Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.6.2
Site Design by Sekimori

« Informant turns out to be a bit less than reliable... | Main | I've heard of problems picking a jury, but... »

Interesting title for a bill...

Posted by David Hardy · 30 January 2008 03:18 PM

Eugene Volkh points out it's a rather strange title for legislation: The Libel Terrorism Protection Act. Is it protection for libels, for terrorists, for persons defaming a terrorist? Turns out it it would bar domestic enforcement of defamation judgments secured in places that don't have our first amendment. One of the ways to suppress a book these days is to bring or threaten defamation actions in, say, Great Britain, where they don't have NY Times v. Sullivan and its related doctrines.

1 Comment | Leave a comment

Graystar | January 30, 2008 6:45 PM | Reply

This makes no sense. Besides the fact that this law could arguably apply immediately to the courts of every single foreign country in the world (e.g. Germany because of their ban on speech denying the Holocaust,) why the hell are we enforcing the judgments of foreign countries in the first place?? What’s the precedent behind that?

Leave a comment