Newsgroup: it.politica
Titolo: Islamists are attacking freedom of speech

Freedom of speech is under attack. Let us count the ways.
The first and most obvious: Those who criticize militant Islamists -- from
novelist Salman Rushdie to Danish cartoonists to memoirist Ayaan Hirsi
Ali -- are routinely threatened with deadly violence. It would be black
humor to say this is having a chilling effect.
The second is "political correctness." On campuses and within Western
governments it is increasingly taboo to label terrorists who slaughter in
the name of Islam "Islamist terrorists." In Canada, "human rights
commissions" attempt to enforce this taboo by putting such writers as Mark
Steyn and Ezra Levant on trial for the "crime" of expressing opinions that
offend Islamic grievance groups -- and also for quoting Islamists accurately
and thereby casting them in an unfavorable light. If that's not Orwellian,
what is?
But it is the third approach that could be most consequential for Americans.
It's known as "libel tourism" and here's how it works: A book published in
the United States names an individual abroad who supports terrorist groups.
That individual -- for the sake of discussion, let's say he's a Saudi
petro-billionaire with a home in London -- goes online and orders a few
copies, which arrive in the mail. He takes those books to a British attorney
who files a lawsuit complaining that his client has been libeled.
The billionaire knows it will be much easier to prevail in the U.K. than it
would be in an American court, where the First Amendment and decades of case
law provide free speech protections. (Under English law, by contrast, the
burden in a libel case is on the defendant to prove his innocence -- which
can be impossible if he's been using confidential sources or even just
sources who don't want to cross an ocean and take part in a courtroom
battle.)
The legal costs are chump change for the billionaire, while few nonfiction
writers command similar resources. If the writer chooses not to spend months
living in a hotel and fighting it out in court, the case will be forfeited
and he will be hit with a "default judgment." If he doesn't pay, he'll never
again be able to set foot in the U.K. and other countries that enforce
British court judgments.
But more important is this: The message gets sent, loud and clear, to
journalists, scholars and publishers, that researching and writing about
terrorists and those who enable them is verboten -- even in America.
Publisher Roger Kimball has noted that when he was about to publish "Andy
McCarthy's Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad," he received a message
from a distributor working in the U.K. and Canada asking if there were "any
references to Saudis and terrorist(s) in the book" as that "could
potentially create libel lawsuits as it could offend Saudis living in
England and this has happened with many other U.S. publications and we do
not want to be jeopardized in selling this book." No, no -- we wouldn't want
that, would we?
Kimball was not intimidated but some writers, no doubt, have been, and other
publishers have not just turned down "risky" books but pulled volumes from
shelves and destroyed them following threats of legal action.
What can be done to protect Americans from having our speech restricted by
foreign terrorist financiers, foreign lawyers, foreign judges and their
toadies?
Representatives Peter King (R-N.Y.) and Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) have
introduced the Free Speech Protection Act of 2008, which would give
Americans who find themselves in the situation described above a "federal
cause of action" to sue right back -- and to claim legal fees, costs and
significant damage awards as well if a U.S. court concludes that the foreign
suit was "a scheme to suppress First Amendment rights."
What's more, the bill would provide "expedited discovery": The plaintiff
would be compelled to disclose information and documents relevant to the
charges -- something few investors in terrorist enterprises are eager to do.
On the Senate side, the bill is being shepherded by Senators Joseph
Lieberman, (DI-Conn.), Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), and Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.).
What obstacles are preventing this bill from being passed into law? Let us
count them.
First, although there is bipartisan support for this approach, not enough
backers -- so far at least -- are from the majority party: Of ten sponsors
on the House side, only one is a Democrat. Second, we're deep into the
presidential campaign season, a time when very little moves on Capitol Hill.
Third, never underestimate the ability of the Saudis, their lobbyists, their
allies and their courtiers, to kill that which interferes with their
interests.
(Clifford D. May is president of the Foundation for the Defense of
Democracies, a policy institute focusing on terrorism. E-mail him at
cliff(at)
defenddemocracy.org
)
http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/35760
-- 
Give us back our countries: Stop the criminal multiculturalism ideology
enforced upon the white world against the will of its peoples, leading to
mass immigration from the third-world: Mul-cul + pol-corr = lethal mixture
for the white world. And give us back our freedom: Dismantle all
surveillance technology.

 Ali -- are routinely threatened with deadly violence.
Exactely the same is happening in Italy !
Please free us from "left" and communist parties !