« Memorial Day 2008Happy Mother's Day 2008 »

Free Speech Protection Act of 2008

05/22/08

Permalink 07:49:50 am by first, Categories: News, Cases, Freedom of Speech, xPost_M

The Free Speech Protection Act of 2008 has recently been introduced (H.R. 5814 and S.2977) to prevent an abusive tactic whereby individuals unable to silence their American critics in American courts will obtain judgments in foreign courts. Then seek to enforce the foreign money judgments, sometimes for large amounts, in American courts1.

This needed federal legislation (H.R. 5814 and S.2977) will enable (encourage) free speaking Americans confronted with a foreign defamation, libel, slander, or other forms of speech suppressing judgments to test, in federal court, whether those judgments meet American Constitution, First Amendment standards.

If the federal court determines a judgment does not meet American Constitution, First Amendment standards, the court is permitted to enjoin its enforcement and award litigation costs, including treble damages.

This will reduce the abuses like those suffered by Rachel Ehrenfeld when a Saudi billionaire didn't like that Ehrenfeld (and our government) accused him of funding terrorism2.

-----notes-----

1. Britain is often the jurisdiction of choice because its judicial system most parallels our own, except for speech law, where it is opposite ours.

Imagine Mahfouz obtaining a judgment against Ehrenfeld in Saudi Arabia, which follows Sharia Law (Islamic religious tenets enforced as law) and then coming to the United States to enforce that judgment.

No court in America (well maybe one in Texas or Kansas, somewhere) would enforce that judgment—why, because it's fundamentally inimical to our constitutional system—British court's judgments, in the area of speech, are fundamentally inimical to our constitutional system of laws.

2. See Toocan->First Rachel Ehrenfeld v. Khalid Salim Bin Mahfouz or American Center for Democracy for more information.

Fortunately, Ehrenfeld is not easily intimidated and recent legislation signed by the newly designated governor of New York shields her from Mahfouz's abuses, while she fearlessly pursues litigation and terrorism links with respect to Mahfouz (and others).

1 comment

Comment from: Liz [Visitor]
Forum shopping is nothing new, especially in the US. Insurance lawsuits have been shopped everywhere and some state are notorious for the damage awards. But when one country interferes in the legal system of another we have a big problem. Making the judgment unenforceable in the US is one way to go, but what makes anyone think Great Britain will allow US judgments to be enforced over there? Just a thought, follow this to an absurd conclusion and that's where this situation will wind up.
09/11/08 @ 07:37

Leave a comment


Your email address will not be revealed on this site.

Your URL will be displayed.
(Line breaks become <br />)
(Name, email & website)
(Allow users to contact you through a message form (your email will not be revealed.)
March 2010
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
 << <   > >>
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31      
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Search

XML Feeds

powered by b2evolution free blog software