called american life and. two history books i need to read and want to read and in 85 years. the third book is called "restless genius". it is a story of a famous and very influential journalistic barney kilgore who was the editor of "the wall street journal" who created the modern "wall street journal" and in many ways modernity journalism and there has been a very interesting biography that was written against barney kilgore who will go down in history to created what we think of journalism and for fun i want to read "the rocket that fell to earth" which is the book about roger clemens how he rose and thanks to the drug controversy has somehow fallen.

>> , lead channels funds to organizations in riyal for the statement despite the fact there are c-span cameras in the room despite the fact that this lecture rear having is

being broadcast via the world wide web to every country in the world how is that i could make in this statement against this man? i do so because of the protections of the first amendment and the understanding that speech even speech that might impair others' opinions of an individual if untrue is projected in this country. yet to unfortunately that is not the case in all countries of the world as some analysts have unfortunately discovered when one of our speakers, however first speaker dark 39 made similar claims supported by government documents a suit was brought against her in britain and over $200,000 in damages were leveled against her. this particular problem is one that has been labeled libel

tourism the adr that individuals will seek hospitable jurisdiction in which to bring a libel case against individuals who may not have published or targeted their publications in those particular countries. we have a very distinguished panel gathered today to discuss this topic for the first is dr. rachel ehrenfeld the director of the new york based american center for democracy and the center of the study of corruption and rule of law. the author of "funding evil" how terrorism is financed and how to stop it" and "narcoterrorism". dr. ehrenfeld and authority of the movement of funds and finding terrorism and has a unique understanding of the challenges of international terrorism of democracy and freedom and dow money-laundering and political corruption facilitates terror financing and economic terrorism. she is a visiting scholar at

the columbia university institute, a research scholar at the new york university school of law and a fellow at john hopkins of the finance international studies and the jesus college at cambridge university. she has a ph.d. in criminology from the hebrew university's school of law. the second speaker is andrew mccarthy the chair from the center of a lot and counter-terrorism. a former federal prosecutor and a contributor at "national review" online and as assistant united states attorney for the southern district of new york to lead the prosecution against the jihad organization in which one doesn't islamic militants were convicted of conducting a war of urban terrorism against the it is states that included

the 1993 world trade center bombing and a plot to bomb new york city landmarks. mr. mccarthy has made major contributions to the prosecution's glove the bombers in tanzania and the millennium plot attacks against the lax airport. falling september 11th he supervise u.s. attorney antiterrorism command post with preventive efforts with federal and state law-enforcement agencies and intelligence agencies. 1999 through 2003 chief assistant u.s. attorney responsible for federal law enforcement and the six counties north of new york city. our finals speaker is the heritage foundation senior policy analyst, andrew grossman cellpro liberties and

privacy issues and domestic and intelligence operations legal aspect of economic regulation and tort law and most recently the advantage of bankruptcy compared to a real love for the u.s. auto industry per before being named a senior policy it -- he was a writer and general analyst at heritage contributing to the think-tank research program of economic policy for policy and legal affairs. and other works have been published in dozens of newspapers and magazines from "usa today" to the socialist modern times. before joining the heritage foundation he manage city and state level campaigns in philadelphia. thank you for coming today and let's begin with dr. ehrenfeld. >> thank you.

this is the book "funding evil" how terrorism is financed and how to stop it" the subtitle is a look the saudis do not want you to read. people needed because the saudis did not what this book read. but i am not sure that you are right by saying that you mention his name here because you are safe because you have the protection of the first amendment. that was the impression i had when i wrote the book as well. i had enough evidence to prove what i was doing was well-documented. this may not be good for the british courts and in new york and illinois have laws to protect me and residents from

illinois, i don't know but this is why we're waiting to see how quickly the free-speech protection act which was proposed by senator specter, lieberman and senator schumer and hopefully soon by congressman peter king, will pass congress but then he will be protected as well everybody in the united states because now if you make such a statement they will put a pin 32 in england if they feel like that. you are a brave man. [laughter] i have to tell you that it well known international law professors in this city of washington d.c. refuse to

