New York enacts Libel Terrorism Protection Act

Gov. David Paterson signed the Libel Terrorism Protection Act on Thursday, helping New York set the pace in protecting American journalists from foreign libel verdicts.

The bill was first proposed in response to a ruling from New York’s highest court that the state could not exercise jurisdiction over Khalid Salim a Bin Mahfouz, a Saudi Arabian businessman and banker who obtained a default judgment in a defamation suit against American author Rachel Ehrenfeld in a British court. Bin Mahfouz is one of the world’s most notorious libel tourists, having used or threatening to use plaintiff-friendly British courts to sue for libel at least 36 times since 2002.

The law combats such international forum shopping on two fronts. It prevents litigants from enforcing foreign libel judgments in the state unless a New York court finds that the jurisdiction issuing the judgment provides the same free speech protections guaranteed under the U.S. and New York state constitutions.  Secondly, it grants New York courts jurisdiction over litigants who obtain a foreign defamation judgment against New York state citizens, allowing Ehrenfeld and others like her to petition a state court for a declaratory judgment rendering the foreign decision unenforceable on New York soil.

In signing the bill, Paterson recognized that New York has blazed a trail that other states and the federal government must follow. 

“Although New York State has now done all it can to protect our authors while they live in New York, they remain vulnerable if they move to other states, or if they have assets in other states,” Paterson said in a statement. “We really need Congress and the President to work together and enact federal legislation that will protect authors throughout the country against the threat of foreign libel judgments.”

Picking up on the tone set by his state, U.S. Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) took the first step towards establishing similar protections on a national scale when he introduced the Freedom of Speech Protection Act (H.R. 5814), in the House of Representatives.

Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press

New York to Protect Writers from Foreign Libel Suits

New York Governor David Paterson signed into law yesterday the “Libel Terrorism Protection Act,” according to the New York Sun. This bill, for which Harvey and his colleague Samuel A. Abady have lobbied in the Boston Globe and the New York Post, is the direct result of the recent censorship of New York journalist and counterterrorism expert Rachel Ehrenfeld. In her book, Funding Evil, Ehrenfeld named Saudi billionaire Khalid bin Mahfouz as a leading financier of Islamic terrorism based on an exhaustive review of government documents. While Ehrenfeld’s scholarship, particularly her characterizations of Muslim charities, are controversial, there’s no doubt that her attack on bin Mahfouz is fully protected speech and does not even approach the threshold set for libel by New York Times v. Sullivan. Nonetheless, bin Mahfouz has been able to effectively muzzle Ehrenfeld by suing her in England, where 23 copies of her book were ordered online and where libel laws are much more plaintiff-friendly. Like most journalists, Ehrenfeld could not afford to battle a litigious billionaire in a foreign country. She had no choice but to accept a declaratory judgment that she pay $225,000 in damages and pulp remaining copies of Funding Evil. The “Libel Terrorism Protect Act” now allows her to challenge the British court’s judgment on American soil, where she will enjoy the full protections of the First Amendment. Let’s hope that civil libertarian groups around the country understand the importance of rallying their state legislatures to pass similar legislation

The Pheonix

Conference Laments 'Libel Tourism' By Islamists

By: Bradley Vasoli, The Bulletin

New York - Security and legal experts admonished the Western world that Islamist terrorists take a heavy toll not only in lives but also in speech rights. on Thursday at Free Speech In The Age of Jihad conference held at the Princeton Club in New York City.

Six and a half years after Sept. 11, 2001, a phenomenon has taken hold in Europe, Canada and, to a lesser but potent extent, the United States that experts call "libel tourism." It refers to reputed supporters of terrorist networks like al-Qaida or Hezbollah filing civil complaints against their journalistic critics in a nation that defines "libel" very broadly. Because many books and periodicals are sold internationally, this presents a legal snag that is difficult for many authors to avoid.

One such apparent target of libel tourism is Rachel Ehrenfeld, director of the American Center for Democracy and author of Funding Evil: How Terrorism Is Financed and How to Stop It (Bonus Books, 320 pages). Saudi native Khalid bin Mahfouz successfully sued her for libel in England when her book, which alleges he has helped to fund al-Qaida, sold a few copies in Great Britain through Internet vendors. The litigation came as a surprise to Ms. Ehrenfeld, who had only made an effort to market the book in the United States.

To Stanley Kurtz, a senior fellow at the D.C.-based Ethics and Public Policy Center, Mr. bin Mahfouz's decision to target the author in Britain owed to a simple realization: He didn't stand a chance in a United States court. But publishing houses now resist picking up Ms. Ehrenfeld's projects for fear that their doing so will entice lawsuits from her writings' subjects.
"Bin Mafouz has effectively paralyzed an entire subfield of American authors," Mr. Kurtz said.

Ms. Ehrenfeld has been ordered to pay a judgment of roughly $20,000 and over $200,000 in legal bills incurred by the litigant. She continues to seek avenues to fight the judgment of British Judge David Eady. Barring her success, she runs the risk of being arrested should she travel to Great Britain.

"[Supporters of terror networks] know how to silence us," she said. "And we need to do something in order to counter it."
On March 31, the New York state legislature took action of its own to provide partial protection to those like Ms. Ehrenfeld whose works have been subject to the litigiousness of their opponents. It unanimously passed the Libel Terrorism Protection Act, which specifies that New York does not have the onus of enforcing a defamation judgment issued in a foreign country unless the law provides for free-speech protections equivalent to those afforded by U.S. law.

The conference in New York City was sponsored by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and the New Criterion magazine.

Bradley Vasoli can be reached at bvasoli@thebulletin.us.


©The Evening Bulletin 2008

Saudi wields British law against U.S. author

Billionaire leverages harsher libel rules to suppress unflattering book

By James Oliphant Tribune Correspondent, March 17, 2008


NEW YORK - Rachel Ehrenfeld writes about terrorism for a living. But now she is the one who feels targeted.

Her modest midtown Manhattan apartment is filled to the ceiling with books, most having to do with global terror networks and Mideast conflict. Sitting at her desk, she gazes out at the Hudson River. She says she has a hard time placing her work. She says she has been blacklisted. If she travels to England, she fears she will be arrested.

"I feel like a leper," she said.

Ehrenfeld faces a $225,000 judgment obtained in a British court in a libel suit brought by a former banker to the Saudi royal family, billionaire Khalid bin Mahfouz. "That's the Damocles sword effect. He's holding it above my head to intimidate me and others," she said.

The source of the trouble is Ehrenfeld's book, "Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It," published by Bonus Books. In it, she named bin Mahfouz as a financier of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Bin Mahfouz responded by suing Ehrenfeld -- not in the U.S., but in England, which is friendlier to libel claims.

Bin Mahfouz maintains Ehrenfeld's statements about him are false and reckless and says she is perpetuating myths that have followed him around the globe, endangering his business affairs.

It isn't the first time bin Mahfouz has been tied to bin Laden -- or the first time he has responded by filing a lawsuit. On his personal Web site, he lists the lawsuits he has filed and corrections and apologies he has obtained from some of the leading newspapers in the world.

Ehrenfeld calls bin Mahfouz a "libel tourist" who has used British law to try to halt her investigative work. She has the support in written court filings of Amazon.com, PEN American Center, the American Society of Newspaper Editors and others who worry that litigants such as bin Mahfouz have a chilling effect on American publishers who sell books globally.

The New York Legislature seems to agree. The state Senate last month passed a bill to enable New York writers and publishers to block enforcement of any British libel judgment. The state Assembly is taking up the legislation.

In court papers, bin Mahfouz's lawyers say the Saudi financier never intended to get at Ehrenfeld's assets in New York and would drop his claims if she would apologize and destroy unsold copies of the book. But when asked by a federal appeals court to waive his right to enforce the judgment in the U.S., bin Mahfouz declined. His lawyers insist that Ehrenfeld is the one who has stoked the controversy to promote book sales.

No 1st Amendment here

Turning to British courts is not new for aggrieved international plaintiffs. England has nothing like a 1st Amendment, which provides constitutional protection for writers in the U.S. Under British law, an author ay have to prove a statement is true.

American actors such as Cameron Diaz and Kate Hudson have used British courts to sue a tabloid. In the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, wealthy Saudis have chosen Britain as the forum to defend themselves from the writings of U.S.-based authors who have tried to penetrate the opaque realm of terror finance.

Craig Unger, who wrote the best seller "House of Bush, House of Saud," said his publisher, Random House, decided not to publish the book in Britain due to fears of a libel action. It was eventually distributed by another publisher. "I was disappointed with [Random House's] decision, but clearly U.K. libel laws are far more onerous for publishers than are American laws," Unger said.

Bin Mahfouz is one of the wealthiest people in the world, with a fortune estimated in the billions. His father, Salim, built the National Commercial Bank of Saudi Arabia and became banker to the Saudi royal family, a position Khalid inherited. (He has since sold his shares.)

