If compare viagra prices online people find symptoms are greatly affecting their day-to-day life, they order no rx acomplia can discuss medication options with their doctor. If vision problems discount lumigan or a combination of health problems prevent people from working, order discount cream online effects they may be eligible for benefits. This type of planning purchase diovan online may help alleviate unnecessary pain and discomfort, improve quality of vibramycin from india life, and provide a better understanding of decision-making challenges for buy cheap compazine a person and their caregivers. Any condition that can lead buy glucophage internet to partial obstruction or narrowing of a person's airways can toradol free sample cause wheezing. "The more we understand the genomics of cancer, cialis generic the closer we are to bringing the best treatment or order gentamicin eye drops prevention plan to each individual," said Dr. Nguyen. Rarely, if purchase cheap 60 sale dangers melanoma is present on a digit such as a finger where to order cialis or a toe and has spread into deep tissues, doctors diovan online without a prescription may consider amputating the digit. As a result, anyone can generic erythromycin experience gender inequity and sexism based on how they behave and.

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.