write about the importance of the free speech protection act because they did not want to mention my case. why not? they thought they would be sued. why do we need the free-speech protection act? what is liable tourism? that is when foreigners go to another jurisdiction to sue people who do not live and the jurisdiction. england has become notorious for allowing foreigners have nothing to do with england to come and see people because some of the awards that they claim or alleged comes 30

england. for example, my book which was published and sold only in the united states 23 copies found their way to england and one was published on the internet. that was enough for the judge in england to decide he had jurisdiction then proceeded with the case against me which i did not acknowledge and therefore they gave me a judgment by default against me. in never actually went to court in new york to ask the judgment but in new york several times i was harassed, i have threats, but you never actually tried to enforce the judgment. however in court even now several times he will refuse to say he will not try to

exercise his right to enforce the law. enforce the judgment from england. that is what is threatening me. in addition to the fact he has a web site not only where he publishes my name and the judgment against rebut the names and apologies and judgments of more than 40 publishers and writers, many americans, not only americans, but all of them are from the west england and france and other places. what he did, he gave england england, he silenced the media and the west from writing about who funds terrorism? if not all the balls now the

free-speech protection act which is only to protect the american writers and publishers to write freely when they can document everything that they say, but also it is important to national security. it is very important from our own national security. congress must protect american writers and the publishers with a wide open debate. since there is a movement, "the new york times", "washington post" and many other newspapers and all free-speech organizations they have made statements and is submitted statements to congress in support of the free-speech protection act. i think it is important for everybody to do whatever they

can to support the bill and congress must pass this bill as soon as possible. we needed now, it should not be lying there for credit is important for all american publishers especially these days when the economy is not doing too well and re-enter economic warfare, writers need to be able to right to free the and we need the free-speech protection act. thank you. [applause] >> . >> a good morning it is a

great pleasure to be here as it always is to be at the heritage foundation were so much important work gets done. my main purpose of this morning is to try to tie libel tourism and to the more general framework of warfare issues we have dealt with since september 11th. but listening to rachel's remarks it is important to stress, i am always concerned with these legal issues that we get sucked into the niceties of the law sometimes at the expense of the more important overall policy issues are. it is not always about balage although lot of national security or debate needs to take place within the framework for growth i was at

the justice department for example, when we had the notorious wall regulation. this was the regulation that did not allow the intelligence side of the fbi to communicate with prosecutors or criminal investigators. if you took a step back when the war was deeply criticized because it defended us from the last chance is that we had to uncover the 9/11 plot, the people that were trying to defend themselves said if you look at these regulations they did not stop people from communicating. i suppose that is right to look at them they were byzantine but could re-read in a way that suggested maybe you could still information over to the other side or maybe you could not depending on who was during their meeting. but the point* was not so much the regulation as these those

that came out -- the ethos that came out to that it was forbidden to communicate or show what the left hand was doing and that was a big national security problem just not the regulation but what they reflected of the government's philosophical approach to national security issues. with respect to libel tourism and though loftier issues we're dealing with, we have the same sort of ethos which is arriving at of this and it is asking us how confident we are of the american way of doing things frankly. that is all about free expression. not just free expression as a first amended value and what the cases say but what free

expression means to a political community such as the one that we have? the recognition that if we are not able to have a robust exchange of information and we can develop and make good policy or the type of policy that we need to protect ourselves from our really is a perilous threats against us. we have the most whinney military on the planet contrary to what it seems these last months, we also have an economy that is the envy throughout the world. but where the threats against us comes that we have those assets is on the american way of doing things to protect ourselves of setting policy and the best instrument to carry out that threat against us has been our legal system.

