Great news -- Rachel's Law has been signed by New York's Governor Paterson. Here is the New York Governor's office press release, and here is the announcement from the American Center for Democracy, whose director, Rachel Ehrenfeld, gave her name to Rachel's law. Background here.
The Libel Terrorism Protection Act, also known as RACHEL's LAW, signed by GovernorAlbany, NY (May 1, 2008) -- New York State Governor David Paterson yesterday signed the "Libel Terrorism Protection Act" (S.6687/A.9652), which on March 31 passed the state's Assembly and Senate unanimously.
Also known as Rachel's Law, the bill sponsored by Assemblyman Rory Lancman (D-Queens) and Senate Deputy Majority Leader Dean G. Skelos (R-Rockville Centre) will protect American journalists and authors from foreign lawsuits that infringe on First Amendment rights. The bill also received unprecedented support from Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver.
"New Yorkers must be able to speak out on issues of public concern without living in fear that they will be sued outside the United States, under legal standards inconsistent with our First Amendment rights," said Governor Paterson. "This legislation will help ensure of the freedoms enjoyed by New York authors."
Reflecting the New York legislation's importance, U.S. Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) on April 16 introduced a similar bill, the Freedom of Speech Protection Act (H.R. 5814), in the House of Representatives.
In Ehrenfeld v. Mahfouz, New York State's highest court held that it was unable to protect Dr. Ehrenfeld from a British lawsuit filed by Saudi billionaire Khalid Salim Bin Mahfouz. Britain's High Court ordered her to pay over $225,000 in damages and legal fees to Bin Mahfouz, apologize and destroy copies of her books.
Instead, November 2006, Dr. Ehrenfeld sought a U.S. federal court order to protect her constitutional rights. But a New York Court of Appeals ruling with national implications sent legal shockwaves throughout American newsrooms.
The New York court potentially undermined U.S. journalists' ability to expose terrorism's financial and logistical support networks, when it ruled that the court lacks jurisdiction to protect Americans - on U.S. soil - from foreign defamation judgments that contradict the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Rachel's Law declares overseas defamation judgments unenforceable in New York State unless the foreign defamation law provides, in substance and application, the same free speech protections guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. The law gives New York residents and publishers the opportunity to have their day in court.
[...]
"This law will give New York's journalists, authors and press the protection and tools they need to continue to fearlessly expose the truth about terrorism and its enablers, and to maintain New York's place as the free speech capitol of the world," Lancman stated.
"The truth is a critically-important component in the War on Terror," said Senator Skelos. "This important new law will protect American authors and journalists who expose terrorist networks and their financiers."
Manhattan District Attorney Robert M. Morgenthau said: "Terrorism and terrorist financing are matters of vital interest to all New Yorkers, in no small part because New York City remains a target of significance for international terrorists. New York authors must have the freedom to investigate, write and publish on terrorism and other matters of public importance, subject only to limitations that are consistent with the U.S. Constitution. This legislation will help to ensure such freedom."
Today, Governor Paterson declared the intention of New York State, the publishing capital of America, to safeguard the First Amendment and its courageous writers.
Rachel's Law marks an important step in Dr. Ehrenfeld's efforts to stop Arab billionaires like Khalid bin Mahfouz from attempting to silence U.S. writers who expose Saudi terrorist funding and global radical Muslim organizations, including al Qaeda and Hamas.
Great news indeed. Americans need to positively know that these lawsuits will not make their way into this country. Kudos to our lawmakers for this. Yippiyay Kayo!
Speaking as an Englishman, I was truly shocked to learn that American courts were applying English defamation law in libel actions.
I am now delighted to see that sanity prevails. I hope it travels across the Atlantic.
One observation: generally, British newspapers have higher standards of journalism than here. One reason: journalists can be held to account for printing fiction as fact.
There's nothing particularly sinister about British libel laws - they are very simple: if you publish something, you had better have evidence. I know journalists like to cite the First Amendment to place them above the law, but there's a choice to be made: do we want newspapers to be free to lie, cheat and defame, with no avenues of redress, or do we want journalists to be capable or being held to account for shoddy research or blatant lies?
Now if we had such a law in this country, Canada, to ensure free speech, in spite of the censorship and dastardly doings of our elitists, ingrate Muslim student lawyers and anti-free speech Islamic organizations, we would all be so much better off.
"British newspapers have higher standards of journalism than here. One reason: journalists can be held to account for printing fiction as fact."
-- from a posting above
Much of what is routinely printed in The Guardian and other British newspapers, about the Arab siege of Israel, and also about the United States ("so large, so stupid, and so rich") dangerously grades from sober fact into tendentious and libellous fiction.
Obelisk 1 Oh yes that must be true, given the BBC and other papers which regularly publish falsehoods and refuse to take them back. Give me a break. Britain is even more politically correct than the US. Sorry while American reporters may not be the swiftest, there are some that refuse to buckle. More importantly, the law says our courts cannot enforce overseas laws that contradict our own. I suggest you all buy Rachel's book on funding terrorism..
New York State is a start. How about the other 49? Or can libel law be federalized, for the sake of consistency?
What I find interesting in all of this is the simple fact that Mahfouz has not produced documentation proving libel. At least I have not been made aware that there was even an effort to do so. What the poster Obelisk1 seems to be unaware of is that the media in the UK and Europe is even more controlled than here in the US. Readers there have less of a choice in the information that they can access than here. The wolves of the Gulf know this and they can buy or extort via libel suits to keep information at bay. We need to keep that from happening here. Hugh, please give me an idea how we can start the other 49 in adopting what New York just passed!
ARG! Let's all be very clear about Ehrenfeld v. Mahfouz. The case was decided on a procedural bais and said NOTHING about whether Mahfouz's libel suit could be enforced by a New York state court.
