Free Speech Loophole Threatens American Writers
The apology by the Danish newspaper Politiken for publishing the “Mohammed cartoons” — 12 cartoons of a turban-wearing bearded man with a bomb which were released in 2005 — comes as no surprise. In 2006, a few months into radical Muslims’ violent demonstrations the world over in reaction to the images, the paper’s publishers visited me in New York City.
Discussing my own embroilment with an unjustified libel suit by a Saudi against me in London, the publishers opined that settling was the optimal approach to a potentially expensive suit. Four years later, Politiken seems to have taken its own advice, caving into Saudi pressure and apologizing for its exercise of free speech.
This sad but predictable incident illustrates the difference between the free speech protections afforded in Denmark and those guaranteed in the United States. With laws similar to the American legal and jurisprudential traditions of heightened speech protection backing its position, Politiken would have faced less of a threat in the Danish courts than it did.
This latest international debacle for free speech brings into focus the need to bolster American rights to freedom of expression against modern threats. In recent years, claimants have exploited the anti-free speech bias of the laws in many nations to secure libel judgments against American authors and publishers for statements made in the United States. By suing an American writer abroad in courts free of constitutional protections for freedom of speech, a claimant might win a libel judgment that would fail in the United States. The claimant could then try to enforce that judgment in the United States, at great emotional and financial expense to the defendant.
The Free Speech Protection Act now pending before Congress would protect American illustrators, scholars, journalists, and bloggers from this fate. Recently the subject of a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee, the bill protects all U.S.-based authors and publishers from libel judgments rendered in countries that have lesser protection for free speech than in the U.S. Constitution. The bill applies only to judgments given in countries where the authors do not have sufficient personal or professional ties, and allows for collection of legal fees and — when appropriate — damages from the libel tourist.
“The Free Speech Protection Act is not meant to change British libel laws or move towards imposing “an American legal hegemony … to the financial advantage of publishers in the United States,” as one English lord has claimed. ”
Remember… there are no human rights in EUrope. And the Englishpeople would be better off if we were a hegemon, willing and able to support human rights in shame democracies like G.B. But I’m glad we aren’t. Let their Saudi masters keep the Brits in line.
Islime is at war with the West to prevent free speech to criticize Islime. The leaders of Islime, Al Qaeda, Iran et al, are dictators (or worse) that parade as religious.
The USA is demanding a terror state (like Iran or an entity like Al Qaeda) be established on the West Bank/Gaza…
The American press seems unable to report that reality! What is up with that?
It’s a sad day when we need more laws to define and protect what is already law, in this case, the right of Americans to free speech. If I live in America, I have the right to say (or write) anything I please. If someone in another country has a problem with that, I might suggest they get to work on crafting legislation that insures their freedom of speech and not sue me for mine.
The Free Speech Protection Act now pending before Congress would protect American illustrators, scholars, journalists, and bloggers from this fate. Recently the subject of a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee, the bill protects all U.S.-based authors and publishers from libel judgments rendered in countries that have lesser protection for free speech than in the U.S. Constitution.
Why are only specific occupations called out for protection. Why shouldn’t all Americans be protected by such a law?
At one time, there was something called the 1st Amendment . . .
This underscores the fact that europeans are not really free.Remember that British people are not citizens they are “subjects” under the control of a demented and hypertrophied welfare state,run by an obscene combibation of globalist plutocrats and PC stalinists.Elections in Europe are merely a formality.We need to defeat any attempt to establish this type of freedom-hating regime on the US.That’s why the supreme court decision on free speech was so important,and that’s why it was so viciously attacked by Obama who is at heart, a Chavez/Euro-socialist wannabe and thug.
With the passage of the Free Speech Protection Act, the Senate will meet the responsibility.
Given that the current President of the US has declared the protections outlined in the Bill of Rights (including barring governments from interfering with speech & the press) to be a litany of “negative” liberties, one wonders if the United States Senate these days even possesses the backbone to stand up for the citizen.
On any topic.
There is no freedom of speech in America for most people. All media is owned by a corporate oligarchy which controls the terms of the discussion for its own greed. This oligarchy has manufactured a climate of genocidal racism against Muslims in order to distract the American population from the reality of their oppression. This unrelenting din of racist bigotry inevitable leads to the violence it advocates especially since here in America alternative perspectives are not available. One only has to look at the press’ uncritical adulation of the Bush regime and its slaughter of Muslims in Iraq to prove my point.
