The American Center for Democracy / Center for the Study of Corruption: Mission Statement

THE MEDIA INSTITUTE DINNER
Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, 2008 Public Award Winner
Washington, DC.
October 21, 2008

by Floyd Abrams

It's a great honor to appear before you this evening. The Media Institute is not only a continuing voice for protecting First Amendment freedoms but--and this is rare in Washington, including on the Supreme Court--a consistent voice defending the First Amendment. I'm also especially honored to be speaking at a dinner graced by the presence of Senator Leahy. Defenders of the Bill of Rights are rare in Congress. It is often politically popular to seek to limit controversial or disagreeable speech and to be seen as cracking down on other fundamental rights set forth in the Bill of Rights. It is rarely, if ever, politically advantageous to defend the Bill of Rights, except on a level so general in nature as to be of no moment at all. Senator Leahy is and has been a full-time defender of the Bill of Rights when it counts, when issues are difficult, when the public is least likely to agree. We're all honored that he's here this evening.

I’m going to say a few words about books so I thought I’d use that as a segueway to a story I just heard. A women bought her dog to the movies. The movies had some funny parts, and the dog laughed at all the funny parts. He just convulsed merrily with laughter. A gentleman was sitting behind her, and when the movie was over and they were talking out, he said to her, “Ma’am, that is a very remarkable dog, he just laughed at the funny parts of the movie.” She said, “Yes, he is remarkable, and he surprised me because he didn’t really like the book.”

Most of the First Amendment battles of our history have been fought out in the courts. When we think of the First Amendment--or, indeed, other provisions of the Bill of Rights--we tend to think of those battles, of rulings of one generation or another of Supreme Court Justices. We think of the cases immediately after World War I, when the Supreme Court permitted convictions to stand of socialists or others who had opposed the war and were jailed for saying things that even the least First Amendment-friendly jurists today would think are unprotected. When we think about those cases, we think of the enduring dissenting opinions of Justices Holmes and Brandeis, opinions that are now usually treated as if they were majority opinions. When we think of the 1960s and 1970s, we think of the great First Amendment victories in cases such as New York Times Co. v. Sullivan and the Pentagon Papers Case. But when we look now, a good deal of what is most important in the First Amendment area is before Congress, not the Courts.

The best known example of that is, of course, the effort to persuade Congress to pass a federal shield law. There is an interesting history with respect to that effort. When the Supreme Court in 1972, by a 5-4 vote, ruled against the press in Branzburg v. Hayes in three cases raising the issue of whether journalist’s promises of confidentiality to their sources received constitutional protection, the issue arose of seeking congressional action via a federal shield law to protect the journalist-source relationship and ultimately the public interest in receiving important information that could only be obtained from such sources. At that time--a time when the votes in Congress were there for a stronger bill than is now before Congress--there was significant press opposition to seeking legislation. The Branzburg ruling had not only been 5-4 but the fifth vote--Justice Powell's, as explained by him in a tortured concurring opinion--gave some hope that in the future the Court would afford more protection than Justice White's icy majority opinion had indicated. (Less than a year ago, Justice Powell's internal notes surfaced and it turned out that he did believe that the press was entitled to considerable common-law if not constitutional protection in this area,--a subject that lawyers like me had been battling about for over three decades. Moreover, there was what I would characterize as ideological opposition within the press for asking Congress for a shield law. Some journalists argued that it would be unprincipled to do so since a Congress that "gave" the press something would demand something in return. Others rested on the proposition that whatever the Supreme Court said, the First Amendment did give the press the protection it thought it had. Over 30 years passed, with the press winning more confidential source cases that it lost. And then came the Judith Miller case, the Balco case and other cases, particularly in the DC Circuit, which sobered everybody up. The prospect of jail or losing all your assets will do that--and it did. And so legislation was introduced and after considerable effort, a bill was passed by overwhelming votes in the House and by the Senate Judiciary Committee led by Senator Leahy. Only the opposition of the Administration has thus far prevented any bill from passing...and perhaps sometime in the next months, that may yet happen.

The other piece of prospective legislation is less well known but also of considerable importance. In recent years, English libel law has come to have a disturbing impact on the right of Americans to speak out. England has become a choice venue for libel plaintiffs from around the world, including those who seek to intimidate critics whose works would be protected in the U.S. under the First Amendment but might not in that country. That English libel law has increasingly been used to stifle speech about the subject of international terrorism has raised the stakes still more.