Khalid bin Mahfouz was also an outside director of Bank of Credit and Commerce International, which collapsed in the early 1990s amid allegations of money laundering, fraud, bribery and supporting terrorism. Bin Mahfouz denied any involvement in the bank's day-to-day activities but ended up paying a civil fine in New York of $225 million.

That is the backdrop for attempts by Ehrenfeld and others to tie bin Mahfouz to bin Laden, with Ehrenfeld writing that the Saudi bank he oversaw diverted money to an Islamic charity that funneled money to Al Qaeda.

"Mr. bin Mahfouz has publicly condemned terrorism and vehemently denies that he or his former bank have ever provided financial support for terrorism," said his lawyer in the United States, Timothy Finn.

Bin Mahfouz is a bit player in Ehrenfeld's book, mentioned only on a handful of pages. But that didn't keep him from suing her in London in 2004, saying his reputation in Britain had been damaged. "I saw [the court papers] and thought, 'Bin Mahfouz chose the wrong victim,'" Ehrenfeld said.

While Ehrenfeld may have thought her book safe from the reach of British courts, she was wrong. Because it had sold two dozen copies in England via the Internet, and because some portions had been excerpted on a Web site, a British judge ruled that Ehrenfeld must defend herself across the Atlantic.

Ehrenfeld decided not to appear in England to contest the lawsuit, preferring instead to fight back in other ways. The second edition of her book contained the tag line "The book the Saudis don't want you to read" and a new introduction referring to bin Mahfouz's lawsuit.

This did not pass unnoticed by the British court overseeing bin Mahfouz's case.

Costly judgment

"It appears, therefore, that the defendants are trying to cash in on the fact that libel proceedings have been brought against them in this jurisdiction without being prepared to defend them on the merits," the presiding judge wrote in 2005. The court hit Ehrenfeld with a judgment of close to $20,000 and an order to pay bin Mahfouz's legal bills, which ranged beyond $200,000. It also found that Ehrenfeld's allegations toward bin Mahfouz were false as a matter of law.

Then Ehrenfeld again went on the offensive. She filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking an order to prevent bin Mahfouz from enforcing his British judgment in the U.S. Her cause was supported in a brief filed by a host of organizations.

But the federal court decided it didn't have sufficient jurisdiction over a foreign national such as bin Mahfouz. An appeals court asked bin Mahfouz's lawyers whether they would promise not to enforce the judgment; they declined.

And last month a New York court ruled that state courts could not block bin Mahfouz. Ehrenfeld was surprised by the outcome, which led to the effort in the state Legislature to pass a bill to protect her and other writers from foreign judgments.

"She is the example right now," said state Sen. Dean Skelos, who co-sponsored the bill.

The bill passed the state Senate unanimously but has run into trouble in the Assembly. An advisory committee to the state court administrator opposes the bill, saying it may be unconstitutional.

So Ehrenfeld sits in her apartment and awaits news from Albany.

And if she can force bin Mahfouz into an American court, she will seek the answers she has been chasing for years. "If I get this law, I will ask the court to depose him," she said. "This is really why I started this whole thing."

----------

joliphant@tribune.com

The worst case scenario

British libel law means our press is vulnerable and the wealthy are shielded from criticism
by Geoffrey Wheatcroft, The Guardian, Thursday February 28 2008

For years journalists have grumbled about the libel laws and no one has listened, but when a distant legislature passes a law of its own to counteract the intolerable effects of the British courts then it's time to take notice. The most startling recent legal story comes not from the high court but from Albany, where the New York state legislature has introduced the starkly named Libel Terrorism Prevention Act, intended specifically to guard writers and publishers outside British jurisdiction from the terrors of English libel law.

In recent decades, "libel tourism" has become a lucrative trade for London lawyers. Foreign celebrities turn up to sue British papers or US magazines with insignificant British circulations. The late Telly Savalas was one of the first, winning an action here that he couldn't even have begun in the US. Roman Polanski was allowed to give evidence from France to London by video link when he sued Vanity Fair, a New York magazine. Since he's wanted in California, he couldn't set foot in London for fear of being extradited.

But what has brought this to a head are several even more grotesque cases. The powerful Saudi businessman Sheikh Kalid bin Mahfouz sued over a book by two Americans which alleged he was associated with the funding of Islamic militants: hence the lurid name of the New York law. Only a few copies were sold in the UK, but damages were paid and the remaining copies were pulped.

Our libel law has always been heavily weighted in favour of the plaintiff. Unlike the defendant in a criminal case or other civil suits - or in a US libel action - he is assumed to be in the wrong, and must prove that "the words complained of" are true. Under "no win, no fee", the plaintiff is gambling someone else's money, while the defendant is on a hiding to nothing. "True as to fact or fair as to comment" are the classic defences, but fair comment is subjective, and any attempt to justify or prove truth can be held to aggravate the gravity of the libel. And a defendant is at the mercy of the caprice of juries and the malice of judges.

Many years ago, after Evelyn Waugh had won large damages from the Daily Express, he shrewdly told a friend that the millions of readers of the Express secretly detested the paper and were glad of any chance to punish it. That helps explain the half-million damages awarded against a tabloid by Jeffrey Archer - one of a long line who have won actions by plain lying.

Following the case brought by Albert Reynolds, the former Irish prime minister, there is now a partial defence of public interest. But our media have nothing like the protection that the US press has been afforded since the New York Times won the Sullivan case in 1964. Any American public figure bringing an action now has to prove that what was written was not only untrue but published maliciously and recklessly.

In Britain, we now have the worst of all worlds. Obscure people are hounded by the gutter press, but the libel laws shield "malefactors of great wealth" from criticism and make our courts a playground for the international rich. The Reynolds rule, like so many recent checks on an oppressive state, came from judges rather than parliament, but it really is time for comprehensive legislation, a new Fox's Libel Act.

This would provide a statutory defence of public interest. It would remove the burden of proof from the defendant. It would end the nonsense of a person from one foreign country suing in London a person from another over something published in a third country. And better still, it would assimilate libel to slander, where the plaintiff must show actual material damage suffered.

The only trouble is that laws have to be passed by parliament. And there are few people keener on using and abusing the libel courts than politicians.

wheaty@compuserve.com

New York passes law against 'libel tourists'

Times Online Op-Ed

The state will protect authors against foreign libel judgments after a US journalist was sued by a Saudi businessman in London.  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.
Related Links

The New York Law Journal reported that the Bill had made “unusually swift” progress since being introduced into the legislature and said new legislation usually took several months, or even years, to reach the floor of the Assembly or Senate.

Dr Ehrenfeld claimed her book, Funding Evil, in which she makes a series of allegations about the charitable activities of wealthy Saudi businessman Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz, was protected under the freedom of speech section of the US constitution.

But in a 17-page ruling by Judge Ciparick in December, the New York Court of Appeals in Albany ruled that it did not have jurisdiction over Mr Mahfouz as they found he had not carried out any business in the state.

The Sheikh has always vehemently denied any link with terrorism, or terrorist support or funding, and claimed that the book was defamatory in suggesting that he supported al-Qaeda and terrorism either directly or indirectly.

In January, Democratic Assemblyman Rory Lancman and Republican Senator Dean Skelos introduced the “Libel Terrorism Protection Act” to remedy what they see as a deficiency in the law.

Mr Lancman said: “This legislation 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.”

Mr Skelos added: “The ability to expose the truth about international terrorist activities is critically-important to the global war on terror.

“These foreign courts are trampling the First Amendment protections guaranteed to American writers and journalists by our Constitution and this legislation will ensure that they cannot infringe upon our freedom.”

Senator Martin Golden, who supports the legislation, said: “Under the Libel Terrorism Protection Act, writers and journalists would have foreign defamation suits declared unenforceable in New York unless the foreign law provides the same free speech protections guaranteed under our Constitution.

“In effect, we are giving New Yorkers a chance to have their fair day in court.”

In court papers filed last year, Dr Ehrenfeld described Mr Mahfouz as a “serial libel tourist”.

Her book was never published in the UK but 23 copies entered England.

Mr Mahfouz, who denies all the allegations in the book about the funding of terrorist organisations, turned to English law and brought a successful libel action against her three years ago.

Mr Mahfouz has had a series of victories in English courts, and in August last year, the Cambridge University Press withdrew all copies of Alms for Jihad, a book which took a similar line to Dr Ehrenfeld.

But some American librarians have refused the publishers’ request to withdraw the book from their shelves and surviving copies are for sale for hundreds of pounds on the internet.

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

By LARRY NEUMEISTER Associated Press Writer,  NewsDay.com March 3, 2008

NEW YORK - 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.

An important message from Dr. Rachel Ehernfeld

EhrenfeldThis Sunday, January 13th at 10:30 a.m. on the steps of the New
York Public Library, 42nd Street and Fifth Avenue, I urge you to attend
a bipartisan news conference by New York State Senate Deputy Majority
Leader Dean Skelos and Assemblyman Rory I. Lancman where they will
announce legislation designed to protect journalists, author and
publishers s from lawsuits filed outside the U.S. by foreign nationals
seeking to muzzle the First Amendment rights of American citizens,
particular those reporting on terrorism and its financiers.

