THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Volume XII, Issue # 21, February 1, 2010
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Government Committed to & Acting in Accord with Conservative Principles
Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity
ISLAMIST LAWFARE DEFEATED IN TEXAS
By Daniel Huff
LIBEL SUITS & U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY: ISLAMIST LAWFARE IN THE U.S.A. -- HOW AMERICAN LIBEL LAW CAN BE
MANIPULATED TO STIFLE DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION ABOUT TERRORISM & RADICAL ISLAM -- THE TEXAS
SUPREME COURT DEALS A HEAVY BLOW TO ISLAMIST GROUPS THAT USE LAWSUITS AS A FORM OF "LEGAL JIHAD,"
DENYING THEM THE RIGHT TO SILENCE INTERNET CRITICS OF ISLAMISM & THE ISLAMIST MOVEMENT. THE FREE
SPEECH RIGHTS OF INTERNET JOURNALISTS ARE UPHELD.
FULL STORY:
Libel suits are not normally associated with national security, but a case the Texas Supreme Court ruled on January 15, 2010,
carries just such implications. The suit against internet journalist Joe Kaufman is a prime example of how libel law can be
manipulated to stifle dissemination of information about terrorism and radical Islam.
It arises out of Kaufman's September 28, 2007, FrontPage Magazine article on the Islamic Circle of North America
(ICNA), which sponsored a "Muslim Family Day" at Six Flags Over Texas. Kaufman vowed to protest the event citing,
among other things, ICNA's alleged "physical ties with the Muslim Brotherhood and financial ties to Hamas."
Within days, Kaufman was sued, but not by ICNA. Rather, seven Dallas area Islamist organizations, none of them named in
the article, sued Kaufman for defamation, arguing they were implicated by inference, since they too sponsored the event. In
June, 2009, a Texas appellate court dismissed the case before it could go to trial because "a reasonable reader who was
acquainted with [plaintiffs] would not view Kaufman's statements as 'concerning' them." Undeterred, the seven Islamist
groups asked the Texas Supreme Court for review.
In what Kaufman termed a "victory for freedom," the Court rejected their petition and let the appeals court decision stand.
This result is important for two reasons. First, plaintiffs had argued that Kaufman, as an internet journalist, was not entitled to
certain procedural protections afforded traditional media defendants that make it easier for them to get libel cases dismissed
before they reach the costly trial phase. In a precedential ruling, the appellate court rejected this contention, finding generally
that "an internet communicator may qualify as a member of the media?."
Second, the lawsuit fits a growing pattern of Islamists exploiting libel law to silence critics. They file questionable suits
knowing they need not win to intimidate, demoralize, and bankrupt opponents. For example, in 2006, a Saudi banker's mere
threat to sue prompted Cambridge University Press to pulp unsold copies of a book on terror financing titled Alms for
Jihad, and to request American libraries to remove their copies from circulation.
That this tactic of "lawfare" may have had a role in the Kaufman case, was suggested in a May 17, 2009, broadcast of
"Crescent Report" hosted by Mahdi Bray, Executive Director of the Muslim American Legal Society Freedom Foundation.
After personally castigating Kaufman, Bray explained, "we've got to be willing to spend our money in a court of law … and
not necessarily because we're going to look for money, but … to spend our money and make you spend your money."
The appellate court found the plaintiffs could not even meet the basic requirements for proceeding. However, as a bid to use
legal fees to bleed Kaufman into submission, the suit was much more promising. In fact, Kaufman would almost certainly have
been bankrupt well before the case was dismissed, were it not for the legal and financial aid of those dedicated to defending
journalists from the threat of lawfare, including the Legal Project of the Middle East Forum and the Horowitz Freedom Center.
Kaufman explained that the plaintiffs' goal was to stop him from criticizing "those who wish to do harm to the United States,
specifically those tied to the extremist Muslim Brotherhood." Last Friday's decision has frustrated these Islamists designs.
A Texas tradition of vigorous commitment to free speech is evident in its founding documents. The 1836 Texas Independence
Constitution went even further than the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by guaranteeing an affirmative "liberty to
speak," rather than simply restricting governmental interference with debate. The Texas Supreme Court's decision preserves
this legacy and we should applaud it.
LINKS TO RELATED TOPICS:
Lawfare -- The Use of Law as a Weapon in War & Politics:
Islamist Lawfare & the "Legal" Jihad Against America & the West
Islamism & Jihadism -- The Threat of Radical Islam
Page Three
Page Two
Page One
Daniel Huff is Director of the Legal Project of the Middle East Forum. He is a graduate of the Columbia Law School, where he
was a Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar. Formerly, Huff was on the staff of the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, where he
worked on numerous legal and national-security issues. He focused on questions regarding the proper balance between
national security and individual rights.
The foregoing article by Daniel Huff was originally published in Frum Forum, January 25, 2010, and
can be found on the Internet website maintained by the Middle East Forum, a foreign policy think tank which seeks to
define and promote American interests in the Middle East, defining U.S. interests to include fighting radical Islam,
working for Palestinian Arab acceptance of the State of Israel, improving the management of U.S. efforts to promote
constitutional democracy in the Middle East, reducing America's energy dependence on the Middle East, more robustly
asserting U.S. interests vis-à-vis Saudi Arabia, and countering the Iranian threat.
(Article URL: http://www.meforum.org/2583/islamist-lawfare-defeated-in-texas)
Republished with Permission of the Middle East Forum
Reprinted from the Middle East Forum News
mefnews@meforum.org (MEF NEWS)
Fwbruary 1, 2010
Return to Top of Page
Go to the WEBSITE INDEX
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Public Issues & Political Controversies
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
Most Recent Articles
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Volume XII, 2010
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Subject Matter Highlights
Return to POLITICAL EDUCATION Homepage
CONTACT & ACCESS INFORMATION
This is not a commercial website. The sole purpose of the website is to share with interested persons information regarding civics,
civic and social education, political science, government, politics, law, constitutional law and history, public policy, and political
philosophy and history, as well as current and recent political developments, public issues, and political controversies.
POLITICAL EDUCATION, CONSERVATIVE ANALYSIS
POLITICS, SOCIETY, & THE SOVEREIGN STATE
Website of Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr.
Government, Politics, Public Policy, Legal Issues, Constitutional Law, Government & the Economy, Cultural Values, Foreign Affairs,
International Relations, Military Defense & National Security, Geopolitics, Terrorism & Homeland Security, American National Interests,
Political Systems & Processes, Political Institutions, Political Ideologies, & Political Philosophy
INDEX FOR THE ENTIRE WEBSITE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Conservative & Free-Market Analysis of Government, Politics & Public Policy, Covering Political, Legal, Constitutional, Economic,
Cultural, Military, International, Strategic, & Geopolitical Issues
Conservative Government Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity