Rachel Ehrenfeld - Rachel's Law and Free Speech Legislation

Rachel's Law and Free Speech Legislation

Dr. Ehrenfeld became involved in an international legal controversy when she was sued for libel in the United Kingdom.

In her book, "Funding Evil", Dr. Ehrenfeld alleged that Saudi billionaire Khalid bin Mahfouz had financed al Qaeda through his bank and charitable organization. Mahfouz denied the allegations. Dr. Ehrenfeld, a U.S. citizen based in New York, had not written or marketed her book internationally and refused to acknowledge the jurisdiction of the British court over her case. Her refusal resulted in the British Court awarding a default judgment against her.

Represented by her attorney, Daniel Kornstein, Dr. Ehrenfeld pre-emptively countersued Mahfouz in New York to obtain a declaration that the judgment would not be enforced in the United States and that her book was not defamatory under United States defamation law. When the New York courts ruled that they lacked personal jurisdiction over Mahfouz, the New York State legislature took immediate action and unanimously passed the Libel Terrorism Protection Act (also known as "Rachel's Law"). Rachel's Law was signed into law on April-29-2008. The law "offers New Yorkers greater protection against libel judgments in countries whose laws are inconsistent with the freedom of speech granted by the United States Constitution.".

As of July 2010, six other states have passed analogs to Rachel's Law: Illinois, Florida, California, Tennessee, Maryland, and Utah. A federal bill based on Rachel's Law was passed unanimously out of the Judiciary Committee and has since then been approved by both Houses of Congress. President Obama signed the bill into law on 10 August 2010. The bill, S. 3518, the formally titled Securing and Protecting our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage Act (Speech Act), includes several measures aimed at closing loopholes in First Amendment protections for free speech. The act bars enforcement of foreign libel judgments that do not meet with American constitutional standards of due process and First Amendment protections. The burden of proof is also placed on the party suing for enforcement. The party suing to prevent enforcement may also sue the libel plaintiff for a declaration that the foreign libel judgment is "repugnant" to American constitutional law, and is entitled to attorney's fees for resultant legal proceedings. The new federal law, and the existing seven state laws that predate it, do not, however, protect American persons who exercise First Amendment freedoms but who then travel abroad and then become subject to physical application of foreign libel laws and judgments. Many countries, for example, Thailand, maintain laws that cite jurisdiction over speech exercised outside their countries and which mandate punishment for libel inside the foreign plaintiff's country even though the speech may have occurred outside. Extraterritorial jurisdiction over First Amendment rights has not been the focus of attention in international legal jurisprudence or focus in the diplomatic community.

Dr. Ehrenfeld's efforts at libel law reform in the United States inspired the Libel Reform Campaign an NGO campaign with over 55,000 supporters. The British government has published a draft defamation bill but is yet to act.