that is what the use of western legal procedures and process in order to undermined western freedom. libel tourism cents nicely into the framework but it is far from the only variety of that challenge we are dealing with. a couple of days ago i was at a speech in new york that was given by the dutch parliamentarians. wilders had his own tussle with the british system, not so much the legal system but the british government which refused to allow him entry into great britain in order to screen his film. it was a movie only "60 minutes" long which highlights

the nexus between the commands of islamic doctrine and acts of islamic terrorism and tracks we have basically seen over the last 15 or 20 years in that regard. wilders was not allowed to enter great britain and the reason was because the government made a decision that both his speech and the film he wanted to show which was not made up of his words but was verbatim quotations take another q'uaran was two offensive and constituted a speech and therefore was not something they thought british years should year because it would upset with a jerk to be the placid harmonious nature of the community. contrast that with about one year before almost to the day he england welcomed into its

borders the chief spokesman for hezbollah which was the top officials the wholly owned television station by contrast again with the development we have only seen in the last week which is an alleged jihadist to be held than guantanamo bay the last five years because there is very strong evidence to believe when he was captured in pakistan and route to the united states to carry out terrorist attacks here with jose padilla. he was held by gitmo and the british demanded him back. although he is not a british citizen but an ethiopian. they demanded him back because he had been a british resident and the illegal justification to have residence in england again.

muhammed is not singular they have welcomed any number of alleged jihadist who had a right to reside in england. wilders allowed to roam free. beyond a level tourism and a love-hate speech laws which are used to suppress expression i would suggest there are more subtle and dangerous methods of pressing speech within the framework of warfare. in our own country, we are dealing with a government that has set about accomplishing what i would call a language birch. there's speech guidelines

propounded by the state department, department of homeland security and some segments of the intelligence committee which basically counseled people within government not to use terms like jihad, islamofacism jihad, islamofacism, because they are trying to wipe out or bleach out the nexus between islamic doctrine and acts of terrorism. think they are under the eight nazi idea that if we don't talk about these problems, they will go away but the only way we can make the sensible policy that will allow us to defend ourselves if we have a robust exchange of information about islamic doctrines, the perils of that and we have in a way that is not fearful of offending. we also have the problem i think of the infiltration in

our governmental agency of people who have an agenda to suppress any examination of the connection between the islamic ideology and the acts of terror that we have. so it is not only a situation where we are dealing with speech codes and what the legal books actually say, but we are again lamenting the attitude or the ethos which is supportive of exactly the opposite thing of what we need to make sensible policy. we are suppressing information. i think the result is we set up a situation where we've fight a repetition of the very violence we have been dealing with the last eight years. thank you [applause]

>> my remarks will focus on the legislative approaches that the federal level that is a problem with level tourism but we would be remiss to speak at any event such as this without raising dr. ehrenfeld role to bring this particular issue to public attention and to doing so much to attract the interest of congress, her state legislature in new york, it is no coincidence cellblocks that state has passed on this issue is known as rituals lot. dr. ehrenfeld in addition to being a victim of libel tourism has done more than anyone else. >> [inaudible] >> addition to fighting libel

tourism has done more to advance and protect americans a first amendment rights and we hope congress will act to combat this issue if and when they do will to be be a victory for all of us especially for dr. ehrenfeld. it is also putting forward breeze to congress. has many different and the issues competing for its attention but but congress both the house and senate has recognized the importance it is a genuine issue and one of the few issues that comes around from time to time where americans free-speech rights are really under threat two and are being diminished.

i think the hearings that have been held in the different legislative proposals put forward display a thoughtfulness on the members of congress as well as staff understanding this is an important issue to understand a different approaches that may be taken into combat. it is worth discussing in brief differences that give rise to this particular problem. the first amendment in the world is unique. united states is the only country that provides such ironclad protection to expressive rights. it is unbridled and legal protections that exist in any other country. unfortunately that seems to be the case increasingly these days. other countries pass laws with judicial process sees that pay more attention to avoid being a fence of waiting denigration of religion, avoiding

denigration of other groups that may take offense. they also pay increasing attention to libel and also the ones and needs often to the exclusion that reports those feelings and contribute to a better government overall. unfortunately even in much of the western world it is not the case of the united states where our projections for free speech remains strong. the supreme court jurisprudence in the area of lipo in particular are strong placing a serious burden on the plaintiff and a libel case to prove the falsity of statements rendered against him or her or as well as different standards of the mental intent or malice brought to bear for the person should they prove false.

