As I posted last week, a bill has been introduced into the House of Representatives which would protect American autors and publishers from being subjected to other countries's laws regarding freedom of speech.
The bill was prompted by a New York Times op-ed I wrote together with my colleagues Professor Michael Broyde of Emory's Law School.
The bill has won the strong support of the Association of American Publishers.
Spearheaded by Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN), the legislation was co-sponsored by House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) and nine members of the Committee (Issa, Nadler, Berman, Coble, Lofgren, Jackson-Lee, Wexler, Johnson, and Gutierrez), along with Reps. Mark Udall (D-CO) and John Yarmuth (D-KY).
If you believe in free speech as we have defined it here in America and are an American citizen, contact your representative and tell him/her to support H.R. 6146.
You can make a real difference.
Showing posts with label Libel Tourism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Libel Tourism. Show all posts
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Friday, May 23, 2008
Libel Tourism: New York Times Op-Ed by Lipstadt and Broyde Spurs Federal Legislation
The op-ed my colleague Michael Broyde and I wrote on libel tourism has prompted proposals for federal legislation. Emory has just released the following press release.
Emory Professors' Op-Ed Spurs Federal Legislation on 'Libel Tourismʼ'U.S. Reps. Steve Cohen (D-TN) and Darrell Issa (R-CA) are expected to introduce today a bill to end "libel tourism," a phenomenon whereby plaintiffs seek judgments from foreign courts against American authors and publishers for making allegedly defamatory statements. Two Emory University professors, Michael Broyde and Deborah Lipstadt, brought the problem of libel tourism to the attention of federal lawmakers in a co-written New York Times opinion piece (Oct. 11, 2007). Broyde, an expert in comparative and Jewish law, helped draft the federal bill. He and Lipstadt are drafting a follow-up opinion piece designed to support the bill's passage. The bill would prohibit U.S. courts from recognizing or enforcing foreign defamation judgments that are inconsistent with the First Amendment. The bill's authors contend that libel tourism "threatens to undermine our nation's core free speech principles, as embodied in the First Amendment. U.S. law places a higher burden on certain defamation plaintiffs in order to safeguard First Amendment-protected speech. Other countries, including those that generally share our legal tradition, provide no such protection…" Broyde and Lipstadt wrote the op-ed in response to billionaire Saudi businessman Khalid bin Mahfouz's 2004 lawsuit against Rachel Ehrenfeld, an American author who wrote "Funding Evil: How Terrorism Is Financed and How to Stop It." The 2003 book argues that bin Mahfouz has financed Osama bin Laden and other terrorists. Bin Mahfouz sued Ehrenfeld for libel in Britain, where libel laws place the burden of proof on defendants. She lost the case and was ordered to apologize, destroy all copies of the book and pay bin Mahfouz $230,000 in damages. Lipstadt faced a similar legal battle when Holocaust denier David Irving sued her in Britain for her 1994 book, "Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory," which asserted Irving had deliberately distorted Holocaust facts. Although Lipstadt won, her case lasted four years and cost more than $1 million in legal fees. Broyde is a professor of law and a senior fellow in Emory's Center for the Study of Law and Religion (CSLR), and Lipstadt is Dorot Professor of Modern Jewish and Holocaust Studies and a CSLR associated faculty member. |
Contact: Elaine Justice at 404-727-0643 or elaine.justice@emory.edu
Friday, December 21, 2007
Libel Tourism: N.Y. Court rules in Ehrenfeld case: It won't hear the case.. now.
The N.Y. Appeals Court has ruled in the Ehrenfeld case. There are many disturbing aspects to this case, as my colleague Michael Broyde and I wrote in our New York Times oped.
[Some background: In her book Ehrenfeld charged Saudi billionaire Mahfouz with funding terrorism. She did not publish the book in the UK. Nonetheless, Mahfouz's lawyers bought the book over Amazon UK and then went to the UK court and sued her for libel. The case coined the term "Libel Tourism." She did not contest the Saudi billionaire's charges against her and therefore lost by default. ]
She tried to counter sue Mahfouz in the United States. She argued that, the fact that Mahfouz might try to collect what he won in the UK judgment against her, gave the N.Y. court jurisdiction and it should prevent that from happening.
The N.Y. Appeals Court ruled that New York courts have no jurisdiction to hear her counter suit because he has not yet tried to collect the funds awarded him by the UK court.
Ehrenfeld's lawyers had argued that just the threat that Mahfouz would try to collect the money gave American courts jurisdiction.
What the N.Y. court said was that she can't sue now. The court seems to be saying that, should, however, Mahfouz come banging on her door to collect the money, she can then go to the N.Y. court and ask them to hear the case.
