The American Spectator : Tourist Trap

Text Size

Tourist Trap

By Peter Hannaford on 4.13.09 @ 6:06AM

There's a pernicious trend toward using foreign libel laws to chill American freedom of speech.

Meet Khalid bin Mahfouz, libel tourist. This rich Saudi didn't like what Rachel Ehrenfeld wrote about him in her 2003 book Funding Terrorism, so he sued her. She heads a small New York City-based think tank dedicated to uncovering the sources of funds for radical Islamist terrorists. In the book she alleged that Mr. Mahfouz was an important source.

The book was published in the United States; however, a few copies were sold, via Internet, in the United Kingdom. KBM is no dummy. He understood that the U.S. has a high standard of proof for libel. The plaintiff must prove that not only was the assertion untrue, but also that the writer knew it was false and wrote about it anyway, "with a reckless disregard for the truth." Those three elements are hard to prove; hence. relatively few libel suits are brought in the United States.

Mahfouz found a much easier venue: the United Kingdom, where libel is treated very differently. There, it is the defendant who must do the proving, that his or her assertion was true. Unable to go to London to defend herself, Ms. Ehrenfeld defaulted and Mahfouz won a $160,000 judgment. Moreover, he hoped his judicial victory would have a chilling effect on anyone else wanting to trace and write about the circuitous movement of money into the hands of murderous radicals.

The author worried Mahfouz would try to collect from her in a U.S. court. At that point, the New York legislature stepped in and passed a law protecting its citizens from such "libel tourism." Illinois followed suit and California is now considering similar legislation. In testimony to a California state senate hearing, author Ehrenfeld minced no words, "Libel tourism is a pernicious and growing phenomenon whereby wealthy and corrupt terror financiers exploit plaintiff-friendly foreign libel laws and expansive Internet jurisdiction to silence American authors, producers and publishers. Since September 11 2001, foreign libel laws have become a potent weapon used by the forces of tyranny who seek to undermine our freedom." The legislation is expected to pass.

Even more encouraging for authors and publishers and those who produce films is federal legislation sponsored by Senators Jos. Lieberman (I-CT) and Arlen Specter (R-PA), S. 449, which would protect writers nationwide. It has an important added benefit: any writer sued for libel would be permitted to file a countersuit against "libel tourist" plaintiffs who try to use foreign courts to silence free expression by Americans. Turnabout's fair play.

Mr. Hannaford is a member of the Committee on the Present Danger.

About the Author

Peter Hannaford was closely associated with the late President Ronald Reagan for a number of years. His latest book is Reagan's Roots: The People and Places That Shaped His Character.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (5) | Leave a comment

Appleby| 4.13.09 @ 10:25AM

Tell him to come to Kanukistan. Here we have a whole arm of the government (the CHRC) devoted to cutting off free speech, and they'd welcome him with hugs and kisses, not to mention bows.

bob montgomery| 4.13.09 @ 9:31PM

Will Justice Ginsburg order Ms. Ehrenfeld to report to London to answer the suit?

MaryG Hart| 4.14.09 @ 2:29AM

Lawyers in the UK who use the UK libel law in a thoroughly dishonourable way to silence critics of the powerful and corrupt as well as the free speech of many who are in dangerous zones and putting themselves on the line for democracy are the sole reason for the mooted libel legislation in the US. There are certainly many in the UK calling for libel law here to be revised. Not all lawyers in the UK practice in this fashion but of the ones that do it is the American celebrities who engage them for their squabbles with tabloids that are the bread and butter for UK law firms like Carter-Ruck and Schillings. (Schillings for example represented the Government of Saudi Arabia in a complaint about a critical Channel 4 programme - they lost by the way) and who use UK libel law not only to suppress free speech but also preventing the publication of information about unstable banks thereby potentially causing hardship to thousands of UK citizens. As mentioned, not all UK libel firms are involved in this reprehensible activity so it is up to Americans, if they are serious about freedom of expression for fellow Americans, to engage libel lawyers who do not gag free speech. As an example: Schillings like to name drop major American clients on their website: Nicholas Cage, Nicole Kidman, Britney Spears, Sheldon Adelson and many others including the Governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger no less - will he be declaring this fact? In most cases it is an American attorney, Marty Singer, who appears to be the common link. Do these stars think their reputation is worth more than freedom of expression of fellow Americans? It would be easy for them to vote with their bucks – a lot easier than it is for journalists in unsafe parts of the world where despots can afford a London lawyer.

Michele San Pietro| 4.14.09 @ 4:26AM

That Khalid Bin Mahfouz, or whatever his name is, only deserves a kick in the butt. It the United States had to sue all foreigners who shamefully slander it day in and day out, half of the world would be behind bars.