Michelle Malkin » “One of the most important First Amendment cases in the past 25 years”

“One of the most important First Amendment cases in the past 25 years”

By Michelle Malkin • August 6, 2007 08:36 AM

Alyssa Lappen at Frontpage magazine spotlights intrepid Rachel Ehrenfeld’s battle against speech-squelching Saudi billionaire Khalid Bin Mahfouz.

See also Mark Steyn’s latest column on the disappearance of Alms for Jihad.

Michael Rubin notes silence from the Middle East Studies Association’s Committee on Academic Freedom.

Stanley Kurtz pushes for mainstream media coverage of libel tourism and lays out the stakes:

The issues at stake include freedom of speech, national sovereignty, the legal and social effects of the Internet, and the war on terror. Several questions present themselves, including: 1) Is mainstream media coverage failing as a direct or indirect outcome of the earlier suits? 2) Did the earlier suits leveled at major newspapers and magazines include specific agreements forbidding future coverage? 3) Are American libraries complying with Cambridge University Press’s letter calling for the withdrawal of Alms for Jihad from their shelves? 4) What, if any, are their legal obligations to comply? 5) Are libraries that chose not to comply in any danger? 5) Why are we not hearing anything more from the American publishing industry about the threat they are under?

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL

Comments

#1

On August 6th, 2007 at 9:12 am, Boomer said:

The financial backers of the Global Jihad need to be exposed for what they are. One of the first rules in warfare is to know your opponent. Something we in the West have been failing miserably at. I would love to get my hands on a copy of the book, but looks like it will be tough to come by.

Great to see this was not brought before the 9th Circus Court. They would have sold-out the 1st Amendment in a heartbeat. Michelle thanks again for keeping us in the loop, without sites like yours we are at the mercy of the Liberal MSM, which tells us only what they think we need to hear.
#2

On August 6th, 2007 at 9:23 am, Bicyea said:

Boomer,
Pam has a link up to booksonboard.com they have it MobiPocket Reader for $17.38
#3

On August 6th, 2007 at 9:51 am, SirKnob said:

Another fine example of PC gone mad. How can any logically thinking person agree with this. But, then I answer my own question. Logic and liberal PC go together like trial attorneys and justice. Never the twain shall meet.

I note “Alms for Jihad” is available as an e-book. Maybe MM will add it to the required reading list and offer it online Have a great day all
#4

On August 6th, 2007 at 10:18 am, 3Steps said:

I don’t know much about copywrite law. The book was written by Burr and Collins.. isn’t it their book? Couldn’t they do a ’second edition update’ and publish it legally in the US?
#5

On August 6th, 2007 at 10:31 am, Alphonse said:

Freedom of speech is passe.

Would a reasonable person find the material politically correct is the new test that must be applied by the courts.
#6

On August 6th, 2007 at 10:38 am, Boomer said:

Bicyea thanks for the link! I will order it when I get home from work.
#7

On August 6th, 2007 at 10:45 am, DesertLover said:

The ting is the definition of PC is relative … as in:

The Far Left … PC = Politically Correct

Left of Center … PC = Probably Correct

Center … PC = Possibly Correct

Right of Center … PC = Probably Challengeable

Right … PC = Pure Crap
#8

On August 6th, 2007 at 11:30 am, josetheguerilla said:

Unbelievable! What the hell is wrong with those British judges? Legal terrorism is ludicrous! It’s like Nightmare on Elm Street. Freddy Kreuger meets Jonnie Cochran. If the gloves does not fit, you must acquit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
#9

On August 6th, 2007 at 3:14 pm, twoninerkilo said:

I’m thinking the world needs more asylums.
#10

On August 6th, 2007 at 8:23 pm, jeanie said:

Of course everyone in this country who wants to read it should be able. Question: Is this Saudi czar against it because it shows him as a jihadist financier or because it shows that Saudis in general are speaking with forked tongue when it comes to jihad? I wish someone would get permission to put excerpts on the WWW so we could read part of it for the time being.