Congressional Quarterly is out with an article that looks at a piece of legislation which was briefly addressed earlier this year and may be revisited next year dealing with the issue of “libel tourism.” Wikipedia defines the term as a “form of forum shopping in which plaintiffs choose to file libel suits in jurisdictions thought more likely to give a favorable result.”
Rachel Ehrenfeld is asking Congress to strike a blow for free speech and against terrorism.
Ehrenfeld’s book, “Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It,” implicated Saudi businessman Khalid bin Mahfouz in terrorist financing schemes.
But rather than confront his accuser in U.S. courts, Mahfouz sued in libel-friendly Britain, even though the book was not published there, and won. He and his sons, also party to the suit, won a default judgment when Ehrenfeld decided not to contest the case. She was ordered to pay $225,000 and destroy all copies of the book.
Instead, Ehrenfeld sued Mahfouz in New York, where the book was published, to bar enforcement of the British libel judgment. Her suit was dismissed on the grounds that the federal court had no jurisdiction over Mahfouz, and sent the case to state court, which found the same thing. In response, the New York legislature in May passed “Rachel’s Law,” which gave New York state courts authority to claim jurisdiction over anyone who wins a foreign libel judgment against a writer or publisher in that state.
Illinois followed suit in August.
Now, Ehrenfeld and her allies want Congress to take the idea national.
Ehrenfeld prefers the Senate version, which never saw floor time this year but might be taken up in 2009. That version would allow for the collection of damages for someone who is victim to libel toursim.
The House passed a version (HR 6146), sponsored by Tennessee Democrat Steve Cohen , by voice vote Sept. 27. It would prohibit U.S. courts from recognizing a foreign libel judgment unless it meets U.S. standards of protection for free speech.
The Senate, which had its own bill (S 2977) by Arlen Specter , R-Pa., did not act on the issue, despite backing from fellow Chairman Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, who heads the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs panel, and key New York Democrat Charles E. Schumer.
Ehrenfeld prefers the Senate bill, which had a House companion (HR 5814) sponsored by Peter T. King , R-N.Y. The Senate measure would not only bar enforcement of foreign judgments that fail to meet U.S. standards, it would create a federal cause of action allowing the author to collect damages.
“The Senate bill is the bill that has support from all the free speech organizations,” Ehrenfeld said Monday. “The Cohen bill has no teeth.”