Some societies that more compassionate the the United States have tried to silence the violent messages of hate and greed or at least make sure they are balanced in their media with messages of loving and caring. The American corporchy is now furious! They can not allow their venomous hatred to go unchallenged! After all, if they can’t keep the people hating Muslims, then the people might discover how oppressed they are and who is oppressing them, and finally, demand the basic human rights to food, housing, health care, education, and income that a compassionate society would provide.
To #8, Apostle of “Love”:
I’ve got to admit, I love reading your posts. They are better than cartoons for making me laugh. You’re either a great satirist or one of the dumbest people who posts at Pajamas Media. Guess which one I’m leaning toward. But either way, you’re hilarious.
One little point I’d like to make before going: Muslims are not a race, they are co-religionists. They are all colors and all ethnicities. I know that I’m not the first here to point this out to you, but, maybe, just one more time will help it sink in.
…corporate oligarchy…has manufactured a climate of genocidal racism against Muslims in order to distract the American population from the reality of their oppression.
Gee, Apostle of Mis and Dis-Information…
It seems to be Muslims perpetrating the ongoing carnage in the name of Islam, worldwide, that are bringing themselves the bad press
It seems Muslims themselves are oppressors in all facets of their own societies.
Libel tourism, such as Ms. Ehrenfeld was subjected to in Great Britain, is tactic of soft jihad.
Wherever soft jihadists are attempting to use the tools of free societies against those societies (Canada, Great Britain, the US, Australia, Europe et al.) they should elicit disgust on the basis of their backroom tactics alone.
Allah would, likely, agree.
“All media is owned by a corporate oligarchy which controls the terms of the discussion for its own greed.”
Dude, I couldn’t have described the NYT and PBS any better. Together we can abolish them! Viva la revolucion!
8. If there were no freedom of speech in this country, you would be in jail. However, there is not and cannot be a right to food, shelter or any other good. If no one produced those goods, and instead demanded them as their rights, they wouldn’t exist, and no amount of screaming and wailing could make them exist.
We have been caving to ideologues for years now. G H W Bush signed the first hate crimes bill into law. Recently, another hate crimes bill became law. These laws tread on the toes of free speech with just as much force as a libel-tourist. These laws criminalize inept use of famous words such as “nigger,” “queer,” and many others. The list will continue to grow indefinitely, as the winds of PC continue to blow, though I can assure that “redneck” will never be added to the list. While we are fretting over libel-tourists’ assault on free speech in America, we should at least pay our respects to the harm caused by the far more profound and even popular assault from our fellow citizens.
“There is no freedom of speech in America for most people. All media is owned by a corporate oligarchy which controls the terms of the discussion for its own greed. This oligarchy has manufactured a climate of genocidal racism against Muslims in order to distract the American population from the reality of their oppression. This unrelenting din of racist bigotry inevitable leads to the violence it advocates especially since here in America alternative perspectives are not available. One only has to look at the press’ uncritical adulation of the Bush regime and its slaughter of Muslims in Iraq to prove my point.”
Sounds like someone’s busy channeling their inner Tom Hanks…
#8 Apostle of Love – Dudette, are you smoking crack? The Press’ uncritical adulation of Bush?!? What?!? Hahahahahaha. (Wipes tears from eyes.) That just slayed me!
More seriously, there is NO basic right to food, housing, healthcare, education and income. Attempting to compel such things has been tried many times before with distinctly inglorious results. It always leads to mass death, either through starvation or through tyranny. Usually tyraany.
Do you understand why? Because when you demand your so-called “right”, you demand that the government steal from me to give to you. The laws are backed by guns. It is armed robbery via the vote.
There is no such thing as free, unless you steal it, or if it is actual charity. Even these things come with a price. Charity requires humility and penitence; a blow to one’s ego. If you steal it, there are always eventual repercussions; either personal or societal.
Either we all have property rights, or none of us do. If we legally steal from the powerful rich because “they can afford it”, then none of us are safe. If the powerful cannot protect themselves, then how can we? Either we all have freedom, or none of us do, because it always comes down to who’s next on the hit list. “Please, Lord, let not this cup touch my lips.” It is no way to live, fearing that you may be the next to drink from the poisoned cup.
If we don’t all hae freedom, then it always comes down to Patronage and Privilege. Someone always will scheme to get themselves into the position of determining who “deserves” rights, and who does not. Today, it’s me who has no rights, and you’re okay with that, but then, tomorrow, it’s you. Who, then, shall speak for you?
Always the tyrants await their chances… scheming, ever scheming.
Wherever soft jihadists are attempting to use the tools of free societies against those societies (Canada, Great Britain, the US, Australia, Europe et al.) they should elicit disgust on the basis of their backroom tactics alone.