Since the ruling was announced yesterday I have received a number of despondent emails. They have expressed the sentiment that this is an awful defeat for Ehrenfeld, as well as all others who would expose Saudi funding of terrorism and try to expose extremism.
I too wish the ruling had gone otherwise but lawyers had warned me that the court would probably rule this way.
Part of the problem is that Ehrenfeld, by choosing not to contest Mahfouz's assault on her in the UK court, has a judgment against her.
I am convinced -- I may be wrong -- that Mahfouz won't come after Ehrenfeld for the money. To do so he might look like a vicious man trying to strip an American researcher and writer of her livelihood. Moreover, if she then goes to the American courts and counter sues, he might lose.
However, if he leaves things as they are now it is a win/win for him.
* He won by default in the UK court
* He has a judgment against Ehrenfeld [even though she never published in the UK]
* He leaves her hanging, not knowing if he is coming to collect "his" money while he avoids looking like an ogre.
* Above all, he avoids the risk that she will counter sue and win in an American court.
I know that Ehrenfeld did not contest these charges in the UK on principle. [It is absurd that a book that was not published in the UK can be the cause of a libel suit there.] However, because of the nature of UK libel laws, it let Mahfouz have his win [even if by default]
This made him the winner. And that is how he will probably choose to remain.
[Some background: In her book Ehrenfeld charged Saudi billionaire Mahfouz with funding terrorism. She did not publish the book in the UK. Nonetheless, Mahfouz's lawyers bought the book over Amazon UK and then went to the UK court and sued her for libel. The case coined the term "Libel Tourism." She did not contest the Saudi billionaire's charges against her and therefore lost by default. ]
She tried to counter sue Mahfouz in the United States. She argued that, the fact that Mahfouz might try to collect what he won in the UK judgment against her, gave the N.Y. court jurisdiction and it should prevent that from happening.
The N.Y. Appeals Court ruled that New York courts have no jurisdiction to hear her counter suit because he has not yet tried to collect the funds awarded him by the UK court.
Ehrenfeld's lawyers had argued that just the threat that Mahfouz would try to collect the money gave American courts jurisdiction.
What the N.Y. court said was that she can't sue now. The court seems to be saying that, should, however, Mahfouz come banging on her door to collect the money, she can then go to the N.Y. court and ask them to hear the case.
Since the ruling was announced yesterday I have received a number of despondent emails. They have expressed the sentiment that this is an awful defeat for Ehrenfeld, as well as all others who would expose Saudi funding of terrorism and try to expose extremism.
I too wish the ruling had gone otherwise but lawyers had warned me that the court would probably rule this way.
Part of the problem is that Ehrenfeld, by choosing not to contest Mahfouz's assault on her in the UK court, has a judgment against her.
I am convinced -- I may be wrong -- that Mahfouz won't come after Ehrenfeld for the money. To do so he might look like a vicious man trying to strip an American researcher and writer of her livelihood. Moreover, if she then goes to the American courts and counter sues, he might lose.
However, if he leaves things as they are now it is a win/win for him.
* He won by default in the UK court
* He has a judgment against Ehrenfeld [even though she never published in the UK]
* He leaves her hanging, not knowing if he is coming to collect "his" money while he avoids looking like an ogre.
* Above all, he avoids the risk that she will counter sue and win in an American court.
I know that Ehrenfeld did not contest these charges in the UK on principle. [It is absurd that a book that was not published in the UK can be the cause of a libel suit there.] However, because of the nature of UK libel laws, it let Mahfouz have his win [even if by default]
This made him the winner. And that is how he will probably choose to remain.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Thursday, October 11, 2007
New York Times Oped by Deborah Lipstadt and Michael Broyde on Libel Tourism
See today's New York Times for an oped by me and Michale Broyde, my colleague from Emory Law School, on Libel Tourism, the attempt by Saudi bizillionaire Ibn Mafouz to stop anyone from publishing anything linking him to terrorism.
He is exerting a chill of unbelievable proportions and must be stopped. Where are the voices of outrage from my university colleagues? They seem to take Saudi efforts to silence those who criticize them in stride. Wonder if Mr. Walt and Mr. Mearsheimer are going to write about this... doubt it.
He is exerting a chill of unbelievable proportions and must be stopped. Where are the voices of outrage from my university colleagues? They seem to take Saudi efforts to silence those who criticize them in stride. Wonder if Mr. Walt and Mr. Mearsheimer are going to write about this... doubt it.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Libel Tourism: How two authors got skewered by Cambridge University Press and a Saudi Sheikh
There is a compelling piece on the History News Network by Robert O. Collins, emeritus professor of history at UC Santa Barbara, who co-authored with J. Millard Burr Alms for Jihad: Charity and Terrorism in the Islamic World, the book which was trashed by Cambridge University Press because Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz accused it of defaming him.
