Last week Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld testified before Congress about the suit brought against her by a Saudi billionaire.
Until the New York legislature passed the Libel Terrorism Protection Act last May, I spent many sleepless nights worried that Mahfouz will try to enforce the English judgment against me in New York. His deliberate non-enforcement left it hanging over my head like a sword of Damocles, which aggravated the chilling effects. Mahfouz, also uses a dedicated website to advertise my judgment, with more than 40 other names of those he threatened and sued in London.
Mahfouz’s suit has never been tried on the merit. Yet the British judgment affected my ability to publish. The threat he wields over me, and over others, chilled American publishers, especially those with assets overseas, from publishing books containing information on terror financiers.
Mahfouz also chilled my ability to travel to the U.K., lest I be arrested to enforce the British judgment against me. I run the same risk in Europe and in most Commonwealth states due to the reciprocal enforcement of judgments.
In a supportive editorial, the Washington Post writes that legislative efforts are being made to protect writers.
Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.) and Sens. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) have crafted legislation that serves as a good starting point for debate. The bill would empower U.S. judges to block enforcement of a foreign libel judgment if it does not comport with U.S. standards. It also would allow an author or publisher whose work has been vindicated in a U.S. court to sue a libel tourist for damages. The lawmakers were right to include this last provision, but they should be careful to make sure that it would not have the unintended consequence of weakening jurisdictional defenses that U.S. citizens have in foreign courts. It would also help immensely if Britain strengthened free-speech protections in its laws. It is encouraging that some British lawmakers are considering that.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