this is a harvard day's high hurdle to clear. a free press as at dr. ehrenfeld and mr. mccarthy have pointed out is really essential to our national security and policy making process. these projections are appropriate and they do allow that unbridled and free speech to go forward the clamps down on government corruption, improves the policy and it helps us in our foreign policy and national security as well. what i will discuss our to legislative proposals both of which we will put forward in the previous congress and when was it just introduced in the current congress. libel tourism in the legal sphere will take a two-pronged approach for the first will provide protections to those who are victims or abusive four in a libel judgments.

the key is simply to make crystal clear the united states will not enforce these judgments. it may be the case under most states' laws they will be unenforceable but the law is very general and concerns the overall notion of public policy that any court could decide a different way and it could lead to an expensive and tedious legal process. the first up is to provide a shield to the victims that they can get out in front of and the awards imposed against them with foreign countries. the second part, is to detour the suits from rising in the first place. many suits including that of dr. ehrenfeld are not enforced in the states. the goal is to suppress speech not to win damages or collect money but to suppress speech.

the very existence of a foreign judgment hanging over the head of an american author can serve that purpose or a warning to other authors that they will be met with a similar legal process these they may stricter travel or ability to obtain credit so the very existence of a foreign libel judgment is damaging and of itself whether or not is ever enforced in the united states. . .

similar piece of legislation put forward last year in the house by representative king. this legislation is very thoughtful and crafted and fulfills those ponds moly providing protection to people who been victims of libel judgments but also working to detour that recognizing that the overall chilling affect me the far greater than the individual judgments themselves. a separate bill was introduced in the previous commerce by representative kuhl when that only took the first portion of that approach that would render foreign libel judgment to abusive libel judgments on enforceable in the united states court and was laudable and representative coen has given a lot of thought to this

particular problem, and everyone was heartened to see of course the great attention paid to his legislation in congress and indeed, it did pass the house in the previous congress. and so is our hope of course but representative coen and all of those who support his approach to the law will continue to think about different ways to approach this particular problem and recognize the incredible a detrimental affect these judgments can have against those whom they've not even been brought against. a final point i would make is i think the second and d mccarthy simmons we have to think about the problem of libel and broader context of our national security policies and foreign relations. this is a court, not a legal problem. it is a foreign policy problem and the ways we deal with foreign policy involve diplomacy

, involves negotiations on an international bilateral or multilateral scale and sometimes involves boots on the ground although that is not what we are perhaps discussing today. but the chief way to protect a libel and guard against these abusive with libel judgments will be to make the case to the countries of the world that free speech serves their interests. to protect the citizens of those countries as well as those of the united states, to provide them with full protection of free speech and ability to engage in on inhibited the date. it's a difficult battle and one where unfortunately we haven't made success in recent years. the bush administration for example was frequently accused of leaving free speech and civil liberties as part of its agenda and that is an unfair accusation. but it certainly is our hope that the obama administration

will make that amongst the centerpieces of its international multilateral agenda especially an organization such as the united nations which all too often seem to hold a contrary view. that will be the way we are able to do more than simply, that the issue of libel tourism but ended entirely and prevent abusive libel laws affecting not just americans but citizens of the world. thank you. [applause] >> well, as moderator i will take the privilege of asking the first question and following up on andrew's last discussion we of course a tragic error in putting to andrews on one panel. i will refer to mr. grossman and mr. mccarthy as andy for some degree of clarity.

>> it's not what i am usually called at these things, so i appreciate that. [laughter] >> but looking at the growth of libel tourism, one british publishing house noted that the number of these cases tripled in 2007 and that 13% of the libel cases in britain keeping in mind they have a fairly large number to begin with given the relatively less libel standards were the sort of, you know, speech suppressing libel tourism type cases. how is it -- how is the best approach to try to curtail and suppress these lawsuits if these individuals are not really seeking the monetary award? if their goal is to suppress speech our monetary damages in u.s. courts, which likewise may be difficult to enforce an

effective means if not what means of diplomacy should be pursued i would be interested in the views of everyone on the panel on this particular question. >> i think that part of what was discussed, and i think it's very important, is the ability to countersue, and that will i think put a little bit of hesitation in people who are trying to soothe americans. and then this is technical stuff, which is more to the voyles but there are questions about what would constitute -- because in civil cases usually serving papers to somebody is not considered jurisdiction,

