A huge victory for the Resistance. An update on this story.
From the Times Online (thanks to all who sent this in):
Politicians in New York have acted to protect the state’s writers and publishers from so-called libel tourism after an English libel judgment went against an American author.The Libel Terrorism Protection Act was given a unanimous passage in the state Senate in Albany, the New York Law Journal reported. The new bill was introduced after the New York Court of Appeals ruled in December that the state’s laws did not protect Rachel Ehrenfeld, an American author, from a possible bid by a Saudi Arabian businessman to enforce a summary judgment issued by the High Court in London.
The bill is intended to amend New York’s so-called "long-arm statute" in order to give the state’s courts jurisdiction over a foreign libel claimant who won a judgment against an author or publisher with sufficient physical or financial ties to the state.
It would allow New York’s courts to declare that a foreign judgment was unenforceable if the courts decided that the libel laws in foreign jurisdictions did not protect freedom of speech and the press to the same extent as the laws in New York and the US.
Read it all.
Sounds good, but is it good enough?
"the Resistance..."
Noted.
The use or threat of legal action by wealthy individuals to silence criticism is a real problem.
This is a very important piece of legislation.
Meandering slightly off track, can anyone recommend a good book to start learning standard Arabic?
That should read:
The use or threat of legal action by wealthy individuals to silence criticism is a real problem *in the UK*.
Buy Rachel's book and let them the Saudi financiers worry. The more we know about them the better
Excellent point, 'Lonewolf'!
It certainly wouldn't be the first time that trying to shut somebody up has had the opposite effect of making the intended p.o.v. MORE widely known.
"It would allow New York’s courts to declare that a foreign judgment was unenforceable if the courts decided that the libel laws in foreign jurisdictions did not protect freedom of speech and the press to the same extent as the laws in New York and the US."
I've followed this story for several months now and I still can't understand how this act does anything for Ehrenfeld or other authors.
I am quite sympathetic to Ehrenfeld's situation and glad of the fact that a state legislature at least took quick action trying to thwart the practice of "libel tourism", but.... I still do not see the value of this statute.
bin Mahfouz would never try to enforce his paper judgment here in the states if it meant subjecting himself to the jurisdiction of the U.S. courts. He did not try to collect here and the judgment has no value in the U.S. unless he is able to collect on it. Most attorneys would agree he would never be able to collect on it anyway. This statute does nothing additional for the protection of writers and authors that I see. If I am incorrect I invite comments to explain why so.
In addition, having recently had reason to review the law concerning long-arm statutes, a legislature cannot create jurisdiction without the Supreme Court having final say over issue. When time comes for a court to analyze this law under such doctrines as "due process" and "minimal contacts" it would most likely be struck down. The NY Legislature cannot create jurisdiction over a person who has has not had sufficient minimal contacts with the state. An occasional visit is not enough. bin mahfouz must have availed himself of the benefits of the laws of the state of New York before a court can claim jurisdiction over him. This is a Phyric victory at best for the "Resistance".
Perhaps this could be the rebirth of common sense
More books than those of Ehrenfeld have been pressed out of circulation. Alms for Jihad is one. I got myself an electronic copy, but the paper edition, the one that'd actually be seen in a bookstore, has been withdrawn due to pressure from wealthy Arabs.
Word is that at least five other titles have been withdrawn, pulped before being sold. Anyone knows about those titles? Samizdat publishing is becoming a very real option for these important books.
No foreign law trumps American law.
No foreign restraint of freedom of speech can over-rule the First Amendment.
Period.
I've got a comment from Rachel Ehrenfeld:
Alas, The Times lead was misleading. The bill passed unanimously in the Senate only, but is still lingering in the Assembly...
But I hope the Assembly will clear it soon. There is already interest in Congress to adopt a similar law nationally.
So, not quite there yet...
Some good news for a change. People are catching on.
Evidence of intelligent life on earth.
No foreign law trumps American law.
No foreign restraint of freedom of speech can over-rule the First Amendment.
Period.
-------------
In theory, this is true, but American law is often subverted by the assailing forces of political expedience. If we postulate that the Saudis own a big enough chunk of American assets or debt to force capitulation to terms antithetical to the spirit and letter of American jurisprudence, this is not much different than the Supreme Court's recent decision to overturn property rights law in favor of commercial interests. So surely, we all recognize the ingenuity of certain fee-tweaked minds laboring in the business of hairsplitting to "reinterpret" our most cherished legal language under the banner of protecting the "public" good to make what "once was" now a "relic of the past".
