Tristan Phillips: No, the ruling said nothing about shari’a, but I did not say it did. I wrote, “Intended or not, a narrow, technical New York Appeals Court decision on Thursday Dec. 20, 2007 produces that net effect.”
There’s a big difference. The Court did, however, leave open the door for the matter to be further considered in the New York and presumably federal legislatures.
Kevin: Alas, you are incorrect. The U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Ehrenfeld vs. Mahfouz case was “ripe” for hearing, and that any American author sued for libel in Britain could counter sue in U.S. federal courts. Before agreeing to hear the case itself, however, the Second Circuit asked the New York Court of Appeals to first consider the matter of local jurisdiction, within as wide a context as possible. The New York Court considered jurisdiction, of course, but not within the context that the Second Circuit specifically requested, I dare say. Rather, it sidestepped the First Amendment issue all together, which several attorneys with whom I’ve spoken regard as an error of law.
Robert Craig: Again, the NY Court of Appeals did not specifically allow shari’a into U.S. Courts–it did so by net effect.
Mr. Levinson: I would never have used your description of Judge Eady, but find it colorful and droll. Thank you for the chuckle.
Haroon Rashid: Ehrenfeld’s book is banned in the U.K. quite specifically because Judge Eady has a personal vendetta against James Woolsey, which he clearly stated in court, not because Mahfouz’ case has any merits.
Mahfouz’ case has never been tried on its merits–which is exactly Ehrenfeld’s point. If Mahfouz or any other Saudi terror financier wants to sue American authors or publishers for libel concerning a book published in the U.S., he should have sued in the U.S., not the U.K.
And yes, the matter has everything to do with shari’a, since resultant from all these judicial machinations, shari’a law concerning libel has effectively now been imposed: Mahfouz felt himself insulted, which under shari’a is libel. So Mahfouz sued Ehrenfeld for libel and won by default. By refusing to establish New York jurisdiction over Mahfouz despite the clear Constitutional and other grounds on which it could–and should–have done so, The New York Court of Appeals has effectively also therefore allowed shari’a interpretation of libel law to stand.
If you do not understand this point of shari’a law, I must suggest that you (not me) are lacking in education, sir.
USorThem: Yes, all Americans (not only Ehrenfeld), are much worse off now than we were before the NY Court of Appeals ruling. You are correct that Mahfouz may not attempt to collect his U.K. default judgment in the U.S. Nevertheless, so long as that threat exists–and it now continues to exist–all U.S. publishers with any international presence are far less likely to publish even the barest of facts concerning the terror funding enterprise of Mahfouz, as documented by the U.S. Treasury Department, Congressional hearings and so on. And that, quite frankly, is unacceptable. The First Amendment should precede archaic state jurisdictional interpretations, and many prior Supreme Court decisions indicate as much.