The case against Rachel Ehrenfeld in England by Saudi banker Khalid Bid Mahfouz is illustrative. Her 2003 book “Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Funded and How to Stop It” dealt at length with one of the most significant (and difficult and dangerous to research) topics - the funding of terrorism. The conduct of Mr. Bin Mahfouz as a possible funder of terrorism was one of the subjects discussed in the book, which was published in New York.

Twenty-three copies of the book were sold in England via Amazon.com. On that extraordinarily slim basis, Mr. Bin Mahdouz sued there, claiming that his reputation had been gravely harmed. This was one of 41 suits he has commenced in England a tactic that has served him well in obtaining libel judgments that would be unthinkable as well as unconstitutional here.

Ms. Ehrenfeld (on the advise of English counsel) refused to appear before the English courts, and a judgment against her was entered in the amount of $225,000. At any time, Mr. Bin Mahfouz could seek to enforce that judgment. Whether or not he does, the harm to Ms. Enhrenfeld’s reputation remains real. And the message to publishers, American and foreign, is even clearer: We’re not talking about Harry Potter here. Why risk litigation by a Saudi billionaire in a jurisdiction so obviously friendly? And how, if Ms. Ehrefeld could be sued in England for 23 copies sold there on Amazon.com (with no advertising in England) how better to avoid problems than to avoid publication of statements with which he might take issue?

Ms. Ehrenfeld sought a declaratory judgment in New York determining that the English judgment was not enforceable here, and that her work was protected under American law. But the New York City Court of Appeals determined that her suit could not be heard under state law. Any changes in that law, the court concluded, was up to the New York legislature.

To the surprise of those who denigrate the ability of the New York legislature to act decisively, both the Assembly and its Senate unanimously passed a bill, then signed into law by Governor David Paterson, that gives Ms. Ehrenfeld and other citizens who are sued for libel abroad the right to obtain a declaration here that their works are protected under American Law.

Now the same subject is before Congress. Legislation, entitled The Free Speech Protection Act of 2008, has been introduced by, among others, Senators Specter, Lieberman and Schumer, that would do three things, two of which have already been done in New York. Like New York, the bill would make foreign libel judgments entered against Americans under legal systems that provide less-than-First Amendment protection--i.e. all of them--unenforceable here. Like New York, the legislation would allow American authors who are sued abroad for libel to seek a declaration of non-liability here. And in a particularly important section of the bill that goes well beyond what New York has done, the legislation would permit punitive damages in particularly egregious cases of attempts to punish our authors for First Amendment -protected speech.

The legislation has been supported by, among others, the American Library Association, the ACLU, the American Association of University Professors, the Association of American Publishers and others. Adoption of the bill with all three of its provisions, I think, would not only serve the interest of protecting American authors but encouraging the United Kingdom to do what the United Nations Human Rights Committee has already urged--to bring its law into accord with more enlightened international standards.

I want to be clear as I close that I am really not suggesting to you that the press--our too often flawed press- is always admired or admirable. Speaking of England, I am reminded of the fine old story of the new English Ambassador who was arriving in this country by ship in the mid 1920’s. At sea, he was warned of the hostility of the New York press to England and to him. He was ready for the press. So, when he arrived and the first question he was asked by the press was “Are you going to see the dancing girls in New York?”, he responded “Are there dancing girls in New York?” And, of course, the headline that day read “Are there dancing girls, asks English Ambassador.”

The New York Times
By Stephanie A. Middleton

To the Editor:
Re "Bringing an End to 'Libel Tourism' " (editorial, Sept. 30):

You urge the Senate to pass a House bill that would allow American courts to refuse to enforce some foreign defamation judgments, but acknowledge that the House bill "does not go as far as it could." A Senate bill introduced by Senator Arlen Specter on May 6 would provide broader protection.

The right of Americans to speak and write freely is being curtailed by costly lawsuits filed against them by “libel tourists” in countries that do not have our robust free speech protections. Those filing such suits know that even if a foreign judgment cannot be enforced in the United States, the cost of defending those foreign suits and the penalty for taking a default judgment can have a chilling effect on American writers and publishers.

Senator Specter’s bill would not only block American courts from enforcing foreign judgments that are inconsistent with our Constitution, but would also give American writers the ability to recover defense costs and additional damages if there is proof that the foreign plaintiff is engaged in a scheme to suppress First Amendment rights.