This effort comes on the heels of a New York Court of Appeals ruling
that has stunned many in the legal, media, and publishing community. The
court held it could not protect New York author Rachel Ehrenfeld from a
British lawsuit she lost by default filed by Saudi billionaire Khalid
Salim bin Mahfouz where she was ordered to pay over $225,000 for
detailing in her book how Bin Mahfouz, and some of his family, are
allegedly tied to funding terrorist organizations. Bin Mahfouz used the
U.K. legal system to obtain more than 36 similar judgments, affecting
the U.S. media.

Dr. Ehrenfeld sought a court order to protect her Constitutional rights,
but in a ruling with First Amendment implications sending legal
shockwaves throughout newsrooms across America, as well as potentially
undermining our ability to expose terrorism's financial and logistical
support networks of our enemies, the New York Court of Appeals ruled
that it does not have jurisdiction to protect Americans – on U.S. soil –
from a foreign defamation verdict.

The two lawmakers, Ehrenfeld, and members of the bar, will warn that
without this legislation, the contents of the New York Public Library
could be subject to assault by off shore nationals seeking to silence
public debate in America. Your participation would add enormously to
this effort and underscore the gravity of the threat.

Tracking bin Laden's money flow leads back to Midland, Texas

by Wayne Madsen in  In These Times    

On September 24, President George W. Bush appeared at a press conference in the White House Rose Garden to announce a crackdown on the financial networks of terrorists and those who support them. "U.S. banks that have assets of these groups or individuals must freeze their accounts," Bush declared. "And U.S. citizens or businesses are prohibited from doing business with them."

But the president, who is now enjoying an astounding 92 percent approval rating, hasn't always practiced what he is now preaching: Bush's own businesses were once tied to financial figures in Saudi Arabia who currently support bin Laden.

In 1979, Bush's first business, Arbusto Energy, obtained financing from James Bath, a Houstonian and close family friend. One of many investors, Bath gave Bush $50,000 for a 5 percent stake in Arbusto. At the time, Bath was the sole U.S. business representative for Salem bin Laden, head of the wealthy Saudi Arabian family and a brother (one of 17) to Osama bin Laden. It has long been suspected, but never proven, that the Arbusto money came directly from Salem bin Laden. In a statement issued shortly after the September 11 attacks, the White House vehemently denied the connection, insisting that Bath invested his own money, not Salem bin Laden's, in Arbusto.

In conflicting statements, Bush at first denied ever knowing Bath, then acknowledged his stake in Arbusto and that he was aware Bath represented Saudi interests. In fact, Bath has extensive ties, both to the bin Laden family and major players in the scandal-ridden Bank of Commerce and Credit International (BCCI) who have gone on to fund Osama bin Laden. BCCI defrauded depositors of $10 billion in the '80s in what has been called the "largest bank fraud in world financial history" by former Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau. During the '80s, BCCI also acted as a main conduit for laundering money intended for clandestine CIA activities, ranging from financial support to the Afghan mujahedin to paying intermediaries in the Iran-Contra affair.

When Salem bin Laden died in 1988, powerful Saudi Arabian banker and BCCI principal Khalid bin Mahfouz inherited his interests in Houston. Bath ran a business for bin Mahfouz in Houston and joined a partnership with bin Mahfouz and Gaith Pharaon, BCCI's frontman in Houston's Main Bank.

The Arbusto deal wasn't the last time Bush looked to highly questionable sources to invest in his oil dealings. After several incarnations, Arbusto emerged in 1986 as Harken Energy Corporation. When Harken ran into trouble a year later, Saudi Sheik Abdullah Taha Bakhsh purchased a 17.6 percent stake in the company. Bakhsh was a business partner with Pharaon in Saudi Arabia; his banker there just happened to be bin Mahfouz.

Though Bush told the Wall Street Journal he had "no idea" BCCI was involved in Harken's financial dealings, the network of connections between Bush and BCCI is so extensive that the Journal concluded their investigation of the matter in 1991 by stating: "The number of BCCI-connected people who had dealings with Harken—all since George W. Bush came on board—raises the question of whether they mask an effort to cozy up to a presidential son." Or even the president: Bath finally came under investigation by the FBI in 1992 for his Saudi business relationships, accused of funneling Saudi money through Houston in order to influence the foreign policies of the Reagan and first Bush administrations.

Worst of all, bin Mahfouz allegedly has been financing the bin Laden terrorist network—making Bush a U.S. citizen who has done business with those who finance and support terrorists. According to USA Today, bin Mahfouz and other Saudis attempted to transfer $3 million to various bin Laden front operations in Saudi Arabia in 1999. ABC News reported the same year that Saudi officials stopped bin Mahfouz from contributing money directly to bin Laden. (Bin Mahfouz's sister is also a wife of Osama bin Laden, a fact that former CIA Director James Woolsey revealed in 1998 Senate testimony.)

When President Bush announced he is hot on the trail of the money used over the years to finance terrorism, he must realize that trail ultimately leads not only to Saudi Arabia, but to some of the same financiers who originally helped propel him into the oil business and later the White House. The ties between bin Laden and the White House may be much closer than he is willing to acknowledge.

Wayne Madsen, an investigative journalist based in Washington, is the author of Genocide and Covert Operations in Africa 1993-1999.

Does Sharia Libel Law Now Apply in the U.S.?

by Alyssa A. Lappen

Unless the U.S. Congress and New York legislatures act immediately to stop them, foreign terror financiers and libel tourists now can essentially impose sharia (Islamic) law on American writers and publishers.

Intended or not, a narrow, technical New York Appeals Court decision on Thursday Dec. 20, 2007 produces that net effect. The ruling concerns jurisdiction in Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld's suit against Saudi billionaire Khalid bin Mahfouz, seeking a federal declaratory judgment against him to render unenforceable in the U.S. a U.K. High Court default "libel" decision. By implication, the New York Appeals Court ruling harms all publishers and writers in New York, the world's publishing capital.

Ehrenfeld's case stems from her 2003 book, Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed—and How to Stop It, where American Center for Democracy Director reports Mahfouz' well-documented terror funding. (Full disclosure: Since September 2005, I've been an ACD Senior Fellow.) As always after such terror financing reports, Mahfouz sued Ehrenfeld for libel in Britain. His attorneys informed U.K. High Court Justice David Eady that former CIA director R. James Woolsey wrote her book's foreword. "Say no more," Eady replied. "I award you a judgment by default, and if you want, an injunction, too."

Eady then ordered Ehrenfeld to apologize, retract, pay Mahfouz $225,913.37 in damages and destroy remaining copies of her book. Instead, she ignored the British default judgment and false libel claim—never tried on its merits—and asked the Southern District Court of New York to rule the U.K. judgment unenforceable here.

In the U.S., the Supreme Court's seminal 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan decision defined libel or slander by a journalist as stating or writing falsehoods or misrepresentations that damage someone's reputation—and in cases of public figures, doing so with malice.

Under sharia, by contrast, libel constitutes any oral or written remark offensive to a complainant, regardless of its accuracy or intent. Slander "means to mention anything concerning a person that he would dislike, whether about his body, religion, everyday life, self, disposition, property, son, father, wife, servant, turban, garment, gait, movements, smiling, dissoluteness, frowning, cheerfulness, or anything else connected with him," according to Ahmad Ibn Lulu Ibn Al-Naqib (d. 1368). 1

Repeat: Sharia regards even the truth as slander if its subject dislikes the facts. Now applied through foreign courts, sharia law interpretations of libel have demonstrably undermined U.S. press viability already. Though Mahfouz never proved merits in any libel case, he has threatened or sued more than 35 journalists and publishers (including many in the U.S.) through Britain's High Court, and exacted fines, apologies and retractions from all but Ehrenfeld. Last Thursday, New York's Appeals Court substantially (if not intentionally) allowed the application of sharia rules here.

New York State recently held that it can collect sales taxes from "commercial" enterprises with as little physical presence as a single link on any New York-based website. While temporarily reversed on November 15, the state's controversial opinion will be enforced after the 2007 Christmas season.

Yet, also by New York fiat, Constitutional First Amendment rights now take a back seat to the state's conservative "long-arm" statutes—which protect distant commercial enterprises from state courts. A Saudi national suing an American journalist in Britain, Mahfouz hired numerous New York agents and couriers and used many New York electronic and telephone communication systems expressly to halt Ehrenfeld's investigations and publications concerning terror finance. However, on Dec. 20 the New York Appeals Court established Mahfouz' New York-based commercial transactions as less commercial (or significant) than a distant merchant's sales link on a New York-based website.

In its unanimous June 8, 2007 request for a local ruling on jurisdiction, the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals panel specifically extended as wide a berth as possible to the New York Court of Appeals to consider First Amendment rights within the context of Ehrenfeld's case.

However, the New York Court ignored the federal instructions to consider Constitutional issues—or the effects this case will consequently have on Constitutional rights in the world's publishing capital. "However pernicious the effect of this practice [libel tourism] may be, our duty here is to determine whether defendant's New York contacts establish a proper basis for jurisdiction," wrote Judge Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, an appointee of former Governor Mario Cuomo.

Shockingly, New York's Court of Appeals allowed Mahfouz' commercial actions (and any similar commercial actions of any other foreign terror financier and libel tourist) to subjugate Constitutional First Amendment rights to archaic commercial statutes.

Now, the U.S. Congress and New York legislators must swiftly enact new "long-arm" statues, suitable to our electronic age, before further damage to the U.S. Constitution ensues.

NOTE:

1Ahmad Ibn Lulu Ibn Al-Naqib (d. 1368), Reliance of the Traveller: The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law Umdat, translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, 1991 and 1994, Amana Publications (revised ed., 1994), p. 730.

Alyssa A. Lappen, an American Center for Democracy Senior Fellow and American Congress for Truth Contributing Editor, is a former senior editor of Institutional Investor, Working Woman and Corporate Finance and former associate editor of Forbes.

Insufferable British Judges, Wimpy New York Ones.

Rachel Ehrenfeld was sued in Britain by a Saudi zillionaire who didn't
like what she said about his "well-documented terror funding."

As always after such terror financing reports, Mahfouz sued
Ehrenfeld for libel in Britain. His attorneys informed U.K. High Court
Justice David Eady that former CIA director R. James Woolsey wrote her
book's foreword. "Say no more," Eady replied. "I award you a judgment by
default, and if you want, an injunction, too."

Eady then ordered Ehrenfeld to apologize, retract, pay Mahfouz
$225,913.37 in damages and destroy remaining copies of her book.

This a sad reminder that the "Special Relationship" between Britain and
the U.S. does not exists in the minds of some British officials. The
judge's ignorance is also apparent in his conclusion that a former CIA
director had contributed to Ms. Ehrenfeld's book. In this gentleman's
mind, the CIA is local galactic outlet for satanic gamma waves.

Your Colonel has read no small number of books about British
intelligence and counterintelligence operations and disasters over the
years and could not call to mind in a two-second period the personal
characteristics of any of the officials who headed the relevant
agencies, let alone say anything intelligent about their characters or
overall effectiveness. But Her Majesty's Justice Eady knew in a
heartbeat that Mr. Woolsey was a species of lowlife. Obviously, he knew
nothing about Mr. Woolsey and was eager to punish Ms. Ehrenfeld for her
having a connection to the despised CIA.

Didn't this start out as a libel action? I'm just asking, is all.

Ms. Lappen's piece discusses the issue of how "connected" litigants need
to be to justify the assertion of jurisdiction over them. If memory
serves me, Ms. Ehrenfeld did not directly market her book in Britain
and, on the basis of only some six or seven books that made their way to
Britain, the British court asserted jurisdiction over her for purposes
of a libel action. New York courts, whose judges must surely drink their
afternoon tea with their pinkies raised in the air, chose not to find
jurisdiction in New York over the Saudi funder of terror notwithstanding
his far more substantial activities in New York.

Ms. Ehrenfeld is the only one sued by this putz not to lie down like a
cur dog when sued. Would that New York judges had as much spine as this
woman.

"Does Sharia Libel Law Now Apply in the U.S.?"
By Alyssa A. Lappen, Pajamas Media, 1/2/08
(also of interest for discussion of Islamic libel law. Cliff Notes
version: The truth hurts. So pay me).

Ehrenfeld: British Libel Judgment Upheld by NY Court; First Amendment Implications Debated

A New York state appeals court ruled in Ehrenfeld v. Mahfouz that it did not have jurisdiction to declare a British libel judgment unenforceable on First Amendment grounds.  In 2005, a British court ordered American author Rachel Ehrenfeld to pay $60,000 for accusing a Saudi billionaire of having ties to terrorism in her 2003 book, Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed - and How to Stop It.  Ehrenfeld claims that as a result of the judgment, she has abandoned certain projects and watered down others in order to comply with British libel laws.  Though Mahfouz had not yet tried to enforce the British judgment, she asked a domestic court to declare it unenforceable on the grounds that it would violate federal and state free speech laws.  The court declined to do so.

So far, commentators are split on the significance on the Ehrenfeld ruling.  The New York Sun described the case as a test of how state courts would respond when US authors seek to block foreign judgments that conflict with the First Amendment, adding that the decision reflects a disturbing trend in "libel tourism" that promotes law suits against authors and journalists in nations where libel laws are more favorable to plaintiffs than in the US.  In line with that view, Findlaw's Julie Hilden predicts that Ehrenfeld will have "significant First Amendment implications" in an age of global internet e-publishing.  Yet attorney Douglas Lee's post at The First Amendment Center describes Ehrenfeld as a relatively "routine" case grounded in rules of civil procedure that prevent New York courts from exercising personal jurisdiction over a foreign judgment holder who has not yet attempted to enforce the judgment.  Had Mahfouz tried to enforce the British judgment in New York, jurisdiction would have attached, bringing into focus the First Amendment concerns related to "libel tourism."   

-Kathleen A. Bergin

Islam vs. Free Speech

by Jed Babbin

Under assault by Muslims and multiculturalists, free speech and freedom
of the press are dead in Britain. The same sorts of people who killed
them in Britain are killing them in Canada. They and their allies are
using the British and Canadian courts and tribunals to bury our First
Amendment rights in America.

Muslims -- individually and in pressure groups -- are using British
libel laws and Canadian "human rights" laws to limit what is said about
Islam, terrorists and the people in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere who are
funding groups such as al-Queda. The cases of Rachel Ehrenfeld and Mark
Steyn prove the point.

Dr. Ehrenfeld is a scholar and author of the book, "Funding Evil: How
Terrorism is Financed, and How to Stop it." In that book, Khalid Salim
bin Mahfouz -- a Saudi who is former head of the Saudi National
Commercial Bank -- and some of his family are described as having funded
terrorism directly and indirectly.

Ehrenfeld is American, her book was written and published in America and
she has no business or other ties to Britain. Under American law, the
Brit courts would have no jurisdiction over her. But about two-dozen
copies of her book were sold there through the internet. Bin Mahfouz
sued her for libel in the Brit courts where the burden of proof is the
opposite of what it is in US courts: the author has to prove that what
is written is true, rather than the supposedly defamed person proving it
is false.

Think about that for a moment. Under the US Constitution political
writing -- free speech -- is almost unlimited. To gain a libel judgment
a politician -- or someone suspected of terrorist ties -- would have to
prove that the story or book was false. If that person were a public
figure such as Mahfouz, in order to get a libel judgment he'd not only
have to prove that what was written was false, he'd also have to prove
it was published maliciously.

Those American laws and standards of proof protect political speech. The
First Amendment is intended to protect political speech that people find
objectionable. In the landmark 1969 case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, the
Supreme Court overturned an Ohio statute which would have outlawed hate
speech by the Ku Klux Klan. That's why Mahfouz sued in Britain, not here.

Ehrenfeld refused to fight the case, saying the Brit courts have no
jurisdiction over her. Mahfouz got a default judgment against her for
₤10,000 (for himself, and in equal amounts for his sons). The judgment
also requires that there be no further "defamatory" statements published
in England and Wales.

In a letter published in the Spectator on November 21, bin Mahfouz's
lawyers gloated over their victory against Ehrenfeld: "Rather than check
her facts, defend her statements in open court, or acknowledge her
mistakes, Ehrenfeld hides behind a claim to free speech. Thank goodness,
the legal lights remain on in Britain to expose such harmful journalism."

"Harmful journalism" is what tyrants and despots call free speech,
especially political speech that condemns their affronts to freedom. The
"legal lights" Mahfouz's lawyers see is the bonfire they made of the
Magna Carta. Thanks to Mahfouz and his ilk, the light of free speech is
extinguished in Britain. Consider the fate of the book, "Alms for Jihad."

In 2006 Cambridge University press published "Alms for Jihad." It's a
highly detailed and apparently well-researched book that documents Saudi
funding of terrorist groups (as well as other funding and the network of
Islamic "charities" that contribute to terrorism). "Alms for Jihad" --
like Ehrenfeld's book -- documents bin Mahfouz's funding ties to
terrorism, including to Usama bin Laden. But "Alms"-- in settlement of a
libel suit by bin Mahfouz in the Brit courts -- was withdrawn from
stores and libraries and unsold copies destroyed. The Saudi book burners
won.

Mahfouz's case against Ehrenfeld has already done enormous harm in the
US. Ehrenfeld told me she's unable to get book publishers to contract
for another book. She said all of the major US publishing houses have
turned down a book on the Muslim Brotherhood -- thought to have
substantial terrorist ties -- and the Saudis' involvement in funding it.

