Please Help New English Review
For our donors from the UK:
New English Review
New English Review Facebook Group
Follow New English Review On Twitter
Recent Publications from New English Review Press
Easy Meat
by Peter McLoughlin
The Tongue is Also a Fire
by James Como
Out Into The Beautiful World
by Theodore Dalrymple
Unreading Shakespeare
by David P. Gontar
Islam Through the Looking Glass: The Collected Essays and Reviews of J. B. Kelly, Vol. 3
edited by S. B. Kelly
The Real Nature of Religion
by Rebecca Bynum
As Far As The Eye Can See
by Moshe Dann
Threats of Pain and Ruin
by Theodore Dalrymple
The Oil Cringe of the West: The Collected Essays and Reviews of J.B. Kelly Vol. 2
edited by S.B. Kelly
The Impact of Islam
by Emmet Scott
Sir Walter Scott's Crusades and Other Fantasies
by Ibn Warraq
Fighting the Retreat from Arabia and the Gulf: The Collected Essays and Reviews of J.B. Kelly. Vol. 1
edited by S.B. Kelly
The Literary Culture of France
by J. E. G. Dixon
Hamlet Made Simple and Other Essays
by David P. Gontar
Farewell Fear
by Theodore Dalrymple
The Eagle and The Bible: Lessons in Liberty from Holy Writ
by Kenneth Hanson
The West Speaks
interviews by Jerry Gordon
Mohammed and Charlemagne Revisited: The History of a Controversy
Emmet Scott
Anything Goes
by Theodore Dalrymple
The Left is Seldom Right
by Norman Berdichevsky
Allah is Dead: Why Islam is Not a Religion
by Rebecca Bynum

Sunday, 23 December 2007
Ehrenfeld Loses In New York Court

I neglected to post this on the 20th, when this news broke. This will undoubtedly encourage more libel tourism of this sort.

Publisher's Weekly: The New York Court of Appeals has denied a bid by author Rachel Ehrenfeld to have a U.S. court declare a libel judgment issued against her in the U.K. unenforceable in America. Ehrenfeld filed her suit after Saudi businessman Khalid Salim Bin Mahfouz sued her in the U.K., charging that her 2003 book, Funding Evil, libeled him by asserting that Mahfouz has provided monetary support for al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. In December 2004, a U.K. court ruled for Mahfouz even though the book, published in the U.S. by Bonus Books, was never released in the U.K. In addition to monetary damages, the U.K. court ruled that the book could not be published in the U.K. and that Ehrenfeld owed Mahfouz an apology.

In an effort to blunt the impact of the ruling, Ehrenfeld filed suit in 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York asking the court to issue a declaratory judgment that the U.K. libel ruling was uneforceable in the U.S. The court dismissed her claim on the grounds that it did not have jurisdiction to issue such an injunction. Ehrenfeld appealed, claiming that by “purposefully projected himself into the state to further a ‘foreign litigation scheme’ designed to chill [Ehrenfeld’s] speech” he was doing business in New York and thus fell under the state’s “long-arm” statute.

In today’s ruling, the New York Appeals Court found that Mahfouz’s actions did not fall under the long-arm statute and agreed with Mahfouz that the U.S. courts do not have jurisdiction to declare the U.K. verdict uneforceable in the U.S. In its decision, the court noted that it was not ruling on the propriety of English libel law, but only on the question of whether Mahfouz’s action “establish a proper basis for jurisdiction” for Ehrenfeld’s suit to go forward.

Judy Platt, staff director for the AAP’s Freedom to Read committee, said the AAP was “deeply disappointed” by the ruling. The AAP, along with several other organizations and companies, had filed a friend of the court brief in support of Ehrenfeld. The Mahfouz case, Platt noted, is a primary explain of libel tourism in which people who feel they have been libeled in books published in the U.S. file suit in other countries with weak libel laws. Despite the U.K. ruling, Ehrenfeld has not paid any damages. Bonus publisher Jeff Stern said the company stands behind Ehrenfeld and her book, which remains in print in the U.S.

Posted on 12/23/2007 8:05 AM by Rebecca Bynum
7 Feb 2008
If New York State has no jurisdiction over this case, that could mean that it has no jurisdiction over protecting any of the statements its authors make.  It appears to me that the US Constitution's protection of creation rights (the foundation of our copyright and patent systems as well as the federal grant system)  would allow it jurisdiction in this type of case to protect the ability of its great minds (and occasionally not-so-great minds) to present their ideas to the world. 

Guns, Germs and Steel in Tanzania
The Thinking Person's Safari
Led by Geoffrey Clarfield
Most Recent Posts at The Iconoclast
Search The Iconoclast
Enter text, Go to search:
The Iconoclast Posts by Author
The Iconoclast Archives
sun mon tue wed thu fri sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31