Congress should enact Senator Specter’s bill, which takes important steps beyond the House bill to protect American constitutional standards on free speech.

Stephanie A. Middleton
Washington, Oct. 1, 2008

The writer is the Republican staff director, Senate Judiciary Committee.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/opinion/lweb04libel.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print
Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company

For Immediate Release
Contact: Judith Platt (202-220-4551)
Acacia O’Connor (202-220-4550)

PUBLISHERS CHEER HOUSE PASSAGE OF LIBEL TOURISM LEGISLATION

Washington, DC, September 29, 2008: The Association of American Publishers cheered passage late Saturday by the U.S. House of Representatives of legislation that would make it harder for "libel tourists" to threaten American authors and publishers with foreign libel suits aimed at undermining their First Amendment rights. The bill, H.R. 6146, which was introduced by Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN), and co-sponsored by a number of House Judiciary Committee members including Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI), would prohibit U.S. courts from recognizing a foreign defamation judgment “based upon a publication concerning a public figure or a matter of public concern” unless the court determines that the foreign judgment satisfies the free speech and free press protections guaranteed by the First Amendment. H.R. 6146 is substantially similar to the Libel Terrorism Protection Act adopted earlier this year by New York State. The Senate has yet to take action on libel tourism legislation.

The House-passed bill acknowledges that while U.S. courts will generally enforce foreign judgments as a matter of comity, "...comity does not require that courts enforce foreign judgments that are repugnant to our Nation’s fundamental constitutional values, in particular its strong protection of the right to freedom of speech."

AAP President and CEO Pat Schroeder expressed the publishing industry’s thanks to members of Congress for focusing attention on the serious problem of libel tourism, and called passage of H.R. 6146 a "strong and encouraging step forward." "Libel tourism is an insidious threat. It seeks to intimidate and silence American authors and deprive us of vital information on issues of public concern. I hope we can build on H.R. 6146 with hearings in the new Congress that will shine a light into this dark corner," Mrs. Schroeder said.

The Association of American Publishers is the national trade association of the U.S. book publishing industry. AAP’s more than 300 members include most of the major commercial publishers in the United States, as well as smaller and non-profit publishers, university presses and scholarly societies. AAP members publish hardcover and paperback books in every field, educational materials for the elementary, secondary, postsecondary, and professional markets, scholarly journals, computer software, and electronic products and services. The protection of intellectual property rights in all media, the defense of the freedom to read and the freedom to publish at home and abroad, and the promotion of reading and literacy are among the Association’s highest priorities.

Judith Platt
Director, Communications/Public Affairs
Director, Freedom to Read
Association of American Publishers
50 F Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 220-4551

September 17, 2008
U. S. Senator Arlen Specter
United States Senate
711 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

On behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), its more than half a million members, countless additional activists and supporters, and fifty-four affiliates nationwide, we write in strong support of S. 2977, the Free Speech Protection Act of 2008. This bill would address the growing problem of libel tourism, whereby individuals seek libel judgments in foreign countries where libel laws do not have the same free speech protections as in the U.S.

A party seeking libel damages may bring a claim in any jurisdiction where the libelous communication was published. Given the pervasive scope of modern-day electronic communications, many prospective plaintiffs could sue in nearly any country in the world. This circumstance affords libel plaintiffs, in particular, broad forum-shopping opportunities. Distribution of a single book or viewing a statement on the Internet by just one person can be enough to become subject to a foreign judgment for communications claimed to be libelous. The sharp conflict between defamation legal standards in the United Kingdom and the U.S. – combined with the likelihood of at least incidental parallel publication due to common bonds of language, business, and culture – increases the likelihood of libel tourism involving these two countries. Plaintiffs prefer to bring suit in the U.K. because British law places the burden on the author to prove the truth of a published statement, whereas in the U.S. the plaintiff must prove its falsity before winning a defamation claim. Under our Constitution’s First Amendment, the free speech right gives strong protection to those who discuss public figures or matters of public interest.

