Major Reversal Against Free Speech

NY court: Saudi billionaire can pursue British claims in the U.S. by Larry Neumeister

Say what? How is it possible that the cases involving British libel laws can be pursued in U.S. courts?

This is not only a blow against free speech, it hits the Constitution and should strike fear in the hearts of authors and journalists everywhere!

The author of a book about financing terrorism can't prevent a Saudi billionaire from trying to enforce a London libel verdict in the United States, a federal appeals court said Monday.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Manhattan author Rachel Ehrenfeld's lawsuit to stop the billionaire, Khalid Salim A. Bin Mahfouz, from trying to collect on a default judgment obtained against Ehrenfeld in London.

Ehrenfeld's attorney, Daniel Kornstein, said he was disappointed by the ruling.

"This is a matter that's not only about Rachel Ehrenfeld. It's about New York writers and publishers generally and their ability to investigate and speak their minds on matter of urgent public interest," he said.

Stephen J. Brogan, a lawyer for Bin Mahfouz, did not immediately return a phone message requesting comment.

The Saudi businessman has made claims against authors and journalists more than two dozen times over writings on terrorism and those who fund it, including Ehrenfeld's 2003 book, "Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed _ and How to Stop It."

Ehrenfeld wrote that Bin Mahfouz and his family provided financial support to al-Qaida and other "Islamist terror groups."

A 2005 ruling by London's High Court of Justice ordered Ehrenfeld to pay Bin Mahfouz $225,000, declare her writings about him to be false, destroy existing copies of the book and apologize.

Ehrenfeld had then asked a Manhattan court to declare that the London judgment was unenforceable in the United States. A lower court previously said the matter was out of its jurisdiction.

Bin Mahfouz has not tried to collect on the London judgment in the United States.

New York state has a so-called "long-arm" law, which establishes jurisdiction for almost anyone who does business in New York. But New York's Court of Appeals previously found that it does not apply to Bin Mahfouz's case.

The 2nd Circuit also said Monday that Ehrenfeld had failed to asked the lower court to decide whether the First Amendment entitled her to a ruling in her favor and thus could not argue for such a ruling from the appeals court.

Two state lawmakers are trying to pass legislation that would protect authors and journalists who write about terrorism from limitations imposed as a result of foreign libel lawsuits. The court refused to delay its decision until that legislative effort is concluded.

Proposed New York legislation ostensibly would protection authors against this outrage.

The proposed legislation would amend New York's code of civil practice to prohibit enforcement of a foreign libel judgment unless a New York court determines that it satisfies the free speech and press protections guaranteed by the U.S. and the New York State constitutions. The legislation would also amend New York's “long-arm” statute to allow courts, under certain circumstances, to exercise personal jurisdiction over nonresidents who win foreign libel judgments against New York residents in order to grant resident writers declaratory relief in those cases.

The legislation was introduced in response to a Dec. 20, 2007, ruling that New York courts lacked jurisdiction to hear American author Rachel Ehrenfeld's lawsuit seeking to have a British default libel judgment against her declared unenforceable in the U.S. Ehrenfeld, author of Funding Evil: How Terrorism Is Financed and How to Stop It (Bonus Books), was sued by Saudi billionaire Khalid bin Mahfouz in a London court under U.K. libel laws. In her book, Ehrenfeld identified bin Mahfouz as a financial supporter of terrorist organizations. Bin Mahfouz sued Ehrenfeld even though the book was never published in Great Britain and neither he nor Ehrenfeld resides there. Ehrenfeld refused to participate in the suit, but was nonetheless hit with a default judgment of $225,000 in damages and legal fees to bin Mahfouz, as well as a “declaration of falsity” against Funding Evil and a promise to destroy existing copies of the book, a demand for a public apology and an injunction against U.K. publication.

Libel Tourism: Where Terrorism and Censorship Meet. That says it all!

Well not quite. See "The Great Undoing" - Will the Netherlands Destroy Its Own Freedom of Speech? at Andrew Bostom's Blog

Writing about Wilder's short film "Fitna" that is causing an uproar in the Muslim world and consternation, and possible banning by the Netherlands because of fear of violence:

This suppression, by the Western world, of free speech — for if this movie is suppressed, one assumes that all other such movies will be suppressed, and the demands, by Muslims inside and outside of Europe for still more to be censored, including the written word, will only increase, with that well-known triumphalism that feeds each new demand, so that Muslims will never be offended, not in their own lands, and not within the historic heart of the free and advanced West — no, not to be offended, for otherwise — and it need not be soldiers in Afghanistan, it could be, say, the threat to blow up one of the Oxford colleges, or the Louvre, or the Alte Pinakothek, or the Uffizi or the Vatican. Oh, it could be any number of things. Do what we want, submit to our Diktat….or else! The stand has to be taken now.

Not later. Later will be too late.

It "will be too late" as long as we allow these people to push us around.

See also: Will Geert Wilders Show His Film on the Koran?