There cheapest viagra price are things people can do to ease the symptoms at zithromax sale home, such as using a clean, damp washcloth on the t-ject 60 prescription affected area. People may also use over-the-counter (OTC) cold compresses order buy lowest dosage cheapest price and artificial tears to relieve the inflammation, redness, and dryness discount no no rx caused by pink eye. Cortical blindness denotes a loss of cheap online without a prescription vision due to damage in the visual cortex rather than order (ovral on internet from a condition within the eyes. Contralateral means that the purchase discount prescription sale visual field loss is on the opposite side of where buy internet the stroke occurred. Strokes affecting blood vessels that supply the amikacin pills back part of the brain are more difficult to diagnose order methotrexate due to nonspecific and changing symptoms. Strokes in the occipital buy methotrexate in us lobes may cause incomplete or complete blindness and other conditions buy cheap estrace online that manifest visual hallucinations or the inability to reach objects diclofenac for order using visual cues. In addition, anecdotal evidence suggests a person remeron prescription should thoroughly clean or replace any other eyewear such as eye.

There’s plenty of reason to be angry at Congress today, but the House, at least, has gotten one right. It passed a bill, H.R. 6146, with a very simple text, once you get past the preamble and definitions:

Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal or State law, a domestic court shall not recognize or enforce a foreign judgment concerning defamation unless the domestic court determines that the foreign judgment is consistent with the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

This is aimed at fighting back against libel tourism, which is a product of the Internet and the globalized economy. In Blown to Bits we tell the tale of a lawsuit successfully undertaken in Australia against a magazine published in the U.S., because of an article allegedly slandering an Australian businessman, Joseph Gutnick. Australia decided that the magazine was “published in” Australia because Barrons sent the bits there — that is, you could sit in Australia at your web browser, click a few links, and the story would appear on your screen. Australia follows U.K. conventions about defamation, which are much friendlier to the plaintiff than those in the U.S. First Amendment rights to free speech are so strong in the U.S. that you have to do a lot to say something about someone for which that person could collect damages.

So the bill essentially says that even if someone wins a libel suit against you in his own country, the U.S. courts won’t help him collect the damages, unless his country has the same free speech standards as the U.S. (which few places do).

This bill doesn’t solve the problem by any means. If you’re an American guilty of libel in Saudi Arabia, maybe U.S. courts won’t enforce the Saudi court’s judgment, but you probably don’t want to plan your next vacation for Riyadh, or you’ll get arrested. More seriously, if the defendant is a corporation — Dow Jones, say, which publishes Barrons — this law can’t prevent the plaintiff’s government from seizing its assets in that country, or imprisoning its employees.

Still, it’s a start, as the New York Times correctly editorializes today.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, September 30th, 2008 at 9:50 am and is filed under Censorship and free speech. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.