right wax and in instances where somebody from outside of the united states comes and invades our privacy and threatens us at home and actually hauliers lawyers in order in the united states he's actually of attaining jurisdiction and that is one of the i think one of the measures at least i think we would try to address. it's important because otherwise we are just making statements and they are making statements and we need to bridge. when andrew mentioned the u.n., even the u.n. committee for civil rights in geneva made a statement last year, last july

calling on britain or warning britain to stop its level tourism because it is stifling free speech and political debate and from a u.n. organization to see something like that is nothing short of a miracle. so, maybe that will also help to move england and england would be nice to do it first. and there is some debate going on although i understand that in most being considered now is how to reconstruct the system for defendants and latin cases. but i hope the british law and the judges and the parliament will stop in and do something to change the law to allow more free speech. >> well, i blood agree and

disagree somewhat with one of the last points andrew made. i think this first and foremost ought to be a diplomatic issue more than a judicial issue. frankly, i think that our whole approach to national security, which regards it in a knee-jerk way as mainly a legal challenge rather than a policy diplomatic military challenge and what ever different level of conflict we were involved in is just wrong. i think our tradition, and this is something that's reflected i think i want to say 1940 supreme court case, chicago southern case written by justice jackson addressed the confidence of judges to deal with some of these national security issues.

the issue in the chicago southern case happened to the intelligence collection but i think the rationale could be applied to a variety of different national security contexts and what jackson said and i think it's interesting it was jackson since he was a giant in two different worlds he was fdr's attorney general so he was a giant in the political sphere and also a supreme court justice, but what he said was number one, judges are not institutionally competent to deal with what are really executive responsibilities. now, you could argue and we have argued and we have tried to address that problem by setting up specialized courts such as fisa for example to try to husband all of the surveillance issues under one judicial roof to answer a problem that judges are not -- there's nothing about

being a lawyer that makes one confident in these issues but the other part jackson raised cuts across the whole swath of national security issues and can't be addressed buy simply channelling everything into one courthouse so the judges get better and more adept at dealing with it. and that is that a political community, the most important decisions that it makes our decisions that it makes an out its security. and we did the framers -- the system the framers gave set up to deal with that was that the people whose lives were at stake -- i should say the people who make decisions about national security have to be answerable to the people whose lives are at stake. they have to be accountable. and when you advocate these national security questions

whatever they are to the judiciary, you're basically taking it to the insulated branch that is not -- does not answer to the people whose lives are at stake and to you can't get rid of when they get it wrong, which again is a big problem in this context and almost all of the other ones. and if there was conceived in the executive branch that libel tourism was a big problem and we needed to do something about it they could do something about it tomorrow. they could already have done something about it a bit with andrew. i think unfortunately that we have come about a national security strategy, which says we can somehow separate jihadists violence from jihadists ideology. so basically we can ignore the

connection that empirically we have seen again and again and again between a stream of jihadists ideology and the acts of terrorism that we've seen the last 15 or 20 years. we want to take the position and this was the position the justice department took when i prosecuted cases in the 90's and it is as if we haven't learned a thing since then. we want to take the position that all that we are interested in is people who blow up buildings or people who carry out acts of brutality and that if you are not actively this minute walking down a skyscraper you can be a moderator because if you are willing to accomplish your moderate incomes through a political process we think you are just fine. and we are happy to deal with you. and part of that project is on fortunately to put a happy face

on this train of islamic ideology and i don't want to be misunderstood. there is all sorts of islam, but we are dealing here with a very definite strain of islam that is 14 centuries old, a rich pedigree, commander of the allegiance of all sorts of people, educated, more educated, rich, poor, etc.. but what we want to do is basically the position that the acts of violence we've seen are somehow not connected to ideology put a happy face on what's causing its and say we can attack terrorism by just dealing with the people who actually carried out rather than the ideology that motivates it and for that reason i don't think our government is particularly interested and pleased at the executive branch level at the diplomatic level of putting pressure to end this

