Posted on 07/15/2008 6:59:11 AM PDT by 3AngelaD
Our Constitution is one of our greatest assets in the fight against terrorism. A free-flowing marketplace of ideas, protected by the First Amendment, enables the ideals of democracy to defeat the totalitarian vision of al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.
That free marketplace faces a threat. Individuals with alleged connections to terrorist activity are filing libel suits and winning judgments in foreign courts against American researchers who publish on these matters. These suits intimidate and even silence writers and publishers.
Under American law, a libel plaintiff must prove that defamatory material is false. In England, the burden is reversed....Consequently, English courts have become a popular destination for libel suits against American authors. In 2003, U.S. scholar Rachel Ehrenfeld asserted in her book, "Funding Evil: How Terrorism Is Financed and How to Stop It," that Saudi banker Khalid Bin Mahfouz helped fund Osama bin Laden. The book was published in the U.S. by a U.S. company. But 23 copies were bought online by English residents, so English courts permitted the Saudi to file a libel suit there.
Ms. Ehrenfeld did not appear in court, so Mr. Bin Mahfouz won a $250,000 default judgment against her. He has filed or threatened to file at least 30 other suits in England....
To counter this lawsuit trend, we have introduced the Free Speech Protection Act of 2008...Our bill bars U.S. courts from enforcing libel judgments issued in foreign courts against U.S. residents, if the speech would not be libelous under American law. The bill also permits American authors and publishers to countersue if the material is protected by the First Amendment. If a jury finds that the foreign suit is part of a scheme to suppress free speech rights, it may award treble damages....
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Same tactics being used by Globull Warming nuts!
Sounds like a dman fine piece of legislation. I'm glad that Joe and ol' Spectacle are on top of this.
The rest of the world so desperately wants to to destroy the US. Obama will help them all the way.....
More Babelism..
Gee. Arlen Specter gets one right for a change. Of course, I I can’t help wondering if this legislation would even trump Scottish law.
” if the speech would not be libelous under American law.”
That sounds like a backdoor attempt to ALLOW foreign courts jurisdiction over US citizens. The foreign courts have no rights over me. This is NOT a global government!
We shouldn’t need this legislation in the first place.
Exactly.
“Mr. Bin Mahfouz won a $250,000 default judgment”
I don’t understand why an American citizen would pay or even acknowledge such a judgement unless the live there or want to be able to travel to the UK.
I don't read it that way. There would have to be a finding IN A UNITED STATES COURT that the speech was indeed libelous. That means that the entire foreign court proceeding would have been a complete waste of time, or worse. That's because the law would provide for the filing of a countersuit with potential triple damages raising the stakes even higher for anyone wanting to pursue this course, and come to the United States looking for enforcement of a judgement.
I doubt that any plaintiff that won a judgement in a European court would ever want that judgement tested in a US courtroom, under any circumstances.
They would prefer to try to find a way to carry out the judgement against any extraterritorial assets, or against a possible co-defendant, like a publisher that might have assets in Europe.
Me too! Who ever would have thunk that Jowls and the Lieb could put this together?
Why is this law even needed? Foreign courts already have no jurisdiction in the USA.
“There would have to be a finding IN A UNITED STATES COURT that the speech was indeed libelous. “
Are your Constitutional protections allowed under that foreign court? Do you really want to be found guilty in absentia? What other laws shall apply whereby a foreign court gets to find you guilty? Treason? Crimes against Allah?
Such rulings are de facto extraditions and do nothing but open the doors to US citizens being ruled by foreign governments. When you are subject to a foreign government you are a subject of that government.
My forefathers didn’t fight to break free from the King of England and his courts only to let this generation return us to their subjectivity.
“There would have to be a finding IN A UNITED STATES COURT that the speech was indeed libelous.”
That’s NOT what that law says. Further, this is NOT a global government. Foreigners are do NOT have the privileges of our courts for acts on foriegn soil. I can say anything I damned well please about a foreigner on their soil and they do not get to run to their foreign courts and demand the US courts take action.
This law opens that door. Right now it is shut.
What are you going on about?
You need to understand that you don’t have ANY protection from being sued in a foreign court, at any time by anyone for any thing. You can be found liable in absentia.
So what? That has ALWAYS been true. It was true yesterday, it is true today, and it will be true tomorrow.
What we are talking abut here is the enforcability of a foreign judgement in the United States, and possible finding ways to discourage exactly the kind of foreign abuse of the judicial process that worries you.
And finally, just which part of “IN A UNITED STATES COURT” have you had trouble understanding. I put it in all caps just to make the point, but it seems to have been lost on you.
As the article reminds, publishing is by nature an international affair.
Several examples in the article should be sufficient to see how a UK court ruling can be used to burn books (and thus financially damage writers) in America.
This lege would give the writer ability to sue for damages in return.
This is what I find comical about modern isolationists. Intrnational trade and banking and publishing binds us closer to the nutters over the wall than we'd wish, but isolating ourselves (i.e. not publishing over there) whould reduce our own freedom.
There's no way around it but meet trade with more trade, force with superior force and legal shennanigans with treble legal shennanigans.
Sorry, Toad, but that's EXACTLY what the proposed law provides.
Did I wake up in a different dimension this morning?
I'd watch that if I were you. You might not even make it back to a US court.
In the case under discussion, the comment about the foreigner was made in the United States, and the judgment was obtained in the United Kingdom.
I'm happy that this law might provide some recourse for our people subjected to such legal abuse.
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.