Legislature Passes Libel Terrorism Protection Act To Protect American Journalists and Authors From Overseas Defamation Lawsuits

Albany, NY (March 31, 2008) – The New York State Legislature today unanimously passed the “Libel Terrorism Protection Act” (S.6687/A.9652), sponsored by Assemblyman Rory Lancman (D-Queens) and Senate Deputy Majority Leader Dean G. Skelos (R-Rockville Centre).

When signed into law by Governor David Paterson, this legislation will protect American journalists and authors from foreign lawsuits that infringe on their First Amendment rights.

In Ehrenfeld v. Mahout, New York State’s highest court held that it would not protect Dr. Ehrenfeld from a British lawsuit filed by Saudi billionaire Khalid Salim Bin Mahfouz, where she was ordered to pay over $225,000 in damages and legal fees to Bin Mahfouz, as well as apologize and destroy existing copies of her books.

Dr. Ehrenfeld sought a court order in November of 2006 to protect her constitutional rights, but in a ruling with national First Amendment implications which sent legal shockwaves throughout newsrooms across America, as well as potentially undermining our ability to expose terrorism’s financial and logistical support networks, the New York Court of Appeals ruled that it does not have jurisdiction to protect Americans – on U.S. soil – from foreign defamation judgments, which contradict the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The Libel Terrorism Protection Act declares overseas defamation judgments unenforceable in New York unless the foreign defamation law provides, in substance and application, the same free speech protections guaranteed under our own constitution, and it gives New York residents and publishers the opportunity to have their day in court here in New York.

“This is a great day for free speech and freedom of the press, and I urge Governor Paterson to quickly sign this legislation into law. This law will protect our journalists and authors from trumped up libel charges in kangaroo courts in overseas jurisdictions which don’t share our commitment to free speech and freedom of the press,” said Lancman.

“This law will give New York's journalists, authors and press the protection and tools they need to continue to fearlessly expose the truth about terrorism and its enablers, and to maintain New York's place as the free speech capitol of the world,” Lancman concluded. Lancman’s remarks on the Assembly floor are viewable here.

“The truth is a critically-important component in the War on Terror,” said Senator Skelos. “This important new law will protect American authors and journalists who expose terrorist networks and their financiers. In its decision, the Court of Appeals called upon the State Legislature to revise the law. Today, we made clear that New York State will safeguard the First Amendment and these courageous writers.” #####

Let's hope that other states follow suit.

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” – Thomas Paine

I pray that your son remains proud of his ScanAmerican heritage;happy,beardless and free.

Apparently,and I kid you not,when an Arab says to another Arab,"I fart on your beard",it is considered an insult of serious magnitude.What's more,Arab men find it equally offensive.

"The problem with the anti-hate laws is that they assume that no group can be bad for us, that all groups are good for us."

Larry Auster is wrong there. The anti-hate laws assume that one group is very bad for "us": the white majority, or rather the heterosexual male and Christian part of it, which has been responsible for the Holocaust, the slave trade, colonialism, homophobia, industrialism, etc. The point of anti-hate laws is to silence heterosexual white males and Christians while a rainbow coalition of minorities removes all possibility of their evil ever manifesting again. Any protest against mass immigration and minority rights, i.e. privileges, is "hate", because mass immigration and minority rights are the tools of dispossession. The ultimate symbol of hate is the Holocaust, which is why the Holocaust has become a secular religion in the West. Jewish groups like the Anti-Defamation League are, unfortunately, at the forefront of a war that will not benefit Jews any more than it benefits white Christians.

Should we let countries like Canada and the UK that have stronger restrictions on free speech prevent writers like Steyn from promulgating their views in the US? For example, several articles have been written about how Muslim radicals have successfully used the threat of UK libel laws to prevent publications of books that are critical of Islam. Since much of the publishing industry in now global, this can be used to not only prevent publication of such books in the UK, but also in the US, where people are still free to talk of such matters.

Obviously, Steyn's book was intended primarily for a US audience. If writers like Steyn now have to face the threat of prosecution in countries like the UK and Canada, this could have at least two possible negative externalities: first, if such books are only allowed to be disseminated in the US, then this will further widen the chasm in the worldview of the US and other countries; second, it could be used to eventually chill the publication and free speech rights of authors in the US, because they won't want to face possible prosecution outside the US.

Interestingly, the inaccurate commentary from Samizdata notwithstanding, both Auster and Steyn are of Jewish descent, keeping in mind of course that official religious membership is passed down maternally. In addition, Steyn seemed to have spent more time in Britain than Flanders, and to note a focal point of his political socialization, has come into conflict with the Canadian Jewish Congress on more than one occaision, especially where the latter opposed his views. Thus, the Samizdata commentator has mistakenly gone to great lengths to associate Steyn with the Flemish national character.

As far as both Auster's and general arguments are concerned, as briefly summarized here, I agree.