If what Ehrenfeld writes about the Brotherhood offends Mahfouz or
someone else whose ties to terrorism ought to be exposed, sales could be
banned not only in Britain but in the entire European Union and the
publisher -- and the author -- made liable for damages. Mahfouz -- using
British courts that have no jurisdiction over American authors -- has
apparently precluded Ehrenfeld from writing another book. Steyn's case
is another instance of Muslims trying to silence "harmful journalism."

Mark Steyn's superb book, "America Alone", makes two important points:
first, that the Muslim baby boom around the world will likely result in
Christian nations becoming Muslim by weight of demographics; and second
that Islam is a political system, not just a religion:

So it's not merely that there's a global jihad lurking within this
religion, but that the religion itself is a political project and, in
fact, an imperial project in a way that modern Christianity, Judaism,
Hinduism and Buddhism are not. Furthermore, this particular religion is
historically a somewhat bloodthirsty faith in which whatever's your bag
violence-wise can almost certainly be justified.

Steyn's stance -- written by him and paralleled by other writers in the
Canadian magazine, "Macleans" -- is the subject of a complaint to the
Canadian Human Rights Commission brought by three Muslim law students in
Canada, with the apparent support of the Canadian Islamic Conference.
That group is similar to the CAIR, the Council on American Islamic
Relations.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission is a multiculti kangaroo court. The
complaint against Macleans will be adjudicated next year, and findings
entered against the magazine. (Steyn told me that the CHRC has granted
100% of the petitions brought to it so far.) What then?

Fines and other sanctions will be entered against Macleans along with
probable injunctions against further "harmful journalism" that offends
Muslims. A case may be brought against Steyn himself later. Which means
that he could be subjected to fines or other penalties in Canada for
exercising his First Amendment rights in the US. And -- because American
publishers look to Canada for about 10% of their sales -- Steyn may,
like Ehrenfeld, find publishers unwilling to publish his work.

What has happened to Ehrenfeld and may happen to Steyn is in
contravention of their First Amendment rights. No American court would
or could do that. No foreign court or commission should be able to. US
courts, and each of us who believes in free speech, must stand with both
authors. US courts should make it clear that foreign libel judgments or
"human rights" decisions that conflict with our First Amendment cannot
be enforced.

Each and every presidential candidate should speak -- loudly and clearly
-- against this encroachment of foreign law on the First Amendment.
Anyone who doesn't stand forthrightly against these foreign
infringements on Americans' Constitutional rights should receive neither
our confidence nor our votes.

What Muslims such as Mahfouz and those complaining against Steyn are
doing to destroy free speech overseas has been commenced here by groups
such as CAIR. A few weeks ago, CAIR announced its media guide, which is
purportedly corrects "misperceptions" about Islam and "…educate(s) the
media and disabuse(s) journalists of misinformation." But the other
aspect -- which I and others suspect -- is that it's not so much a guide
as a set of rules against "harmful journalism." And those who write
about terrorism, Saudi Arabia and Islam will be accused of intolerance
and racism should they violate them.

We don't yet know what the CAIR guide says. I requested a copy of it
from CAIR by e-mail, as they specified. I have neither received a copy
nor received any response. I suspect CAIR wants to hide it from people
who would scrutinize it. Having to operate under our Constitution, they
will take a more indirect path than Mahfouz and the Canadian law
students to preclude what they believe is "harmful journalism."

Mr. Babbin is the editor of Human Events. He served as a deputy
undersecretary of defense in President George H.W. Bush's
administration. He is the author of "In the Words of our
Enemies"(Regnery,2007) and (with Edward Timperlake) of "Showdown: Why
China Wants War with the United States" (Regnery, 2006) and "Inside the
Asylum: Why the UN and Old Europe are Worse than You Think" (Regnery,
2004). E-mail him at jbabbin@eaglepub.com.

Islam vs. Free Speech

by Jed Babbin

Under assault by Muslims and multiculturalists, free speech and freedom of the press are dead in Britain. The same sorts of people who killed them in Britain are killing them in Canada. They and their allies are using the British and Canadian courts and tribunals to bury our First Amendment rights in America.

Muslims -- individually and in pressure groups -- are using British libel laws and Canadian "human rights" laws to limit what is said about Islam, terrorists and the people in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere who are funding groups such as al-Queda. The cases of Rachel Ehrenfeld and Mark Steyn prove the point.

Dr. Ehrenfeld is a scholar and author of the book, "Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed, and How to Stop it." In that book, Khalid Salim bin Mahfouz -- a Saudi who is former head of the Saudi National Commercial Bank -- and some of his family are described as having funded terrorism directly and indirectly.

Ehrenfeld is American, her book was written and published in America and she has no business or other ties to Britain. Under American law, the Brit courts would have no jurisdiction over her. But about two-dozen copies of her book were sold there through the internet. Bin Mahfouz sued her for libel in the Brit courts where the burden of proof is the opposite of what it is in US courts: the author has to prove that what is written is true, rather than the supposedly defamed person proving it is false.

Think about that for a moment. Under the US Constitution political writings -- free speech -- is almost unlimited. To gain a libel judgment a politician -- or someone suspected of terrorist ties -- would have to prove that the story or book was false. If that person were a public figure such as Mahfouz, in order to get a libel judgment he'd not only have to prove that what was written was false, he'd also have to prove it was published maliciously.

Those American laws and standards of proof protect political speech. The First Amendment is intended to protect political speech that people find objectionable. In the landmark 1969 case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court overturned an Ohio statute which would have outlawed hate speech by the Ku Klux Klan. That's why Mahfouz sued in Britain, not here.

Ehrenfeld refused to fight the case, saying the Brit courts have no jurisdiction over her. Mahfouz got a default judgment against her for ₤10,000 (for himself, and in equal amounts for his sons). The judgment also requires that there be no further "defamatory" statements published in England and Wales.

In a letter published in the Spectator on November 21, bin Mahfouz's lawyers gloated over their victory against Ehrenfeld: "Rather than check her facts, defend her statements in open court, or acknowledge her mistakes, Ehrenfeld hides behind a claim to free speech. Thank goodness, the legal lights remain on in Britain to expose such harmful journalism."

"Harmful journalism" is what tyrants and despots call free speech, especially political speech that condemns their affronts to freedom. The "legal lights" Mahfouz's lawyers see is the bonfire they made of the Magna Carta. Thanks to Mahfouz and his ilk, the light of free speech is extinguished in Britain. Consider the fate of the book, "Alms for Jihad."

In 2006 Cambridge University press published "Alms for Jihad." It's a highly detailed and apparently well-researched book that documents Saudi funding of terrorist groups (as well as other funding and the network of Islamic "charities" that contribute to terrorism). "Alms for Jihad" -- like Ehrenfeld's book -- documents bin Mahfouz's funding ties to terrorism, including to Usama bin Laden. But "Alms"-- in settlement of a libel suit by bin Mahfouz in the Brit courts -- was withdrawn from stores and libraries and unsold copies destroyed. The Saudi book burners won.

Mahfouz's case against Ehrenfeld has already done enormous harm in the US. Ehrenfeld told me she's unable to get book publishers to contract for another book. She said all of the major US publishing houses have turned down a book on the Muslim Brotherhood -- thought to have substantial terrorist ties -- and the Saudis' involvement in funding it.

If what Ehrenfeld writes about the Brotherhood offends Mahfouz or someone else whose ties to terrorism ought to be exposed, sales could be banned not only in Britain but in the entire European Union and the publisher -- and the author -- made liable for damages. Mahfouz -- using British courts that have no jurisdiction over American authors -- has apparently precluded Ehrenfeld from writing another book. Steyn's case is another instance of Muslims trying to silence "harmful journalism."

Mark Steyn's superb book, "America Alone", makes two important points: first, that the Muslim baby boom around the world will likely result in Christian nations becoming Muslim by weight of demographics; and second that Islam is a political system, not just a religion:

So it's not merely that there's a global jihad lurking within this religion, but that the religion itself is a political project and, in fact, an imperial project in a way that modern Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism are not. Furthermore, this particular religion is historically a somewhat bloodthirsty faith in which whatever's your bag violence-wise can almost certainly be justified.

Steyn's stance -- written by him and paralleled by other writers in the Canadian magazine, "Macleans" -- is the subject of a complaint to the Canadian Human Rights Commission brought by three Muslim law students in Canada, with the apparent support of the Canadian Islamic Conference. That group is similar to the CAIR, the Council on American Islamic Relations.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission is a multiculti kangaroo court. The complaint against Macleans will be adjudicated next year, and findings entered against the magazine. (Steyn told me that the CHRC has granted 100% of the petitions brought to it so far.) What then?

Fines and other sanctions will be entered against Macleans along with probable injunctions against further "harmful journalism" that offends Muslims. A case may be brought against Steyn himself later. Which means that he could be subjected to fines or other penalties in Canada for exercising his First Amendment rights in the US. And -- because American publishers look to Canada for about 10% of their sales -- Steyn may, like Ehrenfeld, find publishers unwilling to publish his work.

