The undersigned organizations express their strong support for the Free Speech Protection Act of 2008 (S. 2977). Libel suits filed in foreign countries pose a grave danger to the free speech rights of American authors, journalists, publishers, and readers. S. 2977 provides authors with the weapons they need to protect their right to express themselves freely and ensures that the libel laws of countries that provide less protection for free speech will not undermine American laws or chill protected speech.
Increasingly in recent years, individuals who challenge the accuracy of published materials have attempted to strike back at their authors by filing lawsuits in foreign countries, most commonly England. U.S. law requires the party alleging libel to prove that the statements objected to are actually false. To avoid this burden, libel plaintiffs have engaged in forum shopping - filing lawsuits in countries with either different burdens of proof or different definitions of libel. The most notorious recent example of this libel tourism is the lawsuit filed by Saudi billionaire Khalid Salim bin Mahfouz, who sued Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, an American expert on terrorism, over statements in her book, Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It. Despite the fact that the book was never published in England and that a mere 23 copies had been sold there by online booksellers, Bin Mafouz brought suit in an English court. Under British law, the burden of proof in the first instance is on the defendant to prove the truth of any allegedly libelous statement. Faced with enormous legal costs to satisfy this requirement, Ehrenfeld refused to defend the suit. The English court entered a default judgment, enjoined further distribution of the book in the United Kingdom and awarded substantial damages and legal fees. Bin Mafouz's English lawsuit had the predictable effect of chilling Ehrenfeld’s free speech rights and effectively silencing anyone else who might consider publishing similar statements. It sent the message that he is willing and able to challenge any investigation of his family’s, and the Saudi royal family’s alleged ties to the funding of terrorism. He has refused to disclaim an intention to attempt to enforce the judgment in the United States, further reinforcing its chilling effect. Read more ...
Increasingly in recent years, individuals who challenge the accuracy of published materials have attempted to strike back at their authors by filing lawsuits in foreign countries, most commonly England. U.S. law requires the party alleging libel to prove that the statements objected to are actually false. To avoid this burden, libel plaintiffs have engaged in forum shopping - filing lawsuits in countries with either different burdens of proof or different definitions of libel. The most notorious recent example of this libel tourism is the lawsuit filed by Saudi billionaire Khalid Salim bin Mahfouz, who sued Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, an American expert on terrorism, over statements in her book, Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It. Despite the fact that the book was never published in England and that a mere 23 copies had been sold there by online booksellers, Bin Mafouz brought suit in an English court. Under British law, the burden of proof in the first instance is on the defendant to prove the truth of any allegedly libelous statement. Faced with enormous legal costs to satisfy this requirement, Ehrenfeld refused to defend the suit. The English court entered a default judgment, enjoined further distribution of the book in the United Kingdom and awarded substantial damages and legal fees. Bin Mafouz's English lawsuit had the predictable effect of chilling Ehrenfeld’s free speech rights and effectively silencing anyone else who might consider publishing similar statements. It sent the message that he is willing and able to challenge any investigation of his family’s, and the Saudi royal family’s alleged ties to the funding of terrorism. He has refused to disclaim an intention to attempt to enforce the judgment in the United States, further reinforcing its chilling effect. Read more ...
Source: Shariah Finance Watch
Posts
