"Rachel's Law" -- The Free Speech Protection Act

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/021530.php


June 26, 2008

Supporters urge passage of the national version of New York State's "Rachel's Law" -- The Free Speech Protection Act
A national version of New York State's "Rachel's Law" is gaining bipartisan support:

Please - SUPPORT passage of the NATIONAL version of New York State's "Rachel's Law"---THE FREE SPEECH PROTECTION ACT (S-2977 & H.R. 5814)----
The "Free Speech Protection Act" was introduced by Reps. Peter King (R-NY) and Anthony Weiner (D-NY) and Sens. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and Arlen Specter (R-PA).

Like NYS's "Rachel's Law" this federal bill would protect American journalists from libel suits brought in foreign jurisdictions lacking the same free speech protections found in the U.S. Constitution.

The bill has been assigned to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees.

If free speech is important to you, PLEASE contact the House and Senate Judiciary Committees' Members and staff (contacts below) and urge them to approve the bill and vote for its passage as soon as possible.

"Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of expression of ideas, opinions, and research, and freedom of exchange of information are all essential to the functioning of a democracy, and the fight against terrorism," Senator Specter said. "There is a real danger that American writers and researchers will be afraid to address the crucial subject of terror funding and other important matters without these protections."

"Discovering the truth requires full and open debate, which is not possible when courts are used to chill inquiry and research," Senator Lieberman said. "The freedom of American journalists should not be threatened by foreign courts that do not adhere to America's principles of free speech."

"Our journalists provide us with insight on issues that affect all Americans, such as war and terrorism," Rep. King said. "We cannot allow their voices to be silenced by those who prefer to keep secret the inner details of these issues. American authors and journalists should be able to practice their first amendment right without the fear of a lawsuit."

This legislation will create federal jurisdiction and a federal cause of action allowing federal courts to determine---when foreigners sue U.S. journalists, speakers, or academics in foreign courts for their U.S. speeches or publications---whether defamation has occurred under U.S. law. The bill will authorize a U.S. court to bar enforcement in the U.S. of a foreign judgment or damage awards.

The impetus for this legislation is litigation involving Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, a U.S. citizen and Director of the American Center for Democracy. Dr. Ehrenfeld's 2003 book, Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It, which was published solely in the United States by a U. S. publisher, alleged that a Saudi Arabian and his family financially supported Al Qaeda in the years preceding the attacks of September 11. Although only 23 books were sold in the United Kingdom, the Saudi sued Ehrenfeld for libel there.

Defamation plaintiffs around the world have made the U.K. a popular venue for libel suits since English law does not require a libel plaintiff to prove falsity or actual malice as is does U.S. law. Until now, U.S. journalists or publications named as defendants in such cases were not protected by the First Amendment in the U.S. Rather, they were forced either to take on the massive expense, inconvenience and distress of fighting a foreign libel case, or of accepting the defamation inveighed on them by the courts otherwise certain to rule against them by default.

To protect U.S. writers, publishers and free speech rights against frivolous foreign libel suits---and a bedrock foundation of U.S. Democracy---it is critical that all Americans urge members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees to support this measure.

Below is a sample letter---and links to websites of the House and Senate Judiciary Committee Members and their staffs.

Thank you.

Dear....

PLEASE SUPPORT THE FREE SPEECH PROTECTION ACT (S-2977 & H.R. 5814),
aka "Rachel's Law"

"Rachel's Law" was introduced to provide legal protections from "libel terrorism" to New York authors and publishers. In a tremendous victory for free speech rights, the bill passed both the Assembly and the Senate and was signed by Governor Patterson on May 1, 2008.

Legislation to protect authors and publishers in all states has now been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives (bill number H.R. 5814) and Senate (bill number S-2977). Entitled the "Free Speech Protection Act," introduced by Representatives Peter King (R-NY) and Anthony Weiner (D-NY) and Senators Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and Arlen Specter (R-PA).

This bill would protect American journalists from libel suits brought in foreign courts that do not have the same protections for free speech that are found in the U.S. Constitution.