[This is the book about which I alerted readers of this blog to buy before Cambridge pulled it. Sure enough it disappeared from book sellers lists shortly thereafter.]
This, of course, all happened in the UK.
Cambridge University Press decided within a matter of weeks -- if that long -- to fold, abandon the authors, and acquiesce to the Sheikh's charges. During the negotiations with the Sheikh the authors "naively assumed that, as authors, we were automatically a party to any settlement." Of course, had they had a lawyer she/he would have told them that because they were not named in the case by the Sheikh they had no say.
As Professor Collins says, Cambrige abject[ly] surrender[ed].
Mahfouz probably chose not to include them in the suit because he knew that they would then have recourse to turn to the American courts, as Rachel Ehrenfeld is now doing, and challenge the decision of the UK court.
Why has there not been an outcry among academics? Don't they see this as an abridgement of the academic freedom they hold so dear? Why haven't they called attention to the systematic way in which the Saudis are closing down any and all criticism of them?
Why hasn't the media covered this extensively? After all, this development has the potential of affecting them as much as publishers and authors.
Why such silence on this clear issue of free speech?
[This is the book about which I alerted readers of this blog to buy before Cambridge pulled it. Sure enough it disappeared from book sellers lists shortly thereafter.]
This, of course, all happened in the UK.
Cambridge University Press decided within a matter of weeks -- if that long -- to fold, abandon the authors, and acquiesce to the Sheikh's charges. During the negotiations with the Sheikh the authors "naively assumed that, as authors, we were automatically a party to any settlement." Of course, had they had a lawyer she/he would have told them that because they were not named in the case by the Sheikh they had no say.
As Professor Collins says, Cambrige abject[ly] surrender[ed].
Mahfouz probably chose not to include them in the suit because he knew that they would then have recourse to turn to the American courts, as Rachel Ehrenfeld is now doing, and challenge the decision of the UK court.
Why has there not been an outcry among academics? Don't they see this as an abridgement of the academic freedom they hold so dear? Why haven't they called attention to the systematic way in which the Saudis are closing down any and all criticism of them?
Why hasn't the media covered this extensively? After all, this development has the potential of affecting them as much as publishers and authors.
Why such silence on this clear issue of free speech?
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Attention Authors [1]: Be afraid, very afraid.... especially if you write about the Saudis and their support of terrorism
Whenever David Irving's libel case against me comes up someone inevitably asks: How could he sue you in the UK? I explain that my book was bought and published by Penguin UK and therefore he could drag me into a UK court.
Turns out that now the reach of UK libel laws has been greatly extended. It's a frightening development. In an earlier post I wrote about Rachel Ehrenfeld and how she was sued for libel by the Saudi Khalid bin Mafouz for writing that he had supported terrorism.
But here's what makes Ehrenfeld's story quite different from mine: her book was NOT published in the UK. Some people in the UK [I wonder if it was the Saudis or their lawyers???] bought a copy over the Internet.
Bin Mafouz pounced and Ehrenfeld was ordered to pay him damages. Now the American courts have come to her defense. [Scroll down at this link to find the New York Law Journal report on the Ehrenfeld case.]
Now the Saudis have silenced another book. This one is by J. Millard Burr, a former relief coordinator for Operation Lifeline Sudan, U.S. Agency for International Development, and Robert O. Collins, professor of history at the University of California at Santa Barbara.
They have written a number of books on Darfur and Sudan. Their most recent book, Alms for Jihad was published by Cambridge University Press. [Since their book was published in the UK, their case is closer to mine than Ehrenfeld's.]
The authors explore how, in the words of Michael Rubin, writing in the New York Sun:
Cambridge University Press contacted the authors,and they provided detailed material in support of their claims made in Alms for Jihad.
Nonetheless, Cambridge University Press decided not to contest the argument and next week they will apologize in court.
As Rachel Ehrenfeld has just written to me in an email: "Get a copy of “Alms of Jihad” before it’s banned..."
[To satisfy the different leanings of readers of this blog I have provided links to Amazon, B&N, and Powells. I would have provided a link to Cambridge University Press but the book seems to have been buried deep within the Cambridge University Press website How's that for rewriting of history?]
Bin Mahfouz apparently has amassed a number of judgements by default, in other words the case was not tried on its merits. Everyone just caves, pays a fine, and gets out of Dodge as fast as they can.
