I've pointed out before that allowing magistrates in one country to pass judgment on the citizens of another is fraught with peril. I have no fundamental problem with the Nuremberg trials or the International Court of Justice in the Hague, but when it comes to free speech, more is better, and I'd rather not be forced to answer to some banana republic's idea of what's permissible. To be clear: If I'm physically in Malaysia or Morocco and I happen to get punished for breaking the local laws, that's one thing. But if I'm on U.S. soil, and foreigners thousands of miles away take offense at how I express myself, well, not to put too fine a point on it: fuck 'em. If they want a legal tussle, they're welcome to bring it on in a U.S. court.
In this context, England once again provides an excellent reason for why Americans dumped large quantities of tea into Boston Harbor in the first place. In the absence of anything resembling a First Amendment, the U.K.'s free-speech laws are notoriously weak — that is, plaintiff-friendly. This gladdens the heart of many a shady character, including Saudi sheik Khalid bin Mahfouz, who wants British judges to crack down on American writer Rachel Ehrenfeld. He claims Ehrenfeld defamed him in her book "Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It." And the pettifoggers of the English judiciary were only too happy to take the case.
Interestingly, Ehrenfeld's book was never even published in England. The fact that a handful of British buyers purchased it online from suppliers abroad, such as Amazon, was reason enough for a U.K. court to powder the wigs and get busy. The judges then found Ehrenfeld in default when she rightfully didn't show up to be tried in a London courtoom. The damages she'll have to pay bin Mahfouz will be determined in a hearing later this month. For her part, Ehrenfeld has filed a countersuit in the U.S., where this case of course belongs.
Sandra Baron, the executive director of New York's Media Law Resource Center, is quoted as telling a Times reporter
"It's critically important that American journalists and scholars be able to publish on topics of profound importance without having to look over their shoulders to make sure someone isn't suing them in the United Kingdom."
Or, for that matter, in Saudi-Arabia, Zimbabwe, China, and every other country where free speech is subject to the whims of dictators, bureaucrats, and the monied classes. It's a laughable notion that what Americans are allowed to say could be determined by whichever far-away foreigner has the thinnest skin, the biggest sack of money, and the most bullying disposition.
Now, if only our gavel-swinging British friends could see it that way.
Comments