The most egregious British libel tourism cases involve publications with only incidental circulation in the U.K., plaintiffs and defendants with only minimal connection there, and plaintiffs with little or no connection to the United States. Such was the case of American author Rachel Ehrenfeld, who sold in England a mere 23 copies of her book about terrorism financing. She was sued there by a Saudi businessman who claimed the book defamed him. In the proceedings in England, the court focused on the availability of the material in the jurisdiction. The court paid little notice that neither Ehrenfeld nor the plaintiff had any substantial connection to the U.K. or that the book was published and distributed only in the U.S. (except for the 23 copies and the online release of the book’s first chapter). Acknowledging the unfair British standard, Ehrenfeld did not appear and judgment was entered against her. Her attempt to have the judgment declared unenforceable in the U.S. for non-compliance with American First Amendment norms failed – the court determining that it had no jurisdiction over the Saudi businessman unless and until he came the U.S. to enforce his claim.

A free society is one in which there is freedom of speech and of the press - where a marketplace of ideas exists in which all points of view compete for recognition. Whether viewpoints or ideas are wrong or right, obnoxious or acceptable, should not be the criterion. Speech cannot be restricted without the danger of making the government the arbiter of truth. Therefore, we regard the existence of a right of action for defamation arising out of a discussion of a matter of public concern to violate the First Amendment. Even in private matters, the First Amendment should protect against liability unless the plaintiff can prove with clear and convincing evidence that the false and defamatory speech was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity and with intent to damage an identifiable party's reputation.

The operation of foreign laws should not be permitted to chill the exercise of constitutionally protected rights here in the U.S. Proposed language in S. 2977 would help preserve the right of free speech by giving individuals the ability to challenge the validity of foreign defamation judgments when plaintiffs attempt to enforce them in this country. The bill would entitle U.S. speakers to bring a claim against foreign judgment holders if and when they attempt to serve court papers here. The bill would only render the foreign judgment unenforceable if the foreign lawsuit "does not constitute defamation under United States law".

We have expressed concern with establishing a framework that effectively precludes enforcement of foreign judgments in the U.S. As a general rule, those within the family of nations ought to respect each other’s court judgments. In these circumstances, however, we believe the United States is justified in standing up for its progressive free speech standards which are far closer to international standards than those of Great Britain. In fact, in July the United Nations Human Rights Committee recommended that the United Kingdom revise its libel laws to bring them into accord with international standards.

The Committee is concerned that the [U.K.’s] practical application of the law of libel has served to discourage critical media reporting on matters of serious public interest, adversely affecting the ability of scholars and journalists to publish their work, including through the phenomenon known as "libel tourism." The advent of the internet and the international distribution of foreign media also create the danger that a State party’s unduly restrictive libel law will affect freedom of expression worldwide on matters of valid public interest.

The Committee recommended, among other things, that plaintiffs in Britain be required to make some preliminary showing of falsity or the existence of some failure to conform to journalistic standards.

With support of such international authorities, we believe that passage of the bill with modifications proposed by Senator Specter will not be contrary to our role as a member of the family of nations – respectful of the laws and rights of others. To the contrary, as we stand for the importance of one of our basic freedoms – the right to speak freely – we stand for an ideal to be pursued by all nations as recognized by existing international agreements. At its core, this bill helps the United States to stand as a beacon for the preservation of individual free speech rights and encourages other nations to adopt similarly strong standards.

Thank you for your efforts to improve and enact this important legislation. If you have any questions, please contact Michael W. Macleod-Ball at 202-675-2309 or by email at mmacleod@dcaclu.org.

American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression (ABFFE) Urges Congress to Ban "Libel Tourism"

NEW YORK, NY, Sept. 10, 2008 - The American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression (ABFFE), the bookseller’s voice in the fight against censorship, is urging Congress to address the growing threat posed by libel suits that are filed in foreign countries in an effort to intimidate American writers and publishers. The lawsuits are filed in countries like the United Kingdom because they offer less protection for criticism than the United States. "Libel tourism is a serious threat to American writers and publishers who face the nightmare of defending themselves before unfriendly courts in countries where their books were never published," ABFFE President Chris Finan said. "It is undermining their ability to publish legitimate criticism and depriving Americans of books they have a First Amendment right to read."

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 the prospect of enormous legal costs to meet this burden, and objecting as a matter of principle to having to litigate in England without having published her work there, 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.

