No offence, James, but given the record of the current administration, I'm pretty sure you could...

First, it's not a trend. Second, it's not growing.

UK courts have been used for libel actions (enforceable in the UK, and sometimes in the EU) for years.

There's no particular rise in the numbers that I've been able to find. What has risen, perhaps, is Bin Mahfouz willingness to actively defend his name. He's won in British courts, in French courts, and in US courts.

Maybe, just maybe, he has a case. His principle argument has been with books that take the presence of his name on the so-called 'Golden Chain' as some sort of proof that he 'funds terrorism'. The problem with that, as even US courts have acknowledged, is that the list has no context and no proven provenence.

I've been following this issue for some time at Crossroads Arabia, particularly as it pertains to the case of Rachel Ehrenfeld. [It's the most recent and 'most American focused.]

There's certainly a conflict between laws and comity does not seem to be working well. A US law immunizing American authors/publishers against enforcement of foreign courts' verdicts/sentences that do conflict with the First Amendment might solve it.

That law, of course, would have no effect on enforcement in the country involved. So yes, American authors could be jailed upon setting foot in another country. Publishers could face economic sanctions--in the country whose law is in question. But that's the case for any foreign law that one chooses to ignore.

After all, I can chew gum on any American street. In Singapore, it's a crime.