What has happened to Ehrenfeld and may happen to Steyn is in contravention of their First Amendment rights. No American court would or could do that. No foreign court or commission should be able to. US courts, and each of us who believes in free speech, must stand with both authors. US courts should make it clear that foreign libel judgments or "human rights" decisions that conflict with our First Amendment cannot be enforced.

Each and every presidential candidate should speak -- loudly and clearly -- against this encroachment of foreign law on the First Amendment. Anyone who doesn't stand forthrightly against these foreign infringements on Americans' Constitutional rights should receive neither our confidence nor our votes.

What Muslims such as Mahfouz and those complaining against Steyn are doing to destroy free speech overseas has been commenced here by groups such as CAIR. A few weeks ago, CAIR announced its media guide, which is purportedly corrects "misperceptions" about Islam and "…educate(s) the media and disabuse(s) journalists of misinformation." But the other aspect -- which I and others suspect -- is that it's not so much a guide as a set of rules against "harmful journalism." And those who write about terrorism, Saudi Arabia and Islam will be accused of intolerance and racism should they violate them.

We don't yet know what the CAIR guide says. I requested a copy of it from CAIR by e-mail, as they specified. I have neither received a copy nor received any response. I suspect CAIR wants to hide it from people who would scrutinize it. Having to operate under our Constitution, they will take a more indirect path than Mahfouz and the Canadian law students to preclude what they believe is "harmful journalism."

It becomes wearisome

No I've not tired of blogging in the few days since I got my laptop back from the cowboys technicians who fixed it.

No, the wearisome thing is the extent to which writers with whom I am in agreement are suffering from the scrutiny of the law.

I mentioned Susan Ehrenfeld a while back- a lady who cannot publish in or visit the UK after being landed with a GBP250,000 libel order from a British judge. Ehrenfeld was just among the most vocal in a line of victims of Islamic terrorist conduit sewer suer-in-chief, Khalid bin Mahfouz.

As I mentioned below, Mark Steyn is now in the line of fire, predictably- through his Canadian publishers Macleans. I've had a read of the muslim lawyers' complaints document and they are predictably lacking in substance and long on generalities- but perhaps the law relating to "Islamophobia" is too.

Stanley Kurtz makes a valid point when he says "the anti-free-speech attacks on Steyn and Maclean's, by Western-trained lawyers, no less, show that Steyn's concerns about poorly assimilated Western values are more than justified."

The only problem with that is that it isn't Steyn's viewpoint- he sees such lawyers as understanding all too well the lessons of their education. I think he's right. Arguing in generalities laced with a vague scent of human rights is about the level of public discourse, and I would say not so far from the standard of legal discourse, today. The whole incitement of religious hatred thing is a vague nonsense open to abuse from day one- and so it is proving.

Originally published on the Talking Hoarsely blog

Roger’s Rules: Libel Tourism, coming soon to a town near you

If you haven't heard, a Saudi subject by the name of Khalid bin Mahfouz, a wealthy banker, has gotten into the lucrative habit of suing people in British court for stuff they've had published that he doesn't like. And usually what he doesn't like is anything that bashes jihad and jihadists. In short, Mr. Mahfouz hates criticism of terrorists and has a thin skin and deep pockets

Author Rachel Ehrenfeld recently won the right to seek relief in U. S. Federal court against the British judgement against her, on the grounds the British judgement violates U. S. law. Other incidents in which American authors were affected by actions in British courts are also related in the article linked above.

Libel tourist use the British courts because Britain has a huge hole in their system of laws. There is no formal right to free speech in the British system of justice. It wouldn't solve every problem, but it would certainly help.

Formalize the right to free speech, and tighten the requirements for bringing a libel action for what somebody writes. The positive, definitive establishment of truth as an absolute defense would help as well.

But, in the long run the British establishment needs to grow a pair. British apparatchiks are just too ready to cave in to jihadist demands. The professional bitchers need to learn that they can't have everything their way. Your kid goes to a school where a teacher has a piggy bank on her desk, you have no right to demand the piggy bank be destroyed. And if I ever get a cat, I'm naming him Mohammed.

How valid the complaint is is what matters, not how loud the complaining is.

(Via Instapundit.)

Libel Tourism as a Tool of Jihad

by Baron Bodissey

One of the preferred methods utilized by Islamic front groups to silence critics of Islam is the lawsuit. The deep pockets of the Saudi regime, along with the successful penetration of the governments and legal systems in most Western nations, make it relatively easy for Islamist lawyers to put the fear of Allah into their opponents.

Even if the writers themselves are courageous — and there is no denying the courage of people like Robert Spencer — publishing houses are all too eager to assume the dhimmi position. Since publishers are responsible to their shareholders, and bear the brunt of any legal expenses incurred in a court fight, it's understandable that they tend to fold in the face of Wahhabi litigation.

Of all the Western nations, British libel laws the most generally favorable to the plaintiff. As a result, several recent successful libel cases originated in the British courts when attempting to target the writers' works in the United Sates and other countries.

Roger Kimball, writing in his Pajamas Media column, has a fascinating insider's look at the nature and extent of this "libel tourism":

Last summer, Cambridge University Press announced that it would pulp all unsold copies of its 2006 book Alms for Jihad: Charity and Terrorism in the Islamic World by Robert O. Collins, a professor emeritus of history at the University of California, and J. Millard Burr, a retired employee of the State Department. Why? Because Khalid bin Mahfouz, a Saudi banker, filed a libel claim to quash the book. According to a story in The Chronicle for Higher Education [reg req'd], Cambridge instantly capitulated, paid "substantial damages" to Mr. Mahfouz, and even went so far as to contact university libraries worldwide to ask them to remove the book from their shelves. They seem to have been successful in their request: I have searched high and low for the book in academic libraries and public libraries and have found that, although it is listed as "not checked out," it is nowhere to be found.

Suppressing books he doesn't like seems to be a hobby of Mr. Mahfouz's. His web site lists successful actions against three other books Reaping the Whirlwind: The Taliban Movement in Afghanistan, Forbidden Truth: U.S.-Taliban Secret Oil Diplomacy and the Failed Hunt for Bin Laden and Funding Evil: How Terrorism Is Financed—and How to Stop It. As Robert Spencer explained in The Washington Times, one notable feature of Mr. Mahfouz's legal actions is that he has sued various American authors in Britain, where libel laws favor the plaintiff.

- - - - - - - - -

Britain's libel laws have given rise to the phenomenon of wealthy "libel tourists," who sue there on the slimmest British connection [e.g., the fact that a book may be available through Amazon.com] in order to ensure a favorable ruling. Mr. bin Mahfouz had the good fortune of having the case heard by Judge David Eady, who has a long history of strange rulings in libel cases — rulings that generally ran in favor of censorship and against free speech. In connection with another of these rulings in May 2007, British journalist Stephen Glover wrote: "Mr Justice Eady is beginning to worry me. Is he a friend of a free Press? There are good reasons to believe that he isn't."

In May 2005 Justice Eady ruled that Miss Ehrenfeld [Rachel Ehrenfeld is the author of the above-mention Funding Evil] must apologize to Mr. bin Mahfouz and pay over $225,000. This fine remains uncollected, and Miss Ehrenfeld sees no reason to apologize. Now she cannot travel to Britain, and her writing and research work has of course been banned there — thus preventing important information from reaching the public.

Miss Ehrenfeld countersued in New York, asking the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals for a declaration that the British judgment was contrary to the First Amendment and hence unenforceable on an American citizen. And on June 8, the appellate court handed down a landmark decision, ruling that Miss Ehrenfeld's case was valid, and that she could appeal for relief from American courts in order to keep the British court order from being carried out in this country. Said Circuit Court Judge Wilfred Feinberg: "The issue may implicate the First Amendment rights of many New Yorkers, and thus concerns important public policy of the state" He also declared that the case had implications for all writers — since they, like Miss Ehrenfeld, could be subjected to harassment. This decision could also have great impact on the September 11 victims lawsuits, in which Mr. bin Mahfouz is also a defendant.

Mr. bin Mahfouz is not the only player in the libel tourism game, not by a long shot. Just yesterday, I heard that a complaint (scheduled to be heard in June in British Columbia) had been filed against the Canadian magazine Macleans. "London lawyer Faisal Joseph," reports the London Free Press, "is leading a human rights complaint against Maclean's magazine for publishing an article he says submits Muslim Canadians to "contempt and hatred." And what article would that be? Why, an excerpt from Mark Steyn's brilliant and terrifying book America Alone. Kenneth Whyte, the editor of Macleans, published 27 responses to Steyn's article, but he was quite right to reject a demand that he publish, unedited, a five-page article by Muslim students. "I told them I would rather go bankrupt than let somebody from outside our operations dictate the content of the magazine." Let's hope it won't come to that.

Mr. Kimball goes on to detail the campaign mounted against Mark Steyn's writings in Canada. He includes this quote from Mark Steyn.