ABFFE has joined 18 groups in issuing a statement urging members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to support the Freedom of Speech Protection Act of 2008 (S. 2977). Modeled on a New York law, S. 2977 provides that foreign libel judgments cannot be enforced in the United States if the speech is not actionable under U.S. law. S. 2977 also authorizes authors to countersue the foreign plaintiffs in a U.S. court for damages of up to three times the amount of the foreign judgment if the foreign plaintiff acted to suppress the speech of the U.S. person. The statement is online at http://www.abffe.com/s2977.htm

In addition to ABFFE, the statement was signed by the American Association of University Professors, American Independent Writers, the American Library Association, the American Society of Newspaper Editors, the Association of American Publishers, the Association of American University Presses, the Defending Dissent Foundation, DKT International, the Entertainment Consumers Association, the Freedom to Read Foundation, the Independent Book Publishers Association, the National Coalition Against Censorship, the New York Center for Independent Publishing, Peacefire, the Online Policy Group, PEN American Center, Reporters Without Borders, and the Woodhull Freedom Foundation.

For further information, contact: Chris Finan, American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, (917) 509-0340

*****
Rebecca L. Zeidel, Program Director
American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression
275 Seventh Avenue
15th Floor
New York, NY 10001
Phone: (212) 587-4025, ext. 13
Fax: (212) 587-2436
E-mail: rebecca@abffe.com
www.abffe.com

9/11 Families for a Secure America urges passage of the Free Speech Protection Act of 2008 introduced by Rep. Peter King and Anthony Weiner, and Senators Arlen Specter and Joseph Lieberman, and co-sponsored by Senator Chuck Schumer.

9/11 Families for a Secure America represents the families of over three hundred of the victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks. We thus have a particular interest in the fullest exposure of all those who have been connected, directly or indirectly, with facilitating the mass murders by Moslem terrorists which killed our loved ones.

It could not be clearer that to allow Americans’ freedom of speech to be infringed by the libel laws of other nations will prevent investigation which is essential to exposing those who are guilty. The libel suit brought in English courts by Khalid Bin Mahfouz against Rachel Ehrenfeld is a perfect example of the use of foreign law by a person with connections to terrorism to prevent American investigators in the United States from exposing his guilt.

The members of 9/11 FSA believe that the United States Constitution should remain, as intended by the Founders, to be the supreme law of our country. Judgments won in foreign courts which have the effect nullifying rights guaranteed by the Constitution, should not merely remain unenforceable in the courts of the United States, but the intended victims of these foreign judgments should be permitted to obtain damages from the plaintiffs.

The Free Speech Protection Act of 2008 (H.R. 5814 & S. 2977) will have the effect of protecting not merely the First Amendment rights in America, but will by promoting exposure of terrorist financiers, provide increased security for the Nation as a whole.

American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression- Action item: Sign-on Statement in Support of the Free Speech Protection Act of 2008 (S. 2977)
August 15, 2008

FEN members,

When Congress returns next month, the Senate Judiciary Committee may take up the Free Speech Protection Act of 2008 (S. 2977), a bill that protects U.S. authors and publishers from the threat of libel tourism.

Please consider signing on to the statement below. The deadline for responding is close of business Friday, Sept. 5.

Thanks to Joan Bertin, Judy Platt and Jonathan Bloom of Weil, Gotshal, Manges, for their help in drafting the statement.

Statement in Support of the Free Speech Protection Act of 2008 (S. 2977)

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.

New York has passed a law that broadens the jurisdiction of New York courts over such cases to ensure that foreign libel judgments may not be enforced unless they meet New York and U.S. constitutional standards. S. 2977 is modeled on the New York law. It provides that foreign libel judgments can be enjoined in the United States if the speech is not libelous under U.S. law. S. 2977 also authorizes authors to countersue the plaintiffs in the foreign cases if their purpose was to circumvent First Amendment protections.

We believe that passage of the Free Speech Protection Act is essential to protect the right of American authors to investigate and reveal wrongdoing anywhere in the world and to ensure that weaker protections for free speech elsewhere do not undermine First Amendment freedoms at home.

Christopher Finan, President
American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression
275 Seventh Ave., Rm. 1504
New York, NY 10001
telephone (212) 587-4025, ext. 15
cellphone (917) 509-0340
fax (212) 587-2436
www.abffe.com
http://chrisfinan.vox.com (blog)

ALA Endorses the Free Speech Protection Act of 2008
Category: Civil Liberties, Intellectual Freedom, and Privacy

The American Library Association (ALA) endorsed Senate bill S. 2977, the "Free Speech Protection Act of 2008" and urged its passage as soon as possible in order to protect authors, publishers and others in the United States from libel lawsuits filed in foreign countries. The bill was introduced following several notable defamation lawsuits filed in Great Britain and elsewhere against authors and publishers in the United States.