As a staunch culture nationalist first, and a peace-loving kitsch-sharing globalist second, we should indeed keep a watchful eye out for this type of treasonous behavior in our leadership, and even those in the street, our neighbors, our friends, our families, and fight if must be to keep our constitutional freedoms, especially those which strengthen us and protect us from those enemies who would threaten not just these liberties, but our lives and our destiny as a free decent people. Upon reflection of other pressing matters such as lax immigration enforcement of policy, faulty trade agreements acrruing massive deficits, foreign takeovers of critical ports and other security-related operations, we can easily see that something is rotten in Denmark, and it isn't Denmark, but it is the enemy within, both foreign and domestic, who would continue to chip away at common sense and responsible liberty, and threaten all we with proven philosophies hold dear.
In Denmark, we are debating quite extensively about the relationship between national and international law. An English language article is up at Gates of Vienna:
Human Rights Conventions are not Divine Obligations
by Baron Bodissey
I try to write about other things besides Denmark. I really do. But then more good news keeps coming from the Danes, and I can’t just ignore it, can I?
It seems that the whole of the Western World is asleep. “Don’t bother us — it’s a nice pleasant flower-strewn meadow, this multicultural dream we’re having. Don’t wake us up.”
But for some reason Denmark, alone among Western nations, has decided to wake up. Holger Danske has one eye open, and the other one will be popping open soon enough.
The latest news concerns a representative from the ruling coalition of the Danish government who has spoken out against the European Human Rights Court for its pernicious decision to deny European governments the right to deport dangerous foreign terrorists. Zonka has kindly translated the article for Jyllands-Posten:
Pind: Insult against Denmark if Tunisians can stay
If the European human-rights convention prevents Denmark from expelling Tunisian terror suspects, Denmark must reconsider whether we should continue to endorse them. Thus says Venstre’s foreign affairs spokesman Søren Pind.
Several experts in human rights believe that a current ruling from the European Human Rights Court means that it will be difficult for Denmark to deport the two Tunisians who are under suspicion for wanting to kill the Mohammed cartoonist Kurt Westergaard, since Tunisia uses torture against prisoners.
However, that is an insult against Denmark, says Søren Pind, who calls for a rebellion against the conventions.
“It makes our affiliation of the European Human Rights Convention a parody. It enforces us an obligation to protect people who want to kill us,” writes Søren Pind on his blog.
If the judicial interpretations are correct, then the consequence, according to Søren Pind, could be a Danish showdown against the convention.
“Conventions are not divine obligations. They are agreements between countries. Agreements that are entered into can be terminated, But it shouldn’t have to come to that. Thus the question must be asked again and again to those who reject deportation: Give us a usable answer, one in which the evil in our midst won’t be tolerated. Where blatant and reckless offenses against our hospitality aren’t just ignored. Where the sanction gives meaning,” says Søren Pind.
Zonka includes his commentary on the situation:
We are seeing an unprecedented political unity at the moment against the more radical Islamic demands and what have you, from the left to the right. (...)
Henrik -
Bravo for the Danes!
Rachel Ehrenfeld's book is:
Funding Evil, Updated: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It.
I dropped one in my shopping cart. How about you?
I recently got an opportunity to call some senators and solicit their for the Libel Terrorisnm Protection Act. I am very, very pleased that I decided to do so--and that the bill passed!
It's nice to see the courageous Dr. Ehrenfeld catching a break, as she deserves one (her work is excellent!).
Now, if we can only institite this as national policy.
I think that the best part about this is that it reminds our U.S. citizens that there really is a problem in the U.K. and that it could happen here; however, I hestitate to become too enthusiastic because I believe that many of our legislators and politicians would bow out in favor of laws that would appease the Saudis with whom the U.S. has big $ contracts with.
In response to USorTHEM.
I would submit that if they spend even one minute in a jurisdiction it could be argued that they have been afforded the protections of such jurisdiction. One can argue, I think at least, that even as foreign visitors they are protected (at least for now) from unreasonable search and seizure, they are afforded the same police protections afforded citizen/residents of the jurisdiction, they are not denied habeus corpus protections etc.
If merely being afforded the protections of the jurisdiction is the standard for being subject to the jurisdiction, then this ruling may be offer at least some judicial relief.
Of course, this interpretation would tend to create it's own consequences from the law of unintended consequences. Maybe better stop now, or no such agency might get the wrong idea.
"I dropped one in my shopping cart. How about you?"
Did so last year.
It's kindof dry, but the information is invaluable.
While you're at it, check out "Alms for Jihad" as well. You'll find that availability has been reduced significantly more than for "Funding Evil"...