problem and on a lot congress for the fact it is stepping up to the plate to do something about it but a really isn't at the level of government where i think this ought to be addressed. >> i think that the tourism, the passage of libel tourism would help to stem the tide if you want on what you were describing because unless we have the possibility to continue to express herself freely and to date politically of these issues we will end up -- we will not have our rights, restricted and repressed. so i think also it seems -- and it's a national security issue, too, but it's basically a speech issue which political debate is what the first amendment is all about. that is my understanding of it,

and people have studied it much better. and legal scholars. this is why i think that it is important and the debates about the ideology what is right and what is wrong what can continue. but as long as we will not have these i think we will be more oppressed and prevented from discussing exactly what you are talking about. >> i don't disagree with any of that and what i'm trying to say is i think the way that we should be dealing with this would have been at the executive branch diplomatic level with that not being done, i think it is obvious that we have to have these measures that allow lawsuits to go forward and it's not enough to have them just be a shield because at a certain level there is a game being played. a guy like dan mack doesn't want to execute judgment against rachel. i know he's saying maybe i will,

maybe i won't. he's being elusive what his intentions are but that is part of -- that's part of the intimidation factor of it and it's not just the journalists. i actually don't even think it is the journalists who is primarily an issue. this is something that is intended to intimidate not only people like rachel, but book publishers, donors and other sponsors who would otherwise sponsor rachel's work and the important thing again in terms of policy is rachel those come and some of us who also worked in the national security opinion business to win places where the government, for political reasons either doesn't want to go or can't go or is on able to go and if you shut off this pipeline of information we are going to have appallingly bad policy. >> let's get in through a chance to respond and get a couple of

questions from the audience. >> i would second the views of andy and dr. ehrenfeld that free speech of course is in national security issue. especially with respect to a vibrant community of academic researchers so far as robert's initial question on what is the best way, again, i think you need to have this sort of a two-step approach not merely to protect the individuals who are the victims of these suits but as well to detour the occurrence of these abusive lawsuits to begin with because again the point of the lawsuits is not to collect money. point of the lawsuits is to detour and suppress speech and unless there is some some sort of deterrent mechanism in affect the lawsuits will continue because they are still damaging even if they cannot be enforced in the united states. >> and if i may just -- because

i think largely we are here because of him. the fact we started suing more than 40, 45 publishers and authors, if somebody who isn't caught once i guess they don't really want to go back. from what other members of the family have said he was doing it not only for himself. he was doing it on behalf of the family and the importance of the national security issue here is because he single-handedly stop reporting, intimidated the media, the western media from reporting on who in saudi arabia is funding terrorism and how they do it. so, you read about charities that receive money here, etc..

but saudi arabia is its own state? no. why? well, how do we know that they are finding anything? we don't because they start back in the beginning of 2002, shortly after 9/11. so this is why it's very important. >> let's open it up to questions from the audience. and when you get the microphone -- please mic and if he could give your name and if any affiliation. >> various affiliations. i've been around this town a lot. i was interested in but mr. mccarthy was saying about executive action and diplomacy to deal with the problem. in the case of ben mafus you have people talking to their saudi counterpart presenting evidence that he's doing this

when you have in mind? >> well, no. what i had in mind in the short term was diplomatic exchange between the united states and the united kingdom about the use of their courts as a weapon of some welfare designed to suppress speech that's necessary to make good counterterrorism policy. >> roger in the center. >> i am roger with the cato institute. i want to pick up on the point and the mccarthy raised about the importance focusing on the ideology because of course this was driven by the kind of intolerance for criticism for the dissent that creates so much of the world and that calls into question andy's plight it's in the interest of these countries to have a robust first amendment protection. i don't think it is. i think these people understand perfectly it's in their interest to suppress speech because that

is a threat to their continuation in power. but on the diplomatic point it seems to me we have got much richer. rachel mengin the council on civil rights but there's also on human rights were much of the mischief is taking place and they are calling for statutory restraint on speech all over the world as an attack on religion if you will. we are not without financial power with respect to the u.n., and of course you called for diplomacy. this is one of the things the administration and all administrations have been reluctant to do generally is to use our financial leverage at the u.n. with to bring to the attention of the people there are prices to be paid. also can you imagine something like royalty levin as we have in this country for addressing this

