Terrorism, Tourism and Libel Laws

Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld was on “Atlas on the Air” this evening, discussing her pending New York case relating to her book “Funding Evil:  How Terrorism is Financed – and How to Stop It.”  Atlas posted the August 24, 2007 brief filed in the New York Court of Appeals (New York’s highest court).  Here is a description of the case, as set forth in that brief (emphasis added):

This is a “perfect storm” of an appeal.  It combines international terrorism, free speech, the Internet, and something called “libel tourism.” . . .

A recent, mounting, and insidious trend, libel tourism occurs when a person, usually prominent and wealthy, sues for libel in a country that lacks the protections afforded by the First Amendment.  Such suits smack of forum-shopping because the authors, the publisher, and the publications at issue have little, if any, connection to the country where the litigation is commenced.  [Citations].  With the advent of the Internet and Internet commerce, including websites such as Amazon.com, it has become easier for foreign plaintiffs to allege that a publication written and distributed primarily in the United States was also “sold” or “published” in a foreign jurisdiction, even when the author and publisher took no actions to market or distribute the publication there.

England is a favorite destination, the “perfect locale” for libel tourists [citation], because English libel law provides substantially less protection for speech than does U.S. law.  [Citations].  “London is the libel capital of the Western world and attracts endless foreign claimants.” . . . [Citations].  “London has become known to many foreign ‘forum shoppers’ as a Town named Sue – a place where you can launder your reputation on the basis of a few sales in the UK of some overseas publication.”

. . . Saudis, like defendant, have taken particular advantage of this situation.  “In a growing phenomenon that lawyers have dubbed ‘libel tourism,’ the Saudis are seeking to invoke Britain’s plaintiff-friendly libel laws to silence critics in the United States and in the international community.”  [Citations].

. . . Plaintiff Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, a New York resident, wrote a book called Funding Evil:  How Terrorism is Financed – and How to Stop It, which was published only in the United States.  She seeks a judgment from federal court here in New York declaring an English libel default judgment against her totaling $221,000 unenforceable under the United States Constitution and New York Law.  Defendant – Khalid Salim A Bin Mahfouz – sued Dr. Ehrenfeld for libel in England based on constitutionally protected statements in her book discussing his alleged financial support of terrorist organizations.  He is not a citizen of England.  He is a citizen of Saudi Arabia, and one of the wealthiest men in the world. 

Mahfouz won his UK libel judgment only by default.  Dr. Ehrenfeld did not appear.  She could not afford to defend herself in the English courts and was unwilling, as a matter of principle, to submit the libel issues to a legal system less protective of free speech than ours, when her book had nothing to do with England.

. . . Mahfouz, who has sued or threatened to sue for libel dozens of times in the UK, has waged a systematic campaign intended to suppress critics (in New York and elsewhere) and to discourage investigation of any role he may have had in the funding of terrorism that led to the 9/11 attacks.  The scheme includes Mahfouz’ use of his website, accessible in New York, to announce to the world his “successes” in his UK libel cases, including the one against Dr. Ehrenfeld.

To learn what a libel defendant must go through to mount a defense under the English libel laws, consult Deborah Lipstadt’s important book:  “History on Trial:  My Day in Court with David Irving.”  Even with the best English lawyers, the support of a major American University, generous financial backing, and a lock-tight case against a Holocaust denier, it was an ordeal.  Her “day” in court lasted five years. 

Dr. Ehrenfeld’s website is here.  She could use some support.  This case will be an important one involving an increasingly troublesome phenomenon.