NY'S DREADFUL JUDICIAL SYSTEM REFUSES TO UPHOLD EHRENFELD'S FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS

As Publisher's Weekly says, this is a major disappointment that they should throw away a chance to defend American citizens from libel suits filed in Britain. Here's the New York Sun's report on the turnout. However, as Democracy Project tells, there's a reason why this has happened:

What’s missing from the Sun’s account are four important points:

1. The NY law, unlike say California’s, is narrowly drawn, so residents have less protections from suits decided in other jurisdictions, especially ones that may be specious.

2. New York is a world center of publishing. All its publishers are, and some already have been, subject to “libel tourism” suits from Britain’s lax laws, which require the defendant to expensively prove all allegations rather than the plaintiff to prove libel as under U.S. law. These suits are a chill upon Americans’ free speech rights, as even a few copies of a U.S. publication sold over the Internet in Britain (as were just 23 copies of Ehrenfeld’s book) opens U.S. publishers to “libel tourism” suits from Britain.

3. New York’s legislature should immediately correct its statute, to conform to the U.S. Constitution. NY publishers and others should contact Governor Spitzer, their legislative reps, and also U.S. Senators Schumer and Clinton to bring their influence to bear.

4. Rachel Ehrenfeld, meanwhile, has seen her publishing access squeezed by fear of this suit, and lost considerable opportunities to earn her living, while Americans have been denied the opportunity to read her well-researched exposes of Arab financing of terror.

The state reps should certainly be lobbied to do something about this, though something tells me that Hillary Clinton is not one of them.

Here's what the AP Wire says:

The unanimous decision interpreting a New York law now goes to a federal court. There, author Rachel Ehrenfeld has sought to combat what her attorney argued was a chilling effect on free speech by the billionaire, Khalid Salim A. Bin Mahfouz. The Saudi businessman has sued more than two dozen times over writings on terrorism and those who fund it, including Ehrenfeld's 2003 book.

"The chill continues," said Ehrenfeld's attorney, Daniel Kornstein of Manhattan.

Kornstein said the businessman hasn't tried to collect on his judgment, which includes an apology and a halt on book sales. But he said the London court verdict is a threat to authors.

"That's the danger and the risk and the problem that we tried to stress," Kornstein said. "It creates a sword of Damocles that prohibits authors and publishers _ and readers can't read about it."

Indeed it does. It's time to halt this foreign persecution tactic dead in its tracks.

Update: be sure to read Andrew McCarthy's whole discussion.

PELOSI & CO. SEEK TO LIMIT OUR FREE SPEECH

THE LEFT WANTS TO REVIVE THE "FAIRNESS" DOCTRINE; (VIA THE THONG):

Liberal Democrats are attempting to muzzle conservative talk radio: they are assaulting free speech.

Like the communists in the former Soviet Union, America’s liberals seek to crush dissent by consolidating control over the media—especially talk radio, which has emerged as the dominant medium for conservative opinion.

Allies close to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are promoting legislation, which if passed, will take off the air prominent conservative radio hosts such as Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly—along with thousands of smaller conservative broadcasters.

The bill, entitled the "Media Ownership Reform Act," is sponsored by Rep. Maurice Hinchey, a leftist Democrat from New York.

The legislation aims to revive the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” of the 1940’s: “all views” are to be given equal time on radio. In particular, the Federal Communications Commission would have the power to oversee and change radio and television content.

The goal is to tilt the ideological balance of power away from the right on the nation’s air waves.

RTWT - IT'S APTLY TITLED: "Liberal totalitarianism."

WHAT PELOSI AND HER COMRADES WANT TO DO IS NO DIFFERENT THAN WHAT STALIN, CASTRO DID, MUGABE DID, AND WHAT CHAVEZ IS DOING: PREVENT THE OPPOSITION FROM AIRING THEIR VIEWS.

AIR AMERICA FAILED FOR ONE REASON: LEFTISTS HAD NO NEED FOR TALK-RADIO BECAUSE THEY ALREADY CONTROLLED TV AND MAJOR NEWSPAPERS AND MAGAZINES; AIR AMERICA WAS REDUNDANT.

THIS IS A BALD-FACED ATTEMPT BY THE LEFT TO SQUELCH DISSENT FROM THE RIGHT.


LET'S MAKE SURE THE BOLSHEVIKS, ER UM I MEAN THE DEMOCRATS FAIL!

MORE ON THE STALINIST "FAIRNESS DOCTRINE" HERE.

MORE HERE, TOO!

COMMUNISTS ASSIST ISLAMISTS IN RESOLUTION AGAINST FREE SPEECH

We learn this week that in the latest scummy act at the United Nations, Islamic countries have pushed through a resolution "urging" global prohibition of "defamation" of religion with the help of the commies:

GENEVA (AP) - Islamic countries pushed through a resolution at the U.N. Human Rights Council on Friday urging a global prohibition on the public defamation of religion - a response largely to the furor last year over caricatures published in a Danish newspaper of the Muslim Prophet Muhammad.

The statement proposed by the Organization of Islamic Conference addressed what it called a "campaign" against Muslim minorities and the Islamic religion around the world since the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States.

The resolution, which was opposed by a number of other non-Muslim countries, "expresses deep concern at attempts to identify Islam with terrorism, violence and human rights violations."

It makes no mention of any other religion besides Islam, but urges countries "to take resolute action to prohibit the dissemination of racist and xenophobic ideas and material aimed at any religion or its followers that constitute incitement and religious hatred, hostility, or violence."

The resolution was adopted by a 24-14 vote with nine abstentions. Canada, Japan and South Korea joined European countries in opposition, primarily citing its excessive focus on Islam and incompatibility with fundamental rights such as the freedoms of speech and thought.

"The problem of religious intolerance is worldwide and not limited to certain religions," said Brigitta Maria Siefker-Eberle of Germany, speaking on behalf of the 27-nation European Union.

There are 17 Muslim countries in the 47-nation human rights council. Their alliance with China, Cuba, Russia and most of the African members means they can almost always achieve a majority.

Human Rights Watch said the resolution could endanger the basic rights of individuals.

The council, which last year replaced the discredited U.N. Human Rights Commission, has no power beyond drawing international attention to rights issues and scrutiny of abuses in certain countries.

The move at the council was initiated last year after protests across the Islamic world drew attention to caricatures of Muhammad first printed in Danish paper Jyllands-Posten in September 2005.

So here you have it, isn't this why the UN needs to be left behind by all countries that value free speech, and are having any number of potential problems with terrorism?

And it figures that the communist run countries like China, Cuba, and even the returning dictatorial scene in Russia, would be willing to side with these fascists. Though it doesn't make clear, I wouldn't be surprised if any of the African countries here included those where Islam has a considerable presence.

Great Global Warming Swindle

Eric at Classical Values discusses why the "warming is man made" folks want to shut down debate. Lots of good links.

You might also find Climate Alchemy - Turning Hot Air Into Gold of interest.