Posted on 06/17/2007 12:12:07 PM PDT by farmer18th
The author of a U.S.-published book that accused a former Saudi banking executive of funding terrorism is battling a precedent that experts say could give any foreign libel law priority over U.S. free press and speech guarantees.
The case involving Rachel Ehrenfeld is one of the "most important First Amendment cases of the past 25 years.."
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
I also say that Saudi billionaire Khalid Salim A. BIn Mahfousz finances terrorism, like most other Saudi billionaires.
Come and get me, Coppers.
I’m with you. “Saudi Billionair Khalid Saim A. bin Mahfouz funds terrorism.” Any American law enforcement officer who would enforce penalties against an Amerian for speaking the truth doesn’t deserve the badge—or the pension. Hot pot. Warm Tar. Goose Feathers.
We are citizens of the world. Their laws are our laws.
Get used to it.
As I’m reading it, it sounds like she was sued in English court for a book sold in England.
It’s a sad day for England but unless the U.S. is talking about extraditing her or enforces the verdict, which would be a horrible precedent, I’m not sure she has a leg to stand on. She just needs to stay out of the E.U.
There is a new cliche here. When in Rome don’t slander the Saudis or you end up you have to pay $120,000. No, that’s not very catchy at all.
Sorry. You just violated the whim of some corrupt Saudi sharia judge, who now declares that you shall die for connecting his country to terrorism. Because said judge claims universal jurisdiction for his court and legal code, you must be extradited to serve said penalty.
The fact of the matter is that we really need to watch what we say in this country because judges acting as petty tyrants in other countries—including our enemies—do not respect the certain inalienable rights of our citizens on our soil but still claim jurisdiction over them.
I had a good friend who served in Riyadh. He actually witnessed a Mullah squad spray painting the ankles of a woman who failed to cover them. My argument is that we shouldn’t be brought into any court with animals as the co-combatants. It’s an oxymoron for a Muslim to ask for justice. They worship injustice.
My gun is my law.
It's the Muslim response. And noöne is forcing you to hold the trials. The trials are in British courts under British law,
a precedent that experts say could give any foreign libel law priority over U.S. free press and speech guarantees.It's my understanding that US law has priority within US borders, or the 12 mile limit.
Rachel stays out of the United Kingdom and its Dependent Territories, she's in the clear. (as far as this ruling goes.)
The focal point is where should such claims be handled, in a nation like England where several books were purchased online, or in the United States, where the book was written, and where Mahfouz has had business activities because he served Ehrenfeld with documents in New York.Easy. An action for libel mey be brought in any juristriction that the libel is viewed by the public.
LOL ... they'll be after that, too.
You fail to distinguish between the proper and improper use of force. John Adams called the tea party a “sublime” act of opposition to tyranny. Are you calling him Muslim?
I suppose it is a little quixotic on my part to hope that the nation whose story includes Magna Carta would have the spine to protect freedom of expression, but...
Notice, it’s not Russia threatening freedom of speech!
The freedom of expression argument is always good, but Whriled Nut Dally is jusy silly
The focal point is where should such claims be handled, in a nation like England where several books were purchased online, or in the United States, where the book was written,I know the US legal system is infested by nutballs who throw hissy fits when their pants vanish, but I doubt that, in the Dark Ages before we had the internet to supply our porn, any US legal authorities would support the view that charges of possession or sale of pornography in the US would have to be made in a Danish court, under Danish Law.
‘I suppose it is a little quixotic on my part to hope that the nation whose story includes Magna Carta would have the spine to protect freedom of expression, but...’
So without knowing any of the details of the case, you can confidently state that the author and her ACLU supporters are right and the Judge was wrong and made his judgement because he can’t stand freedom of speech?
The author took the money for the books sold in the UK, but did not feel the need to defend herself when sued for libel? Very strange if she is clearly so right. Why not just defend yourself and then decide where to spend all of your huge damages award?
There’s nothing strange at all about not wanting to go up against a Saudi billionaire in English courts, even if you did benefit from their sale. When English (and European) pundits are beginning to talk about the necessity of allowing internal Sharia, it makes a lot of sense not to trust the English system. I’m not sure I would want to have a first hand encounter with a court system laboring under the weight of a country whose most popular baby name this year is “mohammed.” No thanks.
I don’t argue against mixed metaphors.
btt
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.