The court found that it did not have jurisdiction to consider a DECLARATORY JUDGMENT by Ehrenfeld against Mahfouz. A declaratory judgment is requested when a party is threatened with a lawsuit, but where no lawsuit has actually been filed. In this case, Mahfouz has a default judgment in England, but he was (implicitly) threatening to ask a U.S. court to enforce that judgment. Ehrenfeld sought a declaratory judgment, but the New York state court decided, on a procedural basis, that it could not issue a declaratory judgment because it lacked jurisdiction.
However, if Mahfouz ever ACTUALLY asks a New York state court to enforce the British libel judgment, the New York court will have jurisdiction, and will actually hear the case on the merits.
NOWHERE in Ehrenfeld v. Mahfouz does the court say that Ehrenfeld is not protected against the libel judgment. All the court said was that Ehrenfeld has to wait until Mahfouz actually tries to collect, at which time it will hear the case.
"Or can libel law be federalized, for the sake of consistency?"
The redoubtable Congressman Peter King is evidently already working on federal legislation.
"In addition to the New York legislation, U.S. Congressmen Peter King just introduced federal legislation called the “Free Speech Protection of Act of 2008” that would enable U.S. authors to sue foreign libel plaintiffs who obtained judgments against them and obtain treble damages if those foreign libel plaintiffs engaged in intentional schemes to suppress First Amendment rights. If enacted, this legislation could have a significant deterrent value. If foreign libel plaintiffs knew they could be subject to substantial financial penalties for targeting U.S. authors in foreign courts, they might think twice about suing in the first place."
http://www.aina.org/news/20080425042024.htm
Deputy Majority Leader Dean G. Skelos is a total whore, at least he is doing something useful this time FOR free speech. Thanks to that PC Long Island twit, they passed a brainless hate crime law making a noose a felony, even though the big noose cases that were supposed to scare us to death either had nothing to do with race or were hoaxes played by the biggest victim's group themselves.
"U.S. Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) on April 16 introduced a similar bill, the Freedom of Speech Protection Act (H.R. 5814), in the House of Representatives."
This Bill by Rep. was designed and started to protect witnesses who came forward during the Flyings Imans incident.
But like Hugh pointed out, where are the 49 other states on issues such as Rachel's Law and we note that Rep.King is also a New Yorker.
"Rachel's Law marks an important step in Dr. Ehrenfeld's efforts to stop Arab billionaires like Khalid bin Mahfouz from attempting to silence U.S. writers who expose Saudi terrorist funding and global radical Muslim organizations, including al Qaeda and Hamas"
THe Saudi government funding terrorists and readical Muslim organizations?....Who Knew!
Ha...
"readical ------>s.b. radical...but you probably knew that.
Despite what I wrote above, I am indeed a fan of Rachel's Law. Foreign jurisdictions' rulings should not be enforceable in the US where the laws involved transgress constitutional rights here.
The libel laws are not a great system (many European countries operate statutory right of reply systems that seem to work better), but they are not the terrible burden-on-the-truth they are sometimes portrayed as. The BBC has slipped far, far below the standards of journalism (and basic decency) it once espoused. However, the BBC cannot trash an individual without evidence, or it gets sued for libel.
Of course, none of this is a protection against the publication of utterly stupid opinion, but who would want that anyway? Stuff like describing the United States as "so large, so stupid, and so rich" is moronic, but not libelous.
The problem with journalism is not libel laws, or their lack, but the awful trend in journalists of blending fact and opinion ("analysis" they like to call it) and the abandonment of the principles of factual reporting and objectivity. That is a problem on both sides of the Atlantic. Journalistic integrity? An oxymoron.
A drop of good news in a sea of bad news. At least that.
The First Amendment makes this "law" unnecessary and irrelevant, and renders the previous court's "decision" illegal and un-Constitutional.
If there was any question, state law is not going to settle anything, and it would have to be taken to the U.S. Supreme Court and thrown out there, once and for all, and for every state.
Foreign Law, unless it is a specific signed and ratified treaty, has no jurisdiction or meaning in America.
Profitsbeard -
That is what the First Amendment says. And I agree the S.C. should back it up! That is what they are there for.
But, the Supreme Court has some members who believe they should consider foreign law and decisions of the international court in the Hague in formulating supreme court decisions, in addition to the Constitution.
Ruth Ginsberg for one and the former justice Sandra O'Conner wrote papers in which they espoused this approach. Maybe others too. In my mind that would call for impeachment, but they can get away with it - none have ever been impeached as far as I know.
'The libel terrorism protection act'
I may have missed something but shouldn't this read:
'The libel tourism protection act'?
@Obelisk1:
On the other hand... Britain is a remarkably easy (if costly) place to score a libel victory, as the burden of proof is on the defendant rather than the plaintiff. Awards agsinst the defendant are also unlimited. Hence its popularity among "libel tourists" whom this latest move is designed to thwart.
From the 'American Centre for Democracy' website:-
The law, which goes into effect immediately, protects American journalists and authors in New York from enforcement of foreign lawsuits that infringe on their First Amendment rights, a phenomenon known as “libel tourism,” or “libel terrorism” when used to suppress reporting on terrorism and its enablers as occurred when Saudi billionaire Khalid Salim bin Mahfouz sued New York Dr. Ehrenfeld in Britain where 23 copies of her book identifying bin Mahfouz as a financier of terrorism were sold over the internet. The legislation garnered widespread support in the legal, journalism and publishing communities, including from the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, District Attorney Robert Morgenthau, the Authors Guild, the Association of American Publishers, the New York Newspaper Publishers Association, PEN, and supporting editorials and op-eds in Newsday
Now I get it. Disregard my comment above.
Good News Indeed.