I urge you to support efforts to approve the bill and vote for its passage as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

Below is contact information for the Senatorial Judiciary Committee, the Congressional Judiciary Committee, and Staff.


General Judiciary Committee - http://judiciary.house.gov/contact.aspx
Staff Majority Communications Director Jonathan Godfrey -
(202) 225-3951

Majority Press Secretary/Spokesperson Melanie Roussell - (202) 225-3951
Majority Staff Director/Chief Counsel Perry Apelbaum -
(202) 225-3951
Minority Chief of Staff/General Counselor - (202) 226-0002
Minority Communications Director Kim Smith - (202) 225-6906

Senators on Committee

NY Charles Schumer -
http://schumer.senate.gov/SchumerWebsite/contact/webform.cfm
Press Secretary Brian Fallon - (202) 224-7433

VT Patrick J. Leahy - http://leahy.senate.gov/contact.cfm
Press Secretary Erica Chabot - (202) 224-2154

MA Edward Kennedy - http://kennedy.senate.gov/senator/contact.cfm
Press Secretary Melissa Wagoner - (202) 224-2633

DE Joseph Biden - http://biden.senate.gov/services/contact/
Press Secreatary Elizabeth Alexander - (202) 224-2154

WI Herbert Kohl - http://kohl.senate.gov/gen_contact.html
Press Secretary Lynn Becker - (202) 224-2240

WI Russ Feingold - http://feingold.senate.gov/contact_opinion.html
Press Secretary Zach Lowe - (202) 224-8657

CA Dianne Feinstein -
http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactUs.EmailMe
Press Secretary Scott Gerber - (202) 224-8657

IL Richard Durbin - http://durbin.senate.gov/contact.cfm#contact
Press Secretary Joe Shoemaker - (202) 224-7028

MD Benjamin Cardin - http://cardin.senate.gov/contact/
Press Secretary Sue Walitsky - (202) 224-7433

RI Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse -
http://whitehouse.senate.gov/contact.cfm
Press Secretary Alex Swartsel - (202) 224-7433

PA Arlen Specter -
http://specter.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.ContactForm
Press Secretary Chris Gindlesperger - (202) 224-5225

UT Orrin Hatch -
http://hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Offices.Contact
Press Secretary Mark Eddington (202) 224-5251

IA Charles Grassley -
http://grassley.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Home
Press Secretary Beth Levine - (202) 224-6197

AZ Jon Kyl - http://kyl.senate.gov/contact_form.cfm
Press Secretary Andrew Wilder - (202) 224-4521

AL Jeff Sessions -
http://sessions.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ConstituentServices.ContactMe
Press Secretary Michael Brumas - (202) 224-4124

SC Lindsey Graham -
http://lgraham.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.EmailSenatorGraham
Press Secretary Wes Hickman - (202) 224-5972

TX John Cornyn -
http://cornyn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.ContactForm
Press Secretary Brian Walsh - (202) 224-2934

KS Sam Brownback - http://brownback.senate.gov/CMEmailMe.cfm
Press Secretary John Rankin - (202) 224-6521

OK Tom Coburn -
http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactSenatorCoburn.Home
Press Secretary John Hart - (202) 224-5754

Congressional Representatives

NY-9th Anthony Weiner - http://weiner.house.gov/email_anthony.aspx

NY-8th Jerrold Nadler –
http://www.house.gov/nadler/emailform.shtml

CA-24th Elton Gallegly -
https://forms.house.gov/wyr/welcome.shtml


CA-3rd Dan Lungren -
https://forms.house.gov/lungren/forms/email.shtml


CA-29th Adam Schiff -
http://schiff.house.gov/HoR/CA29/Contact+Information/Contact+Form.htm

CA-28th Howard Berman -
http://www.house.gov/berman/contact/index.shtml


CA-16th Zoe Lofgren - http://lofgren.house.gov/emailform.shtml

CA-35th Maxine Waters - http://www.house.gov/waters/IMA/issue.htm

CA-39th Linda Sanchez -
http://www.lorettasanchez.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=218&Itemid=17


CA-27th Brad Sherman -
http://www.house.gov/sherman/contact/

CA-49th Darrell Issa -
http://issa.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.ContactForm


