Libel Madness

Military History \| How To Make War \| Wars Around the World	Rules of Use	How to Behave on an Internet Forum
United Kingdom Discussion Board
Return to Topic Page

Subject: Libel Madness
Jimme 8/9/2007 12:46:29 AM

I read an interesting article in todays NY post, concerning UKs Libel Laws and Saudi's abuse of them to cover up any of there Terrorism financing. *************************** SAUDIS SUE FOR SECRECY By RACHEL EHRENFELD Banned in Britain: Ehrenfeld's book. Banned in Britain: Ehrenfeld's book. PrintEmailDigg ItRedditPermalinkStory Bottom August 8, 2007 -- THE Saudis' efforts to keep a veil of secrecy over their sup port for al Qaeda and Hamas got a shot in the arm last week, as a British publisher opted to suppress a controversial book on the financing of terror. Facing the mere threat of a lawsuit from Saudi billionaire Khalid bin Mahfouz, Cambridge University Press agreed to pulp all the unsold copies of "Alms of Jihad: Charity and Terrorism in the Islamic World," issue a public apology to Mahfouz and pay his legal expenses and substantial undisclosed damages. The prestigious publisher - the world's oldest publishing house - had carefully vetted the book before publishing it last year. Yet now it has asked more than 200 libraries worldwide to pull the work off their shelves. Bin Mahfouz never sued the authors, J. Millard Burr and Robert O. Collins, both U.S. citizens, who had provided their publisher with all the sources to back their allegations that bin Mahfouz, his family and his former bank, the National Commercial Bank of Saudi Arabia, funded Hamas and al Qaeda. Yet Cambridge University Press still caved - and even asked the authors to join its apology to bin Mahfouz. (They rightly refused.) Since March 2002, bin Mahfouz has sued or threatened suit in England at least 36 times against those who've linked him to terrorism, including many American authors and publications. Everyone settled with bin Mahfouz - except me. He sued me in London in January 2004, shortly after my book "Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed - and How to Stop It" was published in the United States. I refused to acknowledge a British court's jurisdiction over a book published here; the court then ruled in bin Mahfouz's favor by default. It enjoined British publication of "Funding Evil," awarded bin Mahfouz $225,900 in damages and expenses and ordered that I publicly apologize and destroy the book. I still refuse to acknowledge the British Court and its ruling. *************************** There are a few very disturbing things with what this article mentions 1. Such need for caution about what authors write about will seriously affect there ability to tell things as they are especialy when exposing the wrong doings of rich powerfull and influencial people. 2. The ability for a court to force books and truthful information off shelves is incredibly troubling, reminds me of the dark ages. 3. The Idea of a UK court thinking it has the authority to do the above to a book PUBLISHED in the US and to demand an apology from its author is INSANE! Especially when doing so would fly in the face of the US First Constitutional Amendment. I have a question, what exactly protects a UK citizens freedom of speech ? How strong is that protection? And lastly, what do you guys think of this?

Quote Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2

swhitebull 8/17/2007 8:21:01 AM

.....I think you miss te point that the suing was over publishing the book in Britain.... ie Cambridge Press...
the rules remain the same in Britain in that you have to be able to prove what you write... if Cambridge had thought that the "proof" for the books accusation was strong enough then they would have gone through to court and let the law settle it. their lawyers obviously thought they would lose the case and hence the settled......

So how does that explain the suit against Ehrenfeld and her book, which was published and printed in the United States, bought as a single copy thru Amazon in the UK, just so that a suit could be filed in the UK and its liberal libel laws? I call that intimidation and suppression of inconvenient documented truths, which this Saudi asshole doesnt want revealed.

swhitebull

Quote Reply

paul1970 8/17/2007 10:25:27 AM

swhitebull

I was under the impression from reading links on the day the topic was raised that this concerned the printing of the book in the UK? and not just importing it?

Paul

Quote Reply

swhitebull 8/17/2007 1:05:25 PM

swhitebull

I was under the impression from reading links on the day the topic was raised that this concerned the printing of the book in the UK? and not just importing it?

Paul

The Alms of Jihad (SP?) was to be published by Cambridge. The Ehrenfeld book was published in the US, Mr Saudi financier bought or had bought for him a copy in the UK, thru distribution channels (ie, an imported book, an amazon.com copy, etc). World of difference - he shopped a venue for a book that wasnt published in the UK -the Ehrenfeld book.

swhitebull

Quote Reply

swhitebull Details on the Case abd Countersuit 8/21/2007 1:03:12 PM

Thisis a detailed analysis of the case by Federal Prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, the DA who successfully prosecuted the Blind Sheikh for conspiracy in the first World Trade Center bombing:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=21907

Protect the American Media ? Whether They Deserve It or Not

by Andrew C. McCarthy

Posted: 08/14/2007

It is a hard thing to defend the American media. Even when they are right and even when they badly need defending.

In large part, that’s because press hypocrisy is so striking. Journalists demand two sets of rules: one for themselves, one for everyone else.