Cambridge Press had pretty deep pockets but it too folded. If I were a reporter writing about this I would see what connections it has with the Saudis... That would be interesting to know.
And now I return to the main point: Why isn't this pattern of silencing by the Saudis of authors who are critical of them been the topic of an article in the mainstream press?
There are important legal precedences here, especially in the Ehrenfeld case, and a disturbing pattern of silencing of criticism by the Saudis.
Where are the free speech advocates now???
Turns out that now the reach of UK libel laws has been greatly extended. It's a frightening development. In an earlier post I wrote about Rachel Ehrenfeld and how she was sued for libel by the Saudi Khalid bin Mafouz for writing that he had supported terrorism.
But here's what makes Ehrenfeld's story quite different from mine: her book was NOT published in the UK. Some people in the UK [I wonder if it was the Saudis or their lawyers???] bought a copy over the Internet.
Bin Mafouz pounced and Ehrenfeld was ordered to pay him damages. Now the American courts have come to her defense. [Scroll down at this link to find the New York Law Journal report on the Ehrenfeld case.]
Now the Saudis have silenced another book. This one is by J. Millard Burr, a former relief coordinator for Operation Lifeline Sudan, U.S. Agency for International Development, and Robert O. Collins, professor of history at the University of California at Santa Barbara.
They have written a number of books on Darfur and Sudan. Their most recent book, Alms for Jihad was published by Cambridge University Press. [Since their book was published in the UK, their case is closer to mine than Ehrenfeld's.]
The authors explore how, in the words of Michael Rubin, writing in the New York Sun:
The Saudi royal family played a pernicious role, founding and promoting charities to spread militant Sunni Islam, not only as an inoculation against resurgent Shi'ism from revolutionary Iran, but also to radicalize the Muslims in Europe and America.The British lawyers for Khalid bin Mahfouz and his son Abdulrahman bin Mahfouz wrote Cambridge University Press saying they intended to sue the Press and the authors for defamation against their clients.
Cambridge University Press contacted the authors,and they provided detailed material in support of their claims made in Alms for Jihad.
Nonetheless, Cambridge University Press decided not to contest the argument and next week they will apologize in court.
As Rachel Ehrenfeld has just written to me in an email: "Get a copy of “Alms of Jihad” before it’s banned..."
[To satisfy the different leanings of readers of this blog I have provided links to Amazon, B&N, and Powells. I would have provided a link to Cambridge University Press but the book seems to have been buried deep within the Cambridge University Press website How's that for rewriting of history?]
Bin Mahfouz apparently has amassed a number of judgements by default, in other words the case was not tried on its merits. Everyone just caves, pays a fine, and gets out of Dodge as fast as they can.
Cambridge Press had pretty deep pockets but it too folded. If I were a reporter writing about this I would see what connections it has with the Saudis... That would be interesting to know.
And now I return to the main point: Why isn't this pattern of silencing by the Saudis of authors who are critical of them been the topic of an article in the mainstream press?
There are important legal precedences here, especially in the Ehrenfeld case, and a disturbing pattern of silencing of criticism by the Saudis.
Where are the free speech advocates now???
Sunday, July 22, 2007
From the British Courts: A strange libel case that gives pause to authors and comfort to terrorism
There is currently a court battle going on which sounds absolutely absurd. In short, Rachel Ehrenfeld, an American and founder of the American Center for Democracy, wrote a book which mentioned Khalid Salim bin Manfouz, accusing him of funding Hama and Al Qaeda. The Washington Times has an column summarizing the outlines of the story.
Bin Mafouz sued Ehrenfeld in London for libel. As most readers of this blog know, the burden there is on the defendant. But here is the kicker: Ehrenfeld never published her book in the UK. A couple of copies were sold as special orders over Amazon which posted a chanpter of the book on the Internet.
Bin Mafouz is essentially a "libel tourists," who find some sort of weak connection in the UK to use that vanue to sue. The judge ruled that she must apologize to bin Mahfouz and pay over $225,000. She has not done either and, therefore, cannot travel to the UK, a servere impediment for someone who does research on terrorism and jihad.
Miss Ehrenfeld countersued in New York and last month the court said her case had merit and that she could appeal in this country. The court found that this case had implications for the First Amendment and for all authors.
Actually, as the Washington Times details, the French have extensive evidence linking bin Mafouz to Osama bin Laden.
This case, therefore, should be of great interest to writers and to those who believe that a vigorous fight against terrorism must continue. It's surprising that this case has not gotten more attention from the media. Could it be that Ehrenfeld is linked with neocon folks????
