Papers Served, Minds Focused

Have you noticed the new cause over at National Review? They're worried suddenly about their "rights." Read this for the background. Last year, Maclean's magazine ran an excerpt from Mark Steyn's book America Alone: The End Of The World As We Know It. The Canadian Islamic Congress has filed a legal complaint claiming that the article is "flagrantly Islamophobic." Stanley Kurtz's reaction:

This is a big deal. The blogosphere has so far largely missed it, but this attack on Mark Steyn is very much our business. There may be an impulse to dismiss this assault on Steyn, on the assumption that it will fail, that Steyn is a big boy and can take care of himself, and that in any case this is crazy Canada, where political correctness rules, rather than the land of the free. That would be a mistake. The Canadian Islamic Congress’s war on Mark Steyn and Maclean’s is an attack on all of us....And recall the ongoing battle over "libel tourism," which resulted in attempts to use British law to pull Alms for Jihad from American library shelves....And take a look at this list of Muslim libel cases in America....This is our battle. It is essential that there be widespread public condemnation of the attack on Mark Steyn. Not only does this "human rights" complaint have to fail, it has to fail miserably and with embarrassment. Otherwise, whatever the formal result, the chilling effect will be one more victory for the forces trying to destroy our rights.

Kurtz is seconded by others, including Andy McCarthy:

I'd add that Stanley could not be more right on the close connection between the calculated attacks on Mark and the wave of "libel tourism" — by which prominent Saudis, upset at reports linking the Kingdom to terror funding, have made a practice of finding friendly forums (like Great Britain) in which to file libel suits that, though they would be frivolous under American law, are frighteningly valid under the laws of other countries which (a) lack both a First Amendment and free-expression values, and (b) are slaves to political correctness.

But it's been a rocky road for "free-expression values" at National Review. Here's Michael Ledeen in 2003:

On July 10, Ron Paul, a congressman from Texas, delivered a tirade against his version of neoconservatism. He called it "Neo-Conned!" and he posted it on his website and had it distributed as best he could. A considerable part of it is devoted to his version of my writings, and is so inaccurate, so distorted, and so nasty, as to make me wish once again that this country had a decent libel law so that I could at least get some money from him and give him a healthy dose of the public humiliation he deserves....If we had a libel law worthy of the name, he'd either quickly correct his statements and apologize to those he's libeled, or find himself looking for the money to pay the damages he has certainly incurred.

Read Ledeen's entire post to see what his idea of "libel" is. I must have missed the chorus of other NRO regulars counseling him about Ron Paul's rights.

Ledeen's made several posts during the past few days, none about Steyn. Will we see how he feels about the lower bar to libel abroad and litigious Muslim groups' abuse of it? Do we even need to?