezing two bit college student isn’t a great place to start.
In fact, if you’d get your head out of your ass for a moment you’d find out that I in fact agree with you. Its nothing new that ‘copying’ is a infringment of… ‘copy rights’? Geez! Call the press.
What concerns me is, the fact that otherwise law abiding people don’t care whether it is stealing or not. It reminds me of the use of fireworks here in MD. Not to say that they are in and of themselves similar (one is theft, the other clearly just playing with explosives) but the reaction of people.
What is interesting then, is how little people in general care about copyrights. We seriously couldn’t care less.
Arguments for (enforcing the copyright law in regards to file sharing) consist of “Its F*cking stealing, you little pigs.” And arguments against? “I don’t F*cking care, you corporate whores!”
Obviously the height of debate.
That’s almost what this became, but I won’t let it. Telling a person who doesn’t profit from any copyrights that the ‘problem with it is copyright holders don’t get PAID’ is ineffective. It may be TRUE, but it isn’t effective.
You don’t need to convince me. I’m just playing devil’s advocate.
To me its like speed limits. There are good reasons for them, but they are constantly broken. If you can answer the question of speed limits, the answer of file sharing is probably right there with it.
By the way, what I mean by ‘nebulous’ is– have you seen them try to inforce copyright on software? Now THAT’s a nightmare. When music got digitized, it joined in that nasty charade.
Illegal? Yes. Wrong? Sure. Enforcable? Probably not.
Guess the copyright holders will just have to sell a little harder. And all the while, the farce known as the punative suing market continues unabated…
(To repeat- ‘theft’ is clear, but over the digital medium not so much. I’m not arguing that THEFT in regards to OWNERSHIP and INTENT to STEAL is nebulous; it is not. But when introduced to the complexities of the internet it can become nebulous. If you don’t believe me we can talk about that instead of implying that I’m immoral.)
We should levy tariffs on GB until they nullify these decisions.
I think the crux of the matter here is that she is, in fact, being punished for the judgment in a UK court. She’s being punished via the publishers, in a real and serious manner, even if it’s not a legal mechanism.
I agree there needs to be legislative relief. At the very least, the UK needs to agree that UK publishers (or publishers with a UK presence) can’t be sued for libel for publishing a book overseas, even if it can be imported by individuals.
It’s quite sensible and it should provide significant relief for this problem. Then England can continue to go down the fundamentalist toilet if they so wish, while other countries enjoy their free speech.
Provided the damage or cost to her reputation is demonstrable she ought to claim against the Crown. I reckon she would find commonsense support in the UK media for the challenge to this peculiar use of our courts. Whether she would simultaneously like to appeal against the ruling is also something to consider.
This is outrageous nonsense. It is an extension of Jihad into our culture and makes a direct impact on our way of living.
The lawyers are not addressing the real issue because they’re answering a legal question. They’re correct. It does not apply in US Courts unless brought into jurisdiction. It is a legal maneuver aimed at intimidation from afar shopped as legal hooligans thru Britain’s Court of Tom Foolery.
I realize lawyers are very careful about what they say when asked a legal question.
But, no legal question. What are your opinions of this kind of situation in general? Jeff is correct. The Publishers are being intimidated by monetary blackmail thru legal proceeding of another country. Thus the author is not published. Thus the public does not get informed. Forget the legal questions asked for a moment and consider the larger picture.
Simply say, it is not your legal opinion if you must. But at least recognize why everyone is so upset and offer an opinion not as a lawyer, but as a concerned American citizen.
This is what faces Europe and the West in the future. The Jihadist are fighting us at all levels, in all mediums, thru our courts, our media, and now, a Muslim in Congress, plus the Democrat from Dearborne.
2,500 French Police wounded this year, cars burned and buses, a lady torched. Is this what we want coming to our cities?
They are using the systems better than we are and they are paying our own “citizens” to demoralize and defeat us.
2o million to Harvard, 20 million to Georgetown. Christians kicked off the campus of Georgetown. Professors ranting against Bush bought and paid for by Saudi money. Intellectuals spiritually blind to reality, like frogs in water heating up.
We are at war in all facets of life with the Islamic nations. Some fight us physically, others legally, and yet others thru media and financially.
Everyone needs to wake up.
Both the UK and US courts may be right in their application of the relevant laws in each country. However if that’s true, then this issue cries out for some kind of legislative solution, perhaps on both sides of the Atlantic. In this case what may be correct judicial interpretation and application of law does not add up to justice. I would argue that it is British libel law that need the most fixing, if the UK does indeed believe in free speech, and they want to avoid retaliatory measures taken by foreign countries.
In the meantime, however, is there some creative way in which these obviously flawed laws could be exploited to retaliate in some way which would get the attention of the British government and Parliament?
For example, are there any wealthy Americans or Jews who could exploit the UK libel laws in the same way that bin Mahfouz is? Could they bring their own UK libel lawsuits against prominent UK Muslim clerics in order to have them order to stop preaching libelous lies and hatred in their mosques? Could they bring UK libel lawsuits against non-British liberal and Muslim authors who published libelous works, either in print or on the Internet, which were imported or viewed by British citizens in the UK?
The UK libel laws are freaking awful. They encourage self-censorship, and result in brain-dead public discourse which lack information and statements of fact. I would think that the libel laws discourage speakers/writers from naming names or getting too specific, and result in the substitution of language that almost would stereotype entire groups of individuals in order to avoid naming the particular individual. Authors probably have to write things like “Wealthy Saudis have been known to exploit UK libel laws to silence critics who accuse them of involvement in funding terrorism” instead of “bin Mahfouz has a history of exploiting UK libel laws to silence critics who allege that he has played a role in funding terrorist organizations.”
Yes, it would be a somewhat cheap and cheesy tactic to simply use the same stupid laws against the other side. But it might also be effective at getting attention about the unfairness of the laws. However, because of the way the UK libel law is written, the situations where it can be most easily abused is when a wealthy person or organization goes after an individual who does not have the financial means to defend themselves. And unfortunately, I think that any liberal or Muslim defendant in one of these cases would immediately receive legal funding and support from wealth Muslim/Saudi interests and liberal legal defense organizations like the ACLU. And we would also be assuming that the courts would actually apply the law in an unbiased manner regardless of judges’ own personal political opinions or who the plaintiff and defendant were.
I don’t get it, many media outlets talk of the Saudi link to Al Qaeda. Even Micheal Moore’s film Farehheit/911 did.
But what you don’t hear about is the collaboration of the United States with Muslim extremists. See http://www.antiwar.com/orig/oneill.php?articleid=9615
I don’t know if the UK court found that what she said was unture or not. I have little sympathy with somebody caught lying
On the other hand it may just be that she didn’t spend enough time suggesting that the al Quaeda funders had paid the money accidentally. A few years ago a UK magazine claimed that a video of what was alleged to be a Serbian Concentration Camp produced by Britain’s ITN had been faked. The court decided on the evidence that it had indeedbeen faked but that the magazine had not spent enough time reporting the possibility that it had been accidentally faked & thus found for ITN’s reporters. No really. This is the video that, according to Bush senior, convinced him to put America’s support fully behind Bosnia’s (al Quaeda supported) Moslems, 20 minutes after he saw it.
On the 3rd hand nobody made a fuss then because it was a lie against Serbs whom the entire media were already lying about whereas now al Quaeda is less fashionable.