If celebrex approved you're sexually active and you or your partner can become zyprexa buy pregnant, talk with your doctor about your birth control needs buy augmentin online during Remicade treatment. A person should only use KI following order discount (metacam) online effects advice from local public health officials, emergency management officials, or cialis generic their doctor. Depending on clinical circumstances, the surgeon may be norvasc sale unable to perform an immediate anastomosis and will need to generic toradol redirect digestive waste directly from the ileum through a surgically sale cialis created hole in the abdominal wall (ileostomy). A late diagnosis buy methotrexate may happen in cases where the symptoms are mild and buy cheap serevent do not present in a way that typically suggests CF. cheap 60 in usa SHOP NOW Garmin is a technology company that provides GPS find cialis on internet navigation to the automotive, aviation, marine, outdoor, and fitness markets. levitra online Genetics, lifestyle factors, and infection can all increase the risk free viagra of a person developing abdominal lymphoma. Hormonal fluctuations can cause transgender.

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.