The Volokh Conspiracy

[Eugene Volokh, January 30, 2008 at 4:21pm] Trackbacks

Not the Best Name for a Law:

The Libel Terrorism Protection Act. I take it that they're trying to protect against something they label "libel terrorism" (which is itself something of a misuse of "terrorism," it seems to me, even if it's understood as a play on "libel tourism"). But in any case, the name sounds at first like they're trying to protect terrorism, or libel, or libel terrorism, not protect against it.

The proposal itself -- providing that New York state courts need not enforce foreign libel judgments, if the foreign law provided less free speech protection than did U.S. law, and giving New York courts jurisdiction to issue declaratory judgments to this effect -- strikes me as sound. For more on why a nonenforcement policy is sound, see the Maryland high court's 1997 decision in Telnikoff v. Matusevitch. (We Russkies are a bunch of troublemakers.) But Libel Terrorism Protection Act is a funny name for the proposal.

(link)

Cornellian (mail):

What would happen if the person holding the foreign judgment filed it first in some other state, then took that state's order to a New York court to enforce, relying on Full Faith and Credit?

1.30.2008 4:27pm

(link)

Anderson (mail):

Stupidity runs amuck. If you don't like something, it's TERRORISM!

Next up: the Global War on Libel Terror.

1.30.2008 4:36pm

(link)

mgarbowski:

This reminds me of a line from Cheers:

Woody Boyd: You know, I normally do it on my day off, but this week on my day off I'm doing a walkathon for illiteracy.

We're against it.

1.30.2008 4:39pm

(link)

John Neff:

Whatever-terrorism means that we will have to find a synonym for terrorism. That is not a bad thing because we never had agreement on the definition of terrorism.

1.30.2008 4:49pm

(link)

Harvey Mosley (mail):

How about this:

Libel Freedom-Fighterism Protection Act.

1.30.2008 4:53pm

(link)

alkali (mail):

IIRC, the practice of suing for libel in plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions was called "libel tourism." Maybe "libel terrorism" is an eggcorn for that term.

1.30.2008 4:57pm

(link)

TheFlamingoKing (mail):

I'm personally waiting for the War on Nature Terrorism.

...maybe the Polar Icecap Terrorism Protection Act?

1.30.2008 5:35pm

(link)

KeithK (mail):

How about "Protection Against Libel Terrorism Act". Add one word and it's clear that you're not protecting libel or terrorism but trying to prevent them.

1.30.2008 5:38pm

(link)

Baseballhead (mail):

More Cheers fun with words:

Sam: Ever since I got the bar back, I've wanted to say, "Thank you for patronizing me."
Frasier: Oh, Sam. I know you wanted to use a big word there. I believe what you meant to say was, "Thank you for your patronage."
Sam: Really? What's the difference?
Frasier: Patronage mean customers. Patronizing is the way one would talk to a small, dull child.
Sam: Kind of how you're talking to me right now.
Frasier: Aren't you cute?

1.30.2008 5:50pm

(link)

Yasmin:

Wouldn't a law like this run contrary to our obligations under the Hague Convention? Not that our lawmakers don't regularly ignore international law, but this does present the problem that other countries will likewise set aside valid (from our POV) judgments, does it not?

1.30.2008 11:10pm

(link)

Malvolio:

The name -- or at least its use of the word "terrorism" -- isn't as stupid as it might seem at first blush. The most prominent libel tourist is probably Khalid bin Mahfouz, who used libel charges to get every copy of one book, Alms for Jihad, pulped by its publisher. US publishers of anti-terrorist books that might be sued in the UK are understandably concerned that they might face the same problem.

1.31.2008 12:30am

(link)

Bruce:

I'm not sure I understand why New York needs to reach out and grab foreign citizens with no contacts here so that it can issue declaratory judgements about whether, if they hypothetically tried to enforce a foreign judgement inconsistent with the First Amendment in NY, it would be enforced. This seems like a "you can't fire me, I quit!" sort of maneuver. Why not just follow the rule that's been in place for centuries, that the court can review the foreign judgement (on narrow grounds) once enforcement is requested?

1.31.2008 12:59am

(link)

Duffy Pratt (mail):

The law might be sound if enacted by Congress. The NY State legislature is not the best body for making foreign policy. I'm not sure but I think that a law like this might trample on a uniquely federal prerogative. I don't remember its name, but there is a case that struck down a state statute that would have denied probate where a will passed property to someone in a country that didn't respect our view of property (i,e. Communist countries). The court found that even though estate law was ordinarily a state matter, the state could not use its probate law to enact its own foreign policy.

1.31.2008 5:37am

(link)

Philistine (mail):

I don't remember its name, but there is a case that struck down a state statute that would have denied probate where a will passed property to someone in a country that didn't respect our view of property (i,e. Communist countries). The court found that even though estate law was ordinarily a state matter, the state could not use its probate law to enact its own foreign policy.

Zschernig v. Miller, 389 U.S. 429 (1968)

1.31.2008 11:27am