MI 14th John Conyers (Chair) -
http://capwiz.com/aipac/webreturn/?url=http://www.house.gov/conyers

VA-9th Rick Boucher -
http://www.boucher.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=645&Itemid

=

VA-3rd Bobby Scott –
https://forms.house.gov/wyr/welcome.shtml


VA-6th Bob Goodlatte - http://www.house.gov/goodlatte/emailbob.htm

VA-4th Randy Forbes - http://forbes.house.gov/zipauth.html

NC-12th Rep. Melvin Watt -
http://www.house.gov/formwatt/IMA/issue_subscribe.htm

MA-10th William Delahunt - William.Delahunt@mail.house.gov

FL-8th Ric Keller -
https://forms.house.gov/wyr/welcome.shtml


FL-24th Tom Feeney - carissa@tomfeeney.com

FL-20th Debbie Wasserman Schultz -
http://wassermanschultz.house.gov/zipauth.htm

FL-19th Robert Wexler - http://wexler.house.gov/email.shtml

TN-9th Stephen Cohen -
http://cohen.house.gov/index.php?option=com_email_form&Itemid=111


GA-4th Hank Johnson -
http://hankjohnson.house.gov/contact_hank_write.shtml

OH-13th Betty Sutton - http://sutton.house.gov/about/emailform.cfm

IL-4th Luis Gutierrez -
http://luisgutierrez.house.gov/singlepage.aspx?newsid=1262

WI-2nd Tammy Baldwin -
http://tammybaldwin.house.gov/get_address.html

AL-7th Artur Davis - http://www.house.gov/davis/zipauth.htm

MN-5th Keith Ellison -
http://ellison.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=87


TX-21st Lamar S. Smith (Ranking Member) -
http://lamarsmith.house.gov/contact.aspx?section=Mail

TX-18th Sheila Jackson Lee -
https://forms.house.gov/wyr/welcome.shtml


TX-1st Louie Gohmert - http://gohmert.house.gov/contact_louie.htm

WI-5th F. James Sensenbrenner -
http://sensenbrenner.house.gov/email_zip.htm

NC-6th Howard Coble - howard.coble@mail.house.gov

UT-3rd Chris Cannon - cannon.ut03@mail.house.gov

IN-6th Mike Pence -
https://forms.house.gov/pence/IMA/contact_form.htm


IA-5th Steve King – pete.king@mail.house.gov

AZ-2nd Trent Franks -
https://forms.house.gov/franks/email_zipcheck.shtml


OH-4th Jim Jordan -
http://jordan.house.gov/contactform_zipcheck.shtml

OH-1st Steve Chabot - http://www.house.gov/chabot/zipauth.shtml


Posted by Robert at June 26, 2008 6:26 AM
Print this entry | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us

Comments
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Jihad Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)
Good to see that both Democrat and Republican politicians are sponsoring this bill. it cannot come sooner! wish our Cdn politicians would have same zeal for freedom of speech!

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at June 26, 2008 7:33 AM
Like NYS's "Rachel's Law" this federal bill would protect American journalists from libel suits brought in foreign jurisdictions lacking the same free speech protections found in the U.S. Constitution.


Interesting, I thought that the U.S. Constitution in theory at least, granted "freedom of speech;" then why do you need this if that were true?

Even if this is passed, why should foreign jurisdictions honor it more that they would the already existing U.S. Constitution; especially if the U.S. government has already signed treaties that have the force of law which nullifies the Rachel law?

Furthermore, if this new law is passed would it "protect" only "American journalists?" In that case what would constitue an "American journalist" for these purposes?

What about "ordinary Amcerican citizens?" Are they protected also?

Finally, what else is attached to the Rachel laws in question and how would they impact existing legislation?


Lastly, we are NOT a democracy! We have always been a Representative REPUBLIC.

Ben Franklin even quipped that a "democracy" was nothing more than two wolves and a sheep arguing over what was going to be for lunch -- which is why he and the other founding fathers wanted a republic.