Lynne Bradley, Director of ALA’s Office of Government Relations said that "ALA is concerned that foreign libel lawsuits threaten U.S. authors and publishers and our freedoms of speech and the press. Through its chilling effect, such 'venue shopping' also denies the American people the right to read and to access information – another inherent First Amendment right essential to our democratic form of government."

This "shopping around" for foreign court venues has been termed "libel tourism" following cases such as that of Rachel Ehrenfeld. At a recent ALA Annual Conference, Ehrenfeld described her experiences being sued in Great Britain by a wealthy Saudi Arabian. A U.S. Department of Defense employee and terrorism expert, Ehrenfeld published her book Financing Evil, in the United States. Though only 23 copies of the book were sold in the United Kingdom, the British court ruled that all copies must be destroyed and ordered Ehrenfeld to pay thousands of dollars in damages. Great Britain has been seen as a likely venue for libel tourism because of its notoriously lower standards for libel.

"Libel tourism should be called 'libel terrorism'," added Mrs. Bradley. "Such legal maneuvers are an attempt to thwart the First Amendment rights of Americans when critics don’t like what our authors have to say – or the rights we have under our First Amendment."

ALA expressed its appreciation to Senators Arlen Specter (PA.-R) and Joseph Lieberman (CT.-I), who introduced S. 2977, and cosponsor Senator Charles Schumer, (NY-D). The Association will be encouraging its over 66,000 members and other First Amendment supporters to lobby senators during the summer recess to pass this bill in September. It will also push for similar legislation in the House of Representatives so that a bill could be passed and signed by the President this year.

Read the endorsement letter sent to the Committee on the Judiciary: http://www.wo.ala.org/districtdispatch/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/libel-tourism-letter-july.doc

AAP Endorses the Free Speech Protection Act 2008
MEMO TO FREE EXPRESSION NETWORK MEMBERSHIP
By Judy Platt, Association of American Publishers

Dear FEN Colleagues:

The Association of American Publishers has become increasingly concerned about the growing threat of "libel tourism" involving wealthy individuals who cynically exploit plaintiff-friendly libel laws in foreign courts in an attempt to silence and intimidate U.S. publishers and authors who publish and write about sensitive but vitally important subjects such as the funding of terrorism. Even in the absence of an attempt to enforce a foreign libel judgment here, the very existence of such a judgment can—and has—chilled the kind of reporting that our laws are designed to encourage and protect. While several of the most recent high-profile examples of libel tourism, such as the Ehrenfeld case, involve judgments obtained in England by Saudis implicated in the funding of terrorism, the threat is wider and more insidious. The sale of books over the Internet exposes U.S. authors and publishers to the danger of being sued almost anywhere in the world, and libel tourist litigation remains a threat in any country where our strong constitutional protections for speech are absent.

We have closely followed the Ehrenfeld case and Dr. Ehrenfeld was invited to speak at a joint AAP/ALA program at the American Library Association Annual Conference in California in June entitled "The Biggest Threat to Free Speech You May Never Have Heard Of." The program solidly reinforced the commitment of the publishing and library communities to bring this issue to the widest possible audience.

By way of background, in 2004, soon after her book Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed—And How to Stop It, was published in the United States, Dr. Ehrenfeld was sued for libel--under the U.K.’s notoriously plaintiff-friendly libel laws-- in a British court by Khalid bin Mahfouz. The fact that the book was never published in Great Britain, that a mere 23 copies were sold there via the Internet, that neither bin Mahfouz nor Dr. Ehrenfeld reside there, and that she refused to participate in the proceedings did not stop a British judge from ruling against her by default, imposing substantial monetary damages and ordering a public apology and the destruction of all unsold copies of her book. (Bin Mahfouz has successfully sued or intimidated into silence some 40 authors and/or publishers and crows about these "victories" on his web site.) This YouTube video gives a good summary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdQHwyNwz7U

Dr. Ehrenfeld refused to take part in the British proceedings or comply with the order of the British court and instead counter-sued in federal court in New York seeking to have the British judgment declared unenforceable in the U.S. A ruling that New York courts lacked personal jurisdiction over bin Mahfouz prompted the state legislature to act with unprecedented speed, passing the "Libel Terrorism Protection Act" in a matter of weeks. Signed by Gov. David Paterson on April 30, "Rachel’s Law" prohibits the enforcement of a foreign libel judgment unless a New York court determines that it satisfies the free speech and free press protections guaranteed by the First Amendment and the New York State Constitution and it allows New York courts, under certain circumstances, to exercise jurisdiction over non-residents who obtain foreign libel judgments against New Yorkers.