Bin Mafouz sued Ehrenfeld in London for libel. As most readers of this blog know, the burden there is on the defendant. But here is the kicker: Ehrenfeld never published her book in the UK. A couple of copies were sold as special orders over Amazon which posted a chanpter of the book on the Internet.
Bin Mafouz is essentially a "libel tourists," who find some sort of weak connection in the UK to use that vanue to sue. The judge ruled that she must apologize to bin Mahfouz and pay over $225,000. She has not done either and, therefore, cannot travel to the UK, a servere impediment for someone who does research on terrorism and jihad.
Miss Ehrenfeld countersued in New York and last month the court said her case had merit and that she could appeal in this country. The court found that this case had implications for the First Amendment and for all authors.
Actually, as the Washington Times details, the French have extensive evidence linking bin Mafouz to Osama bin Laden.
This case, therefore, should be of great interest to writers and to those who believe that a vigorous fight against terrorism must continue. It's surprising that this case has not gotten more attention from the media. Could it be that Ehrenfeld is linked with neocon folks????
Thursday, June 23, 2005
London "libel tourism"
An article on the Accuracy in Media website notes that Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, a respected US author and scholar was sued for libel in a London court. Dr. Ehrenfeld "boycotted" the trial, and has stated that she "has no intention of complying with the court order and has chosen instead to fight for her First Amendment rights by suing the billionaire in New York. She wants the court to find the London judgment to be unenforceable in the U.S., and to reiterate that publication of her book may continue in the U.S. because it is constitutionally protected speech. What Ehrenfeld is seeking is a legal remedy to vindicate her rights and protect her integrity and reputation as a writer."
Here are some excerpts from the article in which Prof. Lipstadt's successful defeat of Irving's suit is cited:
Here are some excerpts from the article in which Prof. Lipstadt's successful defeat of Irving's suit is cited:
AIM Report: Saudi Billionaire Threatens U.S. Author
June 22, 2005
[...]
Ehrenfeld's work, as well as that of other authors, is now at risk because of a lawsuit filed in London, the world capital for what's now called "libel tourism." At stake is nothing less than freedom of the press here in the United States and the First Amendment right of journalists to cover matters affecting U.S. national security and survival. This case involves another billionaire, Khalid Salim a Bin Mahfouz of Saudi Arabia.
Ehrenfeld's saga began with the publishing of her 2003 book, Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It. This, Ehrenfeld's fifth book, examined the alleged involvement of Bin Mahfouz and his relatives and others in the funding of al Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden and other terrorist entities. Bin Mahfouz, who denies any role in sponsoring or financing terrorism, responded by filing a lawsuit against Ehrenfeld in London, claiming defamation.
[...]
Under English law, however, the plaintiff does not need to prove malice or negligence. The burden of proof falls upon the defendant who must prove that all his/her statements are in fact true, not just that they were reported in good faith. Such a legal process is unthinkable in the U.S., where the burden of proof is upon a public plaintiff who must prove that what was reported about him/her was demonstrably false, malicious and/or reckless.
Bin Mahfouz, whose wealth is estimated by Forbes magazine at $2.8 billion, has yet to lose a case in the London courts. Ehrenfeld said that other publishers have capitulated to his legal threats because surrendering is cheaper than launching a defense.
Ehrenfeld boycotted the London court proceedings, was found guilty, and ordered to pay £60,000 (US $109,470) as a "down payment" on damages. (Media erroneously reported the figure as a final fine of £30,000.) The London Times reported the judge as saying it was "false" to say that Bin Mahfouz financed or supported al Qaeda or other terrorist groups.
[...]
London has become notorious for these lawsuits. Perhaps the most notorious is the legal action filed against author Deborah Lipstadt, Dorot Professor of Modern Jewish and Holocaust Studies at Emory University. Lipstadt named David Irving as a holocaust denier who deliberately distorted historical facts in her book "Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory." Irving sued Lipstadt in London. And because Lipstadt had to prove her statements were true in the British courts, she had to therefore prove the Holocaust happened, that there were gas chambers at Auschwitz, and so on. She won the case but the legal proceedings cost her over $1 million. The grueling yet triumphant saga is the subject of her new book "History on Trial: My Day in Court With David Irving."
Professor Lipstadt can now post this notice on her website without fear of being sued: "The book is Lipstadt's account of her successful defense against Holocaust denier, David Irving, who sued her for libel for calling him a denier." At a recent celebration held in Lipstadt's honor, David Harris, Executive Director of the American Jewish Committee, said, "[W]hat was going to be on trial was not Deborah Lipstadt per se but the Holocaust. For generations it would shape the way people view the Holocaust. This was not her battle alone."
[...]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