Posted by: witness at June 26, 2008 8:12 AM
"Free Speech Protection Act" is fine. I wish we could stop with the naming of important bills after crime victims, etc... I know these are honorifics, but it seems a dumbing down of legislation.

Posted by: Bingo at June 26, 2008 8:13 AM
I fail to see how this legislation has more force than the U.S. Constitution.

If the latter isn't honored and enforceable, why should this legislation be?

Posted by: witness at June 26, 2008 8:29 AM
They're showing unity and resolve and defending the 1st Amendmt. against watering down. Kind of like a preemptive strike. So calm down, people.

BTW, the 2nd Amendmt. is always available to protect the 1st Amendmt.

Posted by: Bingo at June 26, 2008 8:38 AM
Among other good things about him, Peter King (one of the sponsors of the legislation), is that he is not dour but humorful, and apparently was friendly with the equally humorful and undour Tom Tancredo. That's not a reason to support this legislation, which justifies itself, but it's not something to ignore, either.

Posted by: Hugh at June 26, 2008 9:07 AM
MI 14th John Conyers (Chair) -

Best hope this gets to the floor of the Senate, because with Conyers chairing the House Judiciary Committee it'll never see the light of day. Anyone remember his resolution singling out Islam and the Qur'an for special protection?

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/006322.php

Posted by: Papa Whiskey at June 26, 2008 9:11 AM
Good point, papa whiskey.

Infiltration is real. Conyers is one of them.

Scary stuff:

http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=3E761FCC-577E-444D-AC80-2CB7D5F24926


Posted by: sheik yer'mami at June 26, 2008 9:18 AM
Lets do a deal.

As a Brit, I will support your campaign against the vicious British libel laws, if you do the same about the US's equally vicious extradition treaties and behaviours. You know, the treaty that grabbed three UK bankers and tried them in the US for an alleged crime (that may well not have been a crime in the UK, the UK courts were never given the opportunity) that can only have taken place in the UK, the only victim of which would have been a UK bank! Still it saved the Yanks from having to investigate their own people for the fraud that was Enron.

But of course, Yanks are exempt from being extradited to the rest of the world. So this must be yet another case of the Yanks bullying their way around the world in 80 days?

Start treating your friends like friends. Please?

Posted by: Jeff at June 26, 2008 9:44 AM
Apparently the First Amendment to the US Constitution is not enough in this complicated world

FIRST AMENDMENT

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 peacably to assemble,and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

Posted by: Mackie at June 26, 2008 9:54 AM
What kind of crappy system are we living under that even calls for a 'Rachel's' law? America has gone down hill a lot. Rachel's law may help the weakening America to get back on her feet, but why are we being knocked down to begin with? Islam is exploiting this, but not causing it. Who, what, 'is' causing it?...Free speech is only one issue. America, the west, and the world in general is under attack by various forces with dubious intentions, from Islam to the weather, and everything between. A combination of self serving forces, all aimed at bringing freedom as Americans know it, or would like to know it, to its knee's. If the government really cared about the people, they would do as the Swiss have done. The Swiss have been on a crash program building bomb shelters for its people since 1960. Every Swiss male carries a gun. Every Swiss household can be sealed up and has gov supplied
air filters and gas masks for everyone. They are prepared. Our government gives us 'Rachel's' law, while digging big holes in mountains for a place for 'them' to run to when the stuff hit's the fan.
The most our gov gives, in this regard, is laws. Not gas masks. The law will not help you if you need a gas mask and don't have one. None of the people listed in this article will get you a gas mask, so I guess you will just have to get one yourself. The best the gov can do is recommend duct tape. When the gov can't or won't protect the people, the people have to do it themselves.
I will support 'Rachel's Law', but I am unhappy that we even need it...

Posted by: duh_swami at June 26, 2008 9:56 AM
Basically, 'Rachel's' law is unenforcable; so why not have a thousand more such pieces of worthless legislation.

That way, we can bind law abiding citizens with red tape and the despots will ignore it anyway -- forcing us to write more legislation.

Yup, I get it now.