I can defend myself if I have to. But I shouldn't have to.

If the Canadian Islamic Congress wants to disagree with my book, fine. Join the club. But, if they want to criminalize it, nuts. That way lies madness. America Alone was a bestseller in Canada, made all the literary Top Ten hit parades, Number One at Amazon Canada, Number One on The National Post's national bestseller list, Number One on various local sales charts from statist Quebec to cowboy Alberta, etc. I find it difficult to imagine that a Canadian "human rights" tribunal would rule that all those Canadians who bought the book were wrong and that it is beyond the bounds of acceptable (and legal) discourse in Canada.

As I say, I find it difficult to imagine. But not impossible. These "human rights" censors started with small fry — obscure websites, "homophobes" who made the mistake of writing letters to local newspapers or quoting the more robust chunks of Leviticus — and, because they got away with it, it now seems entirely reasonable for a Canadian pseudo-court to sit in judgment on the content of a mainstream magazine and put a big old "libel chill" over critical areas of public debate. The "progressive" left has grown accustomed to the regulation of speech, thinking it just a useful way of sticking it to Christian fundamentalists, right-wing columnists, and other despised groups. They don't know they're riding a tiger that in the end will devour them, too.

Mark Steyn's bestseller status will insulate him from this kind of mau-mauing, but less well-known authors and smaller publishing houses are more likely to cave in.

Mr. Kimball concludes his essay with this:

While everyone is busy humming "Let's Not Be Beastly to the Muslims," it is worth noting the word "Islamophobia" is a misnomer. A phobia describes an irrational fear, and it is axiomatic that fearing the effects of radical Islam is not irrational, but on the contrary very well-founded indeed, so that if you want to speak of a legitimate phobia — it's a phobia I experience frequently — we should speak instead of Islamophobia-phobia, the fear of and revulsion towards Islamophobia.

Now that fear, I submit, is very well founded, and it extends into the nooks and crannies of daily life. Libel tourism is only one face of the phenomenon. It wasn't so long ago, for example, that I read in a London paper that "Workers in the benefits department at Dudley Council, West Midlands, were told to remove or cover up all pig-related items, including toys, porcelain figures, calendars and even a tissue box featuring Winnie the Pooh and Piglet" because the presence of images of our porcine friends offended Muslims. A councilor called Mahbubur Rahman told the paper that he backed the ban because it represented "tolerance of people's beliefs." In other words, Piglet really did meet a Heffalump, and it turns out he was wearing a kaffiyeh.

[…]

Here is the novelty: Our new enemies are not political enemies in any traditional sense, belligerent in the service of certain interests of their own. Their belligerence is focused rather on the very existence of an alternative to their vision of beatitude, namely on Western democracy and its commitment to individual freedom and economic prosperity. Our new enemies are not simply bent on our destruction: they are pleased to compass their own destruction as a collateral benefit. This is one of those things that makes Islamofascism a particularly toxic form of totalitarianism. At least most Communists had some rudimentary attachment to the principle of self-preservation. In the face of such death-embracing fanaticism our only option is unremitting combat.

The problem with maintaining "unremitting combat" against Islam is that we are mainly fighting a cold war. The "hot" part of the war — IEDs in Iraq, Iranian nukes, bombs on buses, sarin in the shopping malls — is easy to see, and we can actually win some of those battles.

But the "cold" part of the war is the information component. Most people are unaware of the depth and scope of that aspect of the conflict, and that we are mostly losing it.

The enemy has penetrated our governments, our security agencies, our media, our lobbying organizations, and our school boards.

Political correctness has acted like the AIDS virus in the immune system of the Western world, leaving us open and vulnerable to the miscellaneous deadly strains of Islamic infection.

There is some cause for optimism, however: "libel tourism" can only silence professional writers. The pajama-clad amateurs, who make no money for their efforts, are immune to this threat.

Eventually other means will be used to shut us up — "hate speech" laws, state control of the internet, the acquiescence to the Islamic agenda by the major commercial blogging hosts, etc.

But we're not there yet. There's still a little time left.

Originally published on the Gates of Vienna blog

Where Terrorism & Censorship Meet

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.

With this in mind, Cambridge University Press lawyers looked over the manuscript for "Alms for Jihad" carefully before giving it the go-ahead. According to Collins, the passages involving bin Mahfouz are, in fact, quite "trivial" compared to the wealth of information contained in the book on how such funds are used to finance conflicts around the globe.

Yet, it is bin Mahfouz's inclusion in "Alms for Jihad" that has proven to be the most problematic, for he soon threatened Cambridge University Press with a libel lawsuit. Before the suit could commence, Cambridge University Press capitulated and announced in July that not only was it taking the unprecedented step of pulping all unsold copies of "Alms for Jihad," but it was asking libraries all over the world to remove the book from their shelves. Cambridge University Press issued a formal apology to bin Mahfouz and posted a public apology at its Web site. It also agreed to pay his legal costs and unspecified damages, which, according to bin Mahfouz, are to be donated to UNICEF.

Authors Burr and Collins, however, did not take part in the apology, nor were they a party to the settlement, and they continue to stand by their scholarship. As Collins put it, "I'm not going to recant on something just from the threat of a billionaire Saudi sheik ... I think I'm a damn good historian." The authors were aware that Cambridge University Press' decision was based not so much on a lack of confidence in the book as on a fear of incurring costly legal expenses and getting involved in a lengthy trial. The British court system is known as a welcoming environment for "libel tourists" such as bin Mahfouz. The Weekly Standard elaborates:
Bin Mahfouz has a habit of using the English tort regime to squelch any unwanted discussion of his record. 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.

Bin Mahfouz has indeed availed himself of the British court system on many occasions, having either sued or threatened suit against Americans and others at least 36 times since 2002, according to Rachel Ehrenfeld, author and director of the American Center for Democracy.

Ehrenfeld book also targeted

Ehrenfeld should know, as her own book, "Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed -- And How to Stop It", was also targeted by bin Mahfouz through the British court system. Bin Mahfouz sued Ehrenfeld for libel in 2004, soon after her book's publication in the United States, even though only 23 copies ever made it to the United Kingdom.

Ehrenfeld would not, as she put it in the New York Post, "acknowledge a British court's jurisdiction over a book published here" and a trial was never held, but the court ruled in favor of bin Mahfouz by default. It also awarded bin Mahfouz $225,913 in damages and ordered Ehrenfeld to apologize publicly and to destroy all unsold copies of the book.

Instead, Ehrenfeld chose to fight back. No doubt aware of the larger implications at work, she took her case to the United States and, giving bin Mahfouz a taste of his own medicine, sued him in a New York federal court on the basis that "his English default judgment is unenforceable in the United States and repugnant to the First Amendment."

Civil-liberties lawyer Harvey Silverglate has described her case as "one of the most important First Amendment cases in the past 25 years" and sure enough, in June of this year, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that it deserved a hearing. The court will begin hearing arguments this fall in what could turn out to be a pivotal case involving the clash between First Amendment rights and foreign libel rulings.

Ehrenfeld may indeed have a strong case. She maintains that bin Mahfouz has a long history of involvement in terrorist financing. The bulk of it, she wrote in 2005, revolves around the now-defunct Muwafaq (Blessed Relief) Foundation, which was founded by bin Mahfouz and "identified by the U.S. Treasury Department as providing logistical and financial support to al Qaeda, HAMAS, and the Abu Sayyaf organizations." Ehrenfeld recapped her concerns more recently:

The data in both "Alms for Jihad" and "Funding Evil" is all well-documented by the media and the U.S. Congress, courts, Treasury Department and other official statements. Further corroboration comes from French intelligence officials at the General Directorate of External Security (DGSE), as reported in the French daily, Le Monde. For example, the DGSE reported that, in 1998, it knew bin Mahfouz to be an architect of the banking scheme built to benefit Osama bin Laden, and that both U.S. and British intelligence services knew it, too.

For this reason, and also to create a precedent, Ehrenfeld has been the only defendant so far not to settle with bin Mahfouz. And she refuses to "acknowledge the British Court and its ruling" to this day.
Price of book skyrockets

Ehrenfeld's success thus far countering bin Mahfouz mirrors other indications that libel tourism may be backfiring. The largely Internet-based furor over the attempt to squelch "Alms for Jihad" and what is widely seen as Cambridge University Press' cave-in has caused the book's price to skyrocket. A copy of the book sold on eBay this month for $538. As noted at the blog Hot Air, "By suing publisher Cambridge University Press into submission, Khalid bin Mahfouz has turned an obscure scholarly book on the financial workings of terrorism into a prized, rare book."

In addition, the American Library Association is rising to the occasion. Rather than going along with the Cambridge University Press settlement stipulation that American libraries remove "Alms for Jihad" from their shelves, the American Library Association's Office for Intellectual Freedom issued the following statement earlier this month:
Unless there is an order from a U.S. court, the British settlement is unenforceable in the United States, and libraries are under no legal obligation to return or destroy the book. Libraries are considered to hold title to the individual copy or copies, and it is the library's property to do with as it pleases. Given the intense interest in the book, and the desire of readers to learn about the controversy first hand, we recommend that U.S. libraries keep the book available for their users.

