Chilling Free Speech

Here is an excerpt from an Op-Ed I had in Friday's Washington Times, on the subject of libel tourism:

The U.S. media has started to notice Saudi billionaire Khalid bin Mahfouz's use of British libel laws to silence allegations that he funded al Qaeda. Even the venerable New York Times has featured an essay on the subject, plus an Op-Ed urging Congress to prevent U.S. courts from enforcing foreign libel judgments. While this would be a worthwhile achievement, most commentators have missed the point that we may have already lost the battle. More than 30 publications and authors have already given in to the billionaire. Since September 11, Mr. Mahfouz has exploited the British legal system, where libel laws favor the plaintiff, to systematically sue anyone alleging that he financed terrorism. He has also used the threat of such suits to intimidate his critics.

Read the article in its entirety.

To clarify a few questions I've had regarding the Wall Street Journal: The allegations the WSJ retracted dealt with Mahfouz's purported family relationship to Osama bin Laden, which Mahfouz consistently denies. In my opinion, this is a significant, substantive claim, especially in light of the role family connections play in Arab society.  To the best of my knowledge, the WSJ and others simply retracted the claim without further research.  This falls into the pattern, or perhaps set the pattern, of giving in to intimidation rather than following the facts wherever they go.

To the WSJ's (actually the WSJ Europe's) credit, they fought and recently won an appeal in Britain stemming from a suit filed by the Abdullatif Jamil Group.  This victory has, as written elsewhere, "gained some small measure of protection for journalists and writers in the UK."  This was not a case where Mahfouz sued, however, and the chilling effect of his libel tourism is very real.   

Comments

[James M. Dorsey]

I’m afraid, I need to take exception to your reference to The Wall Street Journal in The Washington Times and on blogs. The Wall Street Journal is the one major Western publication that has not succumbed to Saudi libel litigation efforts and deserves credit for that. I would be happy to make available a 63-page ruling by the House of Lords in the UK from October last year, which has changed British libel law albeit insufficiently and has enhanced protection of journalists and writers in the UK. It was achieved after a 4.5 year, GPB 4 million legal battle.

The case was the Wall Street Journal vs Jameel and involved a story of mine over funding of terrorism, in which among others Khaled Bin Mahfouz was among five Saudis mentioned alongside Mohammed Abdellatif Jameel and Al Rajhi. The House of Lords ruled that the story was an example of a story in the public interest and a model of reporting and editing. A second case brought against the Journal over this story by Al Rajhi was settled out of court in the Journal’s favor.

Ironically, Bin Mahfouz did not sue the Journal despite being mentioned in the story. There have been in recent years two major allegations against Bin Mahfouz that have been contested: that there is a relationship through marriage between Khaled Bin Mahfouz and Osama Bin Laden and that Bin Mahfouz is a financier of terrorism. The Wall Street Journal on May 29, 2002 ran a correction to a story it published that said there was a marital relationship. That relationship has never been proven and consistently been denied by Bin Mahfouz. It is now generally acknowledged that it is incorrect. The WSJ contrary to others, to the best of my knowledge, did not correct or apologize for any suggestion that Bin Mahfouz may have been involved in terror financing.

[James M. Dorsey]

Apologies, I saw Ilan's correction only after posting my comment. However, I would like to point out that the WSJ did investigate Khaled Bin Mahfouz's alleged marital relationship to Osama Bin Laden found it to be non-existent. The Journal's libel case in London as well as many other non-Saudi cases that it has fought in various parts of the world is evidence that the WSJ is not intimidated. The obligation to do proper research is one that is as incumbent on blogs as it is on the mainstream media. The credit for the London victory goes to both the WSJ and WSJ Europe

[Yankee Doodle]

Good article. I featured it at a post before you posted the article here:

http://stopislamicconquest.blogspot.com/2007/10/right-way.html

Mr. Dorsey, thank you for your comment on that post at my blog, and I have used your comment as a jumping off point for a new post:

http://stopislamicconquest.blogspot.com/2007/10/wall-street-journal-vs-jameel.html

I hope both of you keep up the good work.