Posted by: witness at June 26, 2008 10:31 AM
I am always one to proceed cautiously, and consider all the ramifications of a thing--as much as is possible--before proceeding. Even so, I am rather surprised by the dour nature of many of the comments so far. Maybe we are so used to bad news and worse that it is hard to recognize really good news when we see it.

Folks, this is a serious bit of anti-dhimmitude, and it is entirely bipartisan. It hasn't passed yet, but it is still cause for celebration that "the Free Speech Protection Act" has been introduced at all. Yes, perhaps in a more perfect world, it wouldn't be neccessary at all. Yes, it is mildly annoying that it is a trendy "named" law. This is a niggling detail, though, and ultimately unimportant.

Senator Specter said:

"Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of expression of ideas, opinions, and research, and freedom of exchange of information are all essential to the functioning of a democracy, and the fight against terrorism"

Now, I could parse this--is the US a democracy, or a republic? Why isn't Spector clearer in identifying "terrorism" as "Islamic terrorism", or "jihad"? These are legitimate issues, but ultimately introducing this bill is a clear, straightforward defence of freedom of speech in the face of the judicial jihad that has done so much to limit it.

This is a brave bill. It is true that it only offers protection to US journalists, but if it passes, it may well inspire legislators in other freedom-loving countries to offer their own journalists some protection for speaking the truth.

I'm going to go now so I can write a letter to my representatives. I hope other Americans on this list do the same.

Posted by: gravenimage at June 26, 2008 10:42 AM
"The freedom of American journalists should not be threatened by foreign courts that do not adhere to America's principles of free speech."

Like NYS's "Rachel's Law" this federal bill would protect American journalists from libel suits brought in foreign jurisdictions lacking the same free speech protections found in the U.S. Constitution.

And why would a libel suit brought in a foreign jurisdiction (say, Canada?) ever come before an American court?
And how does this bill protect someone who travels to a foreign country? Foreign courts don't answer to the US Congress or to any branch of the US government at any level - federal, state or local.
Even if this bill protected journalists from foreign damage awards being collected in the US, it still doesn't do a thing to prevent the suits in the first place. Either journalists have to defend themselves in court or voluntarily restrict themselves from traveling to countries whose laws allow for this nonsense. Even if awards can't be collected in US courts foreign plaintiffs must have other options, such as having their government arrest such people as are foolish enough to travel there and charge them with contempt of court or something else to force payment.


Posted by: PMK at June 26, 2008 10:58 AM
If they pass this bill as a national law, I hope it is challenged and appealed up to the Supreme Court, and there "voided" as redundant, since the First Amendment already frees speech, therefore no further lesser statutes are required.

And no foreign laws trump the Constitution.

The 1st Amendment is the mouth.
The 2nd Amendment is the teeth.

Posted by: profitsbeard at June 26, 2008 11:01 AM
And no foreign laws trump the Constitution.

by profitsbeard

First, treaties are "the supreme law of the land".
Congress has a duty to regulate interstate commerce and to set tariffs and otherwise regulate imports, all spelled out in the Constitution. Thanks to the WTO, NAFTA and other creations of our brilliant leaders, those responsibilities have been assumed by NGOs or by bureaucrats, some of them foreign.
Second, the US Supreme Court has said we should look to foreign laws and precedents when interpreting the Constitution. They themselves have decided foreign laws trump the Constitution.

In 1822 Justice Joseph Story put the Court on the slippery slope of reliance on English law in patent cases with his opinion for a bare majority of the justices in the case of Evans v. Eaton.

http://hnn.us/articles/23499.html

Sandra Day O'Connor emphasized the need for US courts to look abroad for precedent when deciding domestic issues, and she wasn't alone.

The high court regarded world opinion when it ruled executing the mentally retarded to be unconstitutional.

The court also relied partly on European Court decisions in its decision to overturn the Texas anti-sodomy law.

Justice Breyer had held that a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights that homosexuals had a fundamental right to privacy in their sexual behavior showed the Supreme Court's earlier decision to the contrary was unfounded in the Western tradition.

