Latest Editions

Protection against libel actions overseas

Audio: Play | Download

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download MP3
Anchor Katy Clark speaks with writer Rachel Ehrenfeld about a new US law that protects US authors found guilty of libel in overseas courts. Ehrenfeld is one such author, and she shares her story.

Read the Transcript
This text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

KATY CLARK: President Obama has signed into law something called the Securing the Protection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage Act. The initials spell out the word, “SPEECH.” The law forbids foreign courts from enforcing libel judgments against US writers, if those rulings deprive the authors of their rights to free speech. The process that led to the act began two years ago. That’s when Arab businessman Khalid bin Mahfouz sued American author Rachel Ehrenfeld in London over her book, Funding Evil. Rachel Ehrenfeld is in New York. And why did bin Mahfouz sue you over your book?

RACHEL EHRENFELD:  He sued me in England because he could. Because English libel laws and English courts provide opportunity to sue for libel in a different legal system. The burden of proof is on the defendant, on me, and providing evidence is a bit different. And that’s why the Saudi Sheik. He did not like my expose in my book about his contributions to al-Qaeda, Hamas, Abu Sayyaf and other terrorist organizations. And I based my writing on testimonies in Congress, official statements by American officials, other foreign intelligence services statements and documentation. This evidence suffices in US court. In England, in order to prove it, what I would have to do would have been to bring the raw material on which the US official based those statements. That could have never happened.

CLARK:  Why not? Was that classified information?

ENRENFELD: Did you try to obtain any raw intelligence from the CIA or the State Department or the White House on which they based their information? Good luck to you, especially with anything that is connected to the war if we are fighting now. It’s impossible.

CLARK: So, that information was available to you as you were researching the book?

ENRENFELD: This information was available to everybody in America. By the time he died last year, last August, he threatened to sue and won apologies from more than 45 writers, publishers, including many Americans.

CLARK: But not you?

ENRENFELD: Not me. I recognized that what he was doing was abusing the British legal system, if you want, to silence Americans from exposing who funds al-Qaeda.

CLARK: Now is that why you didn’t appear in court to defend your claim?

ENRENFELD: I did not appear because I’m not an English citizen. I do not live in England. The book was not published in England. It was not marketed in England. If he wanted to defend his name he should have come to New York and sued me in New York. He would have had to prove that what I’ve written about him is not true. And he couldn’t afford that.

CLARK:  Can you tell us a little about Khalid bin Mahfouz?

ENRENFELD: Sheik Khalid bin Mahfouz was a well-known figure in the United States. He became very famous when he was involved with the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, which was known as the bank for crooks and criminals. The bank was shut down because it funded terrorism. It was laundering drug money, et cetera. And he paid a huge fine, 230 some million dollars, which was then the biggest fine ever paid for something to do with finances.

CLARK: I’m curious about this new legislation that President Obama has signed into law means for you as an author?

ENRENFELD: It means we can write safely as long as we are in the United States and publish from the United States whatever we feel should be exposed. Of course, we have to do it responsibly. This is not an open door for just writing anything anybody wants. One thing that makes a difference between the US and other countries is the First Amendment. And free speech is really what keeps our democracy alive.

CLARK: You were ordered to pay roughly $20,000 in damages in the…

ENRENFELD: No. I was ordered to pay close to $250,000 in damages and legal fees.

CLARK: Okay, so you were ordered to pay those damages. And as you mentioned, Khalid bin Mahfouz, has since passed away. Where does your case stand now?

ENRENFELD: My case is over. Well, I have a judgment against me in England. He’s dead, but his sons are still alive. And the judgment against me in England stands. I don’t go to England because I wouldn’t like to be seized when I arrive there. I don’t want to risk it.

CLARK:  Rachel Ehrenfeld is the American author whom a London court found guilty of libeling Saudi businessman Khalid bin Mahfouz. Timothy Finn of the law firm Jones-Day represents bin Mahfouz in the US. Finn says Ehrenfeld is under no threat to pay the judgment, since she doesn’t own property in England. He adds, “England got rid its ‘debtors’ prison’ a long time ago.”

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.