Posted on 08/29/2007 7:30:41 AM PDT by SmithL
It has become popular for those with competing political agendas to allege threats to free speech, whether real or imagined. Yet, there is a very real threat to free speech that has received little attention in the public sphere. It's called libel tourism and it has become a major component in the ideological arm of the war on terrorism.
At question is the publication of books and other writings that seek to shed light on the financing of Islamic terrorism. Increasingly, American authors who dare enter this territory are finding themselves at risk of being sued for libel in the much more plaintiff-friendly British court system in what amounts to an attempt to censor their work on an international level.
The latest case of libel tourism to rear its ugly head involves the book "Alms for Jihad", which was published by Cambridge University Press in 2006. Co-written by former State Department analyst and USAID relief coordinator for Sudan J. Millard Burr and UC Santa Barbara professor emeritus of history Robert O. Collins, "Alms for Jihad" delves into the tangled web of international terrorist financing and, chiefly, the misuse of Muslim charities for such purposes.
Billionaire strikes back
Among those the book fingers for involvement is Saudi billionaire Khalid bin Mahfouz, the former chairman of Saudi Arabia's largest bank, National Commercial Bank. Bin Mahfouz has come under similar scrutiny on previous occasions, including being named a defendant in a lawsuit filed by family members of victims of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. He even has a section of his Web site devoted to trying to refute such charges.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
International Criminal Court, anyone?
. . . In America, the burden of proof in a libel suit lies with the plaintiff. In Britain, it lies with the defendant, which can make it terribly difficult and expensive to ward off a defamation charge, even if the balance of evidence supports the defendant.That ought to get the attention of American advocates of foreign law!
I’m not a lawyer, so one of you legal-type folks will have to help me out here....
How is it that an AMERICAN author can be sued in a BRITISH court? Britain hasn’t had jurisdiction over the USA for about 230 years now.
In the case of “Alms for Jihad” the publisher was British (Cambridge U. Press), so bin Mafhouz threatened to sue (didn’t actually have to go through with it-—they caved) them, not the author.
As far as Rachel Ehrenfeld’s book, bin Mahfouz’ suit in the UK alleged that British readers could order it on the internet, etc (actually only 23 copies ever made it to the UK) and so it was fair game.
But her countersuit here in the U.S. aims to change all that and set the precedent that American authors are protected from foreign libel suits by the First Amendment.
So the saga continues...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.