At this point in our history, the Constitution is whatever five out of nine unelected judges who hold lifetime tenure say it is.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35367

Posted by: PMK at June 26, 2008 11:37 AM
gravenimage,

It's not clear what there is to celebrate. This law is meaningless. It's a feel-good measure, nothing more. It doesn't free US journalists, speakers or academics from the foreign laws, courts or countries that apply their own domestic law in an attempt to silence Americans.
Free speech isn't protected in any way by this law. It won't prevent suits from being filed. It won't relieve journalists of the fear of harassment from foreign governments. It won't give them any assurance that they can travel to those countries without fear of arrest based on what they have written or said here in the US.

Posted by: PMK at June 26, 2008 12:06 PM
The only restriction on Freedom of Speech is lying. Deceit is raised to a fine art in the convoluted logic of the Muslim world, even using our court system to file meaningless libel suits against those who expose their lies. Their lies must be exposed.

I’m not in favor of adding another layer of legislation to what is clearly spelled out in the US Constitution's First Amendment concerning our freedom of speech and belief. But if this tightens up the court rulings in favor of protecting against deceit, then I support it. We are up against the most deceitful enemy the world had ever known, and pulling all stops to head them off at the pass, this lying cheating enemy must be fought, as the battle that must be won by all in the world who support the truth.

Investigative reporting, open discussion on this evil Alla-cult-religious threat, averting frivolous Muslim lawsuits against our freedoms and human rights, is all part of the course to win this war against the barbarian primitive sociopath-political ideology of 'pure' Islam, both its violent terrorism and devious stealth to overturn our freedoms. They must be fought, and forced to obey the truth, if our First Amendment has meaning. We fought great wars over this, to end the slavery of the mind and body, and if it is not fought here again our freedoms may be lost to the Muslim's lying deceitful supremacist world domination ideology of Islamic Jihad. Every step to stop this Cult is a positive one.

Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at June 26, 2008 12:10 PM
There appears to be some confusion over this proposed law. Although I have not read it, it is my understanding that it does not concern what constitutes free speech, and in that sense doesn't concern the First Amendment at all. It does not prevent someone who believes he has been libeled by an American from filing suit for libel against the American in a foreign court. Other countries have their own laws for libel & jurisdiction that may differ -- and in the case of libel in the U.K. definitely do differ -- from U.S. laws regarding same. What the Free Speech Protection Act would do is prevent foreigners who have won in a foreign court a judgment for libel against an American from coming into a U.S. court & enforcing that foreign judgment (in the form of monetary damages, publishing a retraction, etc.) UNLESS the statements in question constitute libel under U.S. law.

Posted by: sheik yer booty at June 26, 2008 12:58 PM
It's a good start, but says nothing about domestic lawsuits, and in no way precludes the passage of hate crime and hate speech laws being passed in the U.S. It only addresses foreign lawsuits. What a foreign person or group can't do, CAIR, and other domestic Islamic groups and individuals can do for them.

If Canada passed such a law, as it is worded here, it would in no way prevent the prosecution of individuals, journalists or authors, under Canada's existing hate speech laws.

It seems to me that this law deliberately leaves the door open to the passage of more hate crime, and hate speech laws, in the U.S.

I'm sure there are many people at this site who could compose a single paragraph law that would offer real protection to individuals, authors and journalists, from being sued for exercising their first amendment rights to freedom of speech and press, but I doubt it could pass either house of the Congress. There are too many in Congress who are in love with the concept that you can combat hate, and create a a more just and fair society, by stiffling other people's right to free speech.

Give me somethig serious to write my Congressmen about.









Posted by: rational at June 26, 2008 1:20 PM
I'm with 'gravenimage' on this one. Even assuming the law is truly unnecessary or redundant, which I don't think it is, so what? It's a legislative pronouncement backing up the American principle of the sanctity of free speech. It will mean that American courts can completely ignore any foreign court's ruling that would be adverse to a writer in some kind of libel suit (and by extension to a broadcast journalist in any slander proceeding). As for not being able to protect a journalist abroad, no American law could. When one leaves America's shores, one leaves America's laws behind as well.


Posted by: Wellington at June 26, 2008 1:20 PM
_________________
"May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't." -General George S. Patton

Psalm 82-8: Arise, O God, judge the earth, for You inherit all the nations.