Libel tourism bills have now been introduced in Congress and we have a fighting chance of getting legislation passed this session!!! Please contact members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and urge them to sign on as co-sponsors of the Free Speech Protection Act of 2008 and to move it out of committee quickly. The articles linked below spell out the issues very well.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/15/civilliberties.medialaw

http://www.nysun.com/editorials/schumers-steps-forward/82720/?print=3088627121

Judith Platt
Director, Communications/Public Affairs
Director, Freedom to Read
Association of American Publishers
50 F Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 220-4551

Act for America, Petition: Support the "Libel Terrorism Protection Act" February 1, 2008

Help Us Stop "Libel Terrorism"

Add your name to the group of 1,535 people who have already signed using the Internet! The "Libel Terrorism Protection Act" has been introduced in the New York Assembly and Senate. Its objective is as important as it is simple — protect New York authors and publishers from lawsuits filed in foreign court jurisdictions that are intended to intimidate and silence exposure of terrorism and enablers of terrorism.

People like Saudi billionaire Khalid Salim bin Mahfouz are using courts in foreign jurisdictions, where free press and speech rights do not have the same protection as they do in the United States, to win libel lawsuits against American authors and publishers. Bin Mahfouz has filed dozens of such lawsuits, and in the face of those suits, numerous American authors and publishers have chosen to apologize, issue retractions and pull books from the market, rather than spend millions in legal fees fighting the suits.

Our cherished rights of free speech and press are under assault. If libel terrorism is not stopped, more and more American authors and publishers will be afraid to write and publish works that expose terrorism and its enablers — and that will undermine our national security.

Please fill out the form below to add your name to our petition calling on the New York Assembly and Senate to pass the "Libel Terrorism Protection Act" and protect our First Amendment rights — and our nation. Then, forward this petition to your friends and family.

Please Pass the "Libel Terrorism Protection Act"

We the undersigned call on the New York Assembly and Senate to proceed with all due speed to pass the "Libel Terrorism Protection Act," bill number A9652/S6687.
This bill is necessary to protect the First Amendment rights of New York authors and publishers from libel suits filed in foreign jurisdictions. Foreign courts do not provide the standard of legal protection afforded authors in America under the First Amendment. That this protection is necessary is illustrated by the fact that one plaintiff alone has used threats and filed dozens of lawsuits in British courts, successfully intimidating American authors and publishers who chose to apologize, retract, pay fines and pull books from the market, instead of spending millions of dollars in legal fees in the notoriously plaintiff-friendly British court.

Without the protection afforded by the Libel Terrorism Protection Act, increasing numbers of authors and publishers will be subject to "libel terrorism" intended to silence their exposure of activities related to and individuals who are enablers of terrorism. This cannot be allowed to happen.

New York is the publishing "capital" of America. Therefore, the Libel Terrorism Protection Act has national implications for the rights of free speech and free press. If these precious First Amendment rights are allowed to be undermined through "libel terrorism" actions, the very bedrock of America's freedom will be undermined. This cannot be allowed to happen.

The Libel Terrorism Protection Act also has implications for America's national security. If plaintiffs are allowed to intimidate into silence New York authors and publishers, crucial information concerning the threat of terrorism will not be published. This cannot be allowed to happen.

The Libel Terrorism Protection Act would update New York "long arm" statutes to protect the rights of New Yorkers and Americans, setting an example for other states, and providing a template for a powerful potential U.S. federal statute. It would protect citizens' rights to education by a free press and enable journalists to expose terror funding without fear. We commend the New York legislators for authoring the Libel Terrorism Protection Act, and we the undersigned urge the New York Assembly and Senate to pass the Act as soon as is practicable.

Support the Fight for the First Amendment and Dr. Ehrenfeld's Work!

Support the Fight for the First Amendment
and Dr. Ehrenfeld's Work!