They claim monopoly over the dark corners where their sources and sometimes deceptive intelligence-gathering practices must be shielded from public scrutiny. Everyone else -- even those upholding not the public’s dubious “right to know” but its constitutional right to life -- are expected by the selfsame media to operate in the sunshine.

Now, moreover, we find the American media -- those post-sovereign, Global-Village-lovin’, We Are the World-hummin’ transnational progressives -- insisting that they, uniquely, must be swaddled in the majesty of enlightened American law, protected from such well-known retro-bastions as Europe and Canada which seem not to have heard of American libel law, as laid down in New York Times v. Sullivan. Naturally, the media would have the rest of us cowboy chauvinists hew to the Geneva Conventions even when they don’t apply, knock down life-saving security fences because they offend the World Court, and refrain from defending ourselves until Ban Ki Moon gives us the high-sign. We, it seems, are relegated to the glorious International Community, but when it comes to their day-to-day, the Fourth Estate prefers Love American Style, thank you very much.

Intellectually, it is not difficult to grasp that some of this asymmetry is necessary. The mind can separate the role of the press in a functioning democracy from the smugness with which modern journalists perform it. There can be no self-determination without knowledge. Period. Journalists are our eyes and ears, informing us of what we haven’t the time or resources to learn for ourselves. They obviously need to be cut some slack.

Though it’s right up my alley, I have found it very difficult to get worked into a lather over the latest treachery perfected by our friends the Saudis: The use of the International Community’s benighted libel laws to stifle American First Amendment freedoms.

International law may be a gorgeous mosaic when the media want to slap around some nettlesome conservative daring to suggest that maybe the Supreme Court shouldn’t be using other countries’ precedents to interpret U.S. legal principles. But not when journalists are hoist on their own petard. So now the media suddenly see the wisdom in letting America be America. There’s no need to evolve the First Amendment’s settled American jurisprudence. This is the media, after all. This isn’t some one-horse town seeking justice for a victim viciously murdered. For those rubes, better the Supreme Court study the law of Sierra Leone than apply settled American death penalty precedents. For really important people with really important problems, like journalists facing libel suits, who cares what Great Britain thinks when we’ve got good old press-friendly standards made right here in the U.S. of A.?

There’s a great temptation to go with poetic justice here. But it wouldn’t be justice. For journalism’s worst, it would serve them right. But it wouldn’t serve us. There are plenty of great journalists who play it straight and do extremely important work. We need the best of journalism to be able to do its job: to edify us about salient information that would otherwise remain obscure, if not affirmatively hidden by the powerful -- information we need to make intelligence choices in governing ourselves.

One such choice we must make concerns the

Quote Reply

paul1970 8/23/2007 3:55:12 PM

swhitebull

I was under the impression from reading links on the day the topic was raised that this concerned the printing of the book in the UK? and not just importing it?

Paul

swhitebull

hmmm... two different stories here.... looks like Cambridge UK also ran a print of it (Alms...)... this will be the run that they had to pulp? and a UK ruling would have no weight at all to get Cambridge US to pulp theirs???? still for sale on amazon..... :-)

the Ehrenfeld book is a different case... I can see how UK law would stop it being published in UK or even sold over here but I think the fact that she did not defend rather gives the plaintiff the win and costs and damages. should have go to trial as that would have caused the Saudi far more trouble and bad press.... :-)

Under English law, the plaintiff does not need to prove malice or negligence. The burden of proof falls upon the defendant who must prove that all his/her statements are in fact true, not just that they were reported in good faith. in the U.S., where the burden of proof is upon a public plaintiff who must prove that what was reported about him/her was demonstrably false, malicious and/or reckless.
not sure which is best here as I can see pluses for both sides...

Paul

Quote Reply

Jimme Paul 8/26/2007 2:27:28 AM

Its funny Paul because on face value one would think that the UKs system would be the more fair and balanced. However when you really delve into it as an American it really stands in stark contrast to what are legal processes stand for. The Idea of a defendant having to bare the burden of proof is unimaginable. Such Libel laws would seriously hinder the 1st Amendment of the US constitution. Though I have always thought it was messed up that someone could say anything about someone publicly be it true or not tainting the image of said person without any real recourse not involving expensive litigation and no guarantee of success. Even then not every one will get the memo of you exoneration.

Ultimately though I think the greater good is served by allowing whistle blowers, investigative reporters and writers to shed light on particularly powerful persons or entities without fear of being unreasonably litigated out of existence. Our anti slander laws seam to fit the bill even if a bit lacking it does provide adequet protection against irresponsible or malicious slanderers.

Quote Reply

paul1970 8/30/2007 4:48:38 AM

sounds strange when you put it that way but it can easily be put the other way.

I would hate for someone to be accused of being a mass murdering pedophile and have to sue the accuser and then have to prove that they are not a mass murdering pedophile.... (proving a negative......) obviously inflated case but it ilustrates the problem....

Paul

Quote Reply

1 2