Reportedly, Collins and Burr got the publishing rights to the book back from Cambridge University Press and, according to the Library Journal, have had "several offers from U.S. publishers." It appears the "Alms for Jihad" saga is far from over and free speech may yet win the day.
Charity implicated

In another victory for free speech, as well as an instructive example of what such libel suits look like when attempted in the United States, a recent case involving Yale University Press proves useful. It involved a book written by Matthew Levitt, the director of the Stein Program on Terrorism, Intelligence and Policy at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, titled "Hamas: Politics, Charity, and Terrorism in the Service of Jihad."

In his book, Levitt disputes the notion, popular among Hamas apologists, that the group's terrorist and social service pursuits can be seen as separate. In the process, he implicates the Dallas charity KinderUSA, which allegedly raises funds for Palestinian children, in terrorist financing. The group has personnel connections to the now-closed Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, which has been under investigation by federal authorities for funding Hamas. KinderUSA has also come under investigation and as a result, in 2005 suspended operations temporarily.

All of this information is available to the public and the book was thoroughly fact-checked prior to publication. Levitt, who is a witness in the ongoing trial of the Holy Land Foundation, explained further that he "conducted three years of careful research for Hamas, and the book was the subject of academic peer review."

But this didn't stop KinderUSA and the chair of its board, Dr. Laila Al-Marayati, from filing a libel suit in California in April against Levitt, Yale University Press, and the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. They disputed a particular passage from the book, as well as alleging that Yale University Press did not subject it to fact-checking. But, in filing the suit in California, they were faced with a formidable challenge: the state's anti-SLAPP statute. According to Inside Higher Education:

KinderUSA asked the court for an injunction on its request that distribution of the book be halted, and also sought $500,000 in damages. But in July, Yale raised the stakes by filing what is known as an "anti-SLAPP suit" motion, seeking to quash the libel suit and to receive legal fees. SLAPP is an acronym for "strategic lawsuit against public participation," a category of lawsuit viewed as an attempt not to win in court, but to harass a nonprofit group or publication that is raising issues of public concern. The fear of those sued is that groups with more money can tie them up in court in ways that would discourage them from exercising their rights to free speech. Anti-SLAPP statutes, such as the one in California with which Yale responded, are tools created in some states to counter such suits.

Not only did Yale University Press stand by its author, but, in the end, its aggressive response to KinderUSA paid off. It was announced this month that the libel suit has been dropped and no changes to the book or payments to the plaintiffs will be forthcoming. KinderUSA claims that it dropped the suit because of the costs involved, but it's more likely it felt that it could not win. If the case had been brought in the United Kingdom, the outcome could have been far different.

This is why Americans must be vigilant about protecting their free speech rights, even when the threats at hand do not fit into the politically correct playbook. Certainly not all Muslim charities and Saudi businessmen are involved in financing terrorism, but the overwhelming amount of evidence pointing to existing links deserves attention, as do the fervent attempts by interested parties to silence those trying to bring the truth to light. It is crucial that they not succeed.

Posted by Ricardo Valenzuela

Long-Arming the Libel Tourist

by Jacob Sullum Reason Magazine

Last week the New York Court of Appeals heard arguments in a case that pits freedom of speech against British libel law. Israeli-American criminologist Rachel Ehrenfeld is challenging a libel judgment against her obtained by Saudi billionaire Khalid bin Mahfouz, whom she identified in her 2003 book Funding Evil as a source of financial support for terrorism. Last June the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit allowed her lawsuit to proceed, but the case hinges to some extent on issues of state law, one of which the New York Court of Appeals is now considering: whether New York's "long arm" statute can reach a defendant such as Bin Mahfouz who is outside the U.S.

Calling Bin Mahfouz to account before a U.S. court seems only fair, given his strategy in trying to shut Ehrenfeld up. Although her book was published in the U.S., Bin Mahfouz sued her in London to take advantage of England's pro-plaintiff libel rules, which he has used to intimidate other critics into silence. The excuse for suing Ehrenfeld in the U.K. was that people there (possibly cronies of Bin Mahfouz) had bought 23 copies of the book online. In 2005 a British judge issued a default judgment against Ehrenfeld, ordering her to apologize, pay Bin Mahfouz about $230,000, and destroy all copies of her book. Jared Lapidus, a fellow at the Moving Picture Institute ("Promoting Freedom Through Film"), has produced an eight-minute documentary about the case, which the prominent civil libertarian (and reason contributor) Harvey Silverglate calls "one of the most important First Amendment cases of the past 25 years." Although Lapidus gets a little distracted by how awful the Saudis are, the video does communicate the dangers of libel tourism pretty well.

I mentioned the Ehrenfeld case on Hit & Run last month. Silverglate considered the implications in a 2006 Boston Globe op-ed piece co-authored by Samuel Abady. Katherine Mangu-Ward interviewed Rob Pfaltzgraff, the Moving Picture Institute's executive director, in the October issue of reason.

Britain and the US are not shoulder to shoulder over defamation

When it comes to libel, the US disagrees with the high court - and one American author is hoping to take advantage of it

English libel law itself could face scrutiny in a US court, in a case brought by a US author in New York.

Rachel Ehrenfeld's Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed - and How to Stop It was published in 2003, and alleged that Saudi businessman Sheikh Kalid bin Mahfouz, among others, financed terrorism, a serious defamatory allegation. The book was published in the US, but 23 copies were made available for sale in the UK.

In 2004, Mahfouz won a default defamation claim against Ehrenfeld in the high court from the libel judge Mr Justice Eady. Ehrenfeld is seeking to resist the enforcement in New York of that English libel judgment.

In the past, US courts have refused to implement libel judgments obtained in England. The high court in England has been a popular venue for libel claimants - and English judges have been obliging in hearing cases not obviously related to this jurisdiction, including actions brought against US-based defendants. In 2000, for example, the House of Lords allowed a claim by Russian businessman Boris Berezovsky (at the time still resident in Russia) against the US Forbes magazine.

One crucial issue is often whether there is significant circulation of the material in question within the UK. With information posted on the internet essentially available everywhere immediately - and English law taking the view that material is published where it is read - the propensity for material to be actionable in England is all the greater.

But though it may be possible to bring a claim in libel in the English court against a foreign defendant and obtain judgment and an award of damages, if the defendant has no assets within the jurisdiction (such as a bank account or a house), that award can be fulfilled only if it can be enforced where the defendant does have assets. That is almost invariably in his or her home jurisdiction.

Sheikh bin Mahfouz, who has always vehemently denied the allegations in Ehrenfeld's book, chose to sue her not in the US where the libel laws favour the defendant but in London, where the libel laws are notoriously tilted in favour of the claimant.

In response, Ehrenfeld (who had no assets in the UK) decided not to contest the claim - allowing Sheikh bin Mahfouz quickly to obtain judgment from the English court and an award of £30,000 in damages - but instead elected to bring an action against Mahfouz in New York, hoping for a declaration that the claim would not succeed if it were brought within the jurisdiction of the New York court, and that the judgment from the English court was unenforceable in the US.

If Ehrenfeld's action is successful, it will not only insulate her from the effects of the English libel award, but it might also constitute an effective retort to the implicit criticism of her from the English judgment and undermine the vindication Mahfouz obtained from it.

Will it work? In the past, the US judiciary has taken a dim view of the law of defamation in the UK. For example, in 1995 Vladimir Telnikoff, a Soviet-born writer living in Israel, sought to enforce in a court in Maryland in the US a libel award obtained in England against Vladimir Matusevitch, another former Soviet writer.

Courts in one country usually enforce judgments granted by courts in another under a rather homely principle known as "comity", that is the mutual respect to be accorded between judicial authorities. However, in considering the case, the Maryland court of appeals undertook a review of the law of defamation in the UK from the oppressive censorship of the Star Chamber under the reign of Henry VIII to the present day - and essentially decided that little had changed.

For this reason, the court decided that enforcement of the English libel award would be repugnant and contrary to public policy in Maryland, and refused to allow Mr Telnikoff's claim.

Although Dr Ehrenfeld may well succeed in her claim, her hopes that this might inspire a significant change in the English law are probably overly optimistic. The British media have long battled for more lenient libel laws and have already achieved a degree of success with the so-called "Reynolds defence". This confers protection to a defamatory publication which is in the public interest and has been produced as a result of responsible journalism, even if the defendant media organisation cannot prove that the allegations in question are true. This still falls short of the equivalent defence in the US which, in light of the right to free speech under the first amendment of the US constitution, is more generous to the media. But the defence represents the settled view of the judiciary and there is unlikely to be any significant movement in the foreseeable future.

Dan Tench is a media partner at Olswang
Originally published in the UK Guardian