When Rachel Ehrenfeld wrote Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It, she assumed she would be protected by the US’ First Amendment. She was, in the US. But a wealthy Saudi businessman she accused in the book of being a funder of terrorism, Khalid bin Mahfouz, sued in Britain, where the libel laws are heavily weighted against journalists, and won a sizable amount of money.
The lawsuit is a case of what legal experts are calling “libel tourism.” Ehrenfeld is an American, and Funding Evil was never published in Britain. But at least 23 copies of the book were sold online, opening the door for the lawsuit. When Ehrenfeld decided not to defend the suit in Britain, bin Mahfouz won a default judgment and is now free to sue to collect in the US.
The upshot is a First Amendment loophole. In the Internet age, almost every US book can be bought in Britain. That means US authors are subject to being sued under British libel law, which in some cases puts the initial burden on the defendant to prove the truth of what she has written. British libel law is so tilted against writers that the UN Human Rights Committee criticized it last month for discouraging discussion of important matters of public interest.
Bin Mahfouz, who has denied financing terrorism, said Ehrenfeld’s book contained inaccuracies and demanded a retraction. He also demanded a significant contribution to a charity of his choice — a charity Ehrenfeld said she feared would be one with ties to terrorism.
Ehrenfeld, who describes herself as being “in the business of stopping people who fund terrorism,” refused to back down.
“I said,” she later recalled, “he’s found the wrong victim.”
Ehrenfeld rallied prominent champions of free speech to her cause, including the American Library Association, the Association of American Publishers and the PEN American Center. She also set to work trying to change US law. The New York state legislature passed a bill that some are calling “Rachel’s law,” which blocks enforcement of libel judgments from countries that provide less free-speech protection than the US. New York Governor David Paterson signed it on May 1.
A similar, bipartisan bill has been introduced in Congress. The federal bill would extend protection to the entire country. It would also allow US authors and publishers to countersue, and if a jury found that the foreign suit was an attempt to suppress protected speech, it could award treble damages. There is little opposition to it — and Congress should pass it before it adjourns later this month.
“Libel tourism” is a threat to the US’ robust free-speech traditions. If foreign libel judgments can be enforced in US courts, there will be a “race to the bottom”; writers will only have as much protection as the least pro-free-speech nations allow.
Most writers, particularly those who concern themselves with arcane subjects like terrorism financing, are not wealthy. The prospect of a deep-pocketed plaintiff coming after them in court can be frightening. Even if the lawsuit fails, the cost and effort involved in defending against it can be considerable.
The result is what lawyers call a “chilling effect” — authors and publishers may avoid taking on some subjects, or challenging powerful interests. That has already been happening in Britain.
Craig Unger’s House of Bush, House of Saud: The Secret Relationship Between the World’s Two Most Powerful Dynasties was a best-seller in the US. But its British publisher canceled plans to publish the book, reportedly out of fear of being sued. (A smaller publisher later released it.)
Ehrenfeld says that even in the US, writers and publishers have been backing away from books about terrorism financing — particularly about the Saudi connection — out of fear of being sued. It is hard to know if other books are not being written out of fear of lawsuits — that is the essence of the chilling effect.
Britain should rethink its libel laws, as the UN committee urged, for the sake of its citizens. But until it does, the US should ensure that other countries’ pro-plaintiff libel laws do not infect the US and diminish its proud tradition of freedom of expression.
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
US political scientist Francis Fukuyama, during an interview with the UK’s Times Radio, reacted to US President Donald Trump’s overturning of decades of US foreign policy by saying that “the chance for serious instability is very great.” That is something of an understatement. Fukuyama said that Trump’s apparent moves to expand US territory and that he “seems to be actively siding with” authoritarian states is concerning, not just for Europe, but also for Taiwan. He said that “if I were China I would see this as a golden opportunity” to annex Taiwan, and that every European country needs to think
For years, the use of insecure smart home appliances and other Internet-connected devices has resulted in personal data leaks. Many smart devices require users’ location, contact details or access to cameras and microphones to set up, which expose people’s personal information, but are unnecessary to use the product. As a result, data breaches and security incidents continue to emerge worldwide through smartphone apps, smart speakers, TVs, air fryers and robot vacuums. Last week, another major data breach was added to the list: Mars Hydro, a Chinese company that makes Internet of Things (IoT) devices such as LED grow lights and the
US President Donald Trump is an extremely stable genius. Within his first month of presidency, he proposed to annex Canada and take military action to control the Panama Canal, renamed the Gulf of Mexico, called Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy a dictator and blamed him for the Russian invasion. He has managed to offend many leaders on the planet Earth at warp speed. Demanding that Europe step up its own defense, the Trump administration has threatened to pull US troops from the continent. Accusing Taiwan of stealing the US’ semiconductor business, it intends to impose heavy tariffs on integrated circuit chips
RSS