kind of problem and that is a separate question perhaps you've given some thought into that. >> well i will start if that's okay. cruelty 11 -- rule 11 should be invoked i think we're here with respect to a lot more than the first amendment type of suits than it actually is. i don't have much hope of it coming across the border if the first amendment can't i don't think the rule 11 that is more upon here we can expect much of that overseas. i completely agree with you about the human. as you were speaking about it i was thinking about the declaration of human rights in islam which is another vehicle we are seeing out of the general assembly and particularly the organization of the islamic conference which is cranking out

all sorts of the speech suppression stuff. i also agree they realize robust expression is not in their interest, but i would also suggest because i think ideology is behind this that we have to come to terms with the fact that we have a very particular important devah data that i don't think can be bridged which is not only islamic radicals but in the islamic world it is the prevalent belief they are operating on the basis of received truth. they reject the idea of a robust exchange of ideas on all sorts of matters to arrive at with the best policy is. they believe on the basis of their religion that they have the best policy and that's the reason they so aggressively argue for standards which we would think of as just regular

old academic criticism but they take to be felonious attacks on islam. this would be something i suppose we could make into a smaller problem were it not for the fact that on light the religious traditions we are more familiar with in the west islam isn't simply a religion. it's basically a comprehensive sociopolitical system with a religious component and they have the same assumption of received the truth with respect to all aspects, not just what we would think of as theology. >> this is weigel park was upset that the pakistanis for example agreed to the swap agreement. so, we don't want any kind of similar sharia law here at the end.

>> it is coming closer. >> i think we have time for one last question did you have one, tom? >> todd from here at heritage and i need to give my colleague, andrew grossman extra time and i might not agree this is a larger diplomatic problem, just addressing the legislation, andrew, i wonder if he wouldn't elaborate a little on the point in your paper, the 13 fish in you think they'll all ought to have regarding the pending bill i should say, bills i should say. whether authors who avail themselves of another market that might have that libel law reverses and author who just makes their the books available on amazon and it is fortuitous that some, somebody from britain orders a book off an american

website. >> to begin with -- the approach taken by the free-speech protection act is exactly the right one. some of us may disagree at the margins on the details of exactly when it should be applied and i think there are two particular areas there has been disagreement. on the first scenario you've alluded to i was with an individual who was a u.s. person and an author willingness willing to submit his or herself to the country. there are a lot of complicated questions we are talking about publication on the internet, availability worldwide via amazon. and the courts have developed, you know, the doctrine of minimal contact to resolve a lot of these questions but what about the individual who publishes a book in britain, ma someone whose book is incidentally imported to britain were available from amazon of, and happens to wind up over

there but someone who actually goes to britain and publishes a book in violation of british law? the breschel may be a bad law and in this case is certainly is, but that author has deliberately subjected him or herself to the traditional and as a sort of base matter of sovereignty should probably have to bear the consequences. we need to draw the line between protecting speech in the united states and protecting americans' own speech and engaging in policies that may in the and threaten our own national sovereignty as those policies are adopted by foreign countries in different contexts. and then the second sort of scenario i might bring up is the question of the jurisdictional application of an antilibel tourism all. there are real fact intensive questions about whether any particular libel plaintiff in a

foreign country necessarily has a jurisdictional look to the united states whether that person has engaged with such contact he or she can be held in the u.s. courts. in many cases it will be very clear cut. these are american individuals. of course they can. if there are people who are physically present in the united states they can. if they have contact with the united states, they can. but what about the individual who is saudi arabia and serving in british courts and obtains one of the cities of libel judgments? you get into very difficult questions and again, there are some sort of policy externalities' that could potentially be quite damaging to the united states and u.s. government officials particularly upon the embrace of the concept of jurisdiction in other words the idea our courts can reach out and pull in these people who don't have a lot of ties with the u.s. and any particular