Alex Stein, a reader whose positions are significantly different than mine, sent me this morning to a blog post at Coteret. Alex felt they had made a convincing case against the Jerusalem Post for their firing of Naomi Hazan. Since I've linked to them, you can all go and see if their case is convincing.
Having read the post, I left a short comment. Within a few minutes it was deleted. So I'm reconstructing it from memory:
The NIF is using legal measures to attempt to block freedom of speech. The word hubris seems tailored to the actions of the NIF.
I'm now going to leave a link to this post over at Coteret. Either they'll leave it up - which is the decent thing to do - or they'll delete it again, but this time there's a record of my informing them the deletion won't work. It's a win-win situation: either they leave my dissent, which is good, or they demonstrate and document their inability to allow dissent, which is informative. In the present context, it's more than informative, it's central to the discussion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
I didn't say they had made a convincing case; I merely thought it would be of interest.
I don't understand your argument that the NIF are using legal measures to block freedom of speech. Can you explain further?
Thanks
What's not to understand, Alex? Im Tirzu are engaged in using their free speech to harass the NIF and Naomi Hazan, whom they feel are causing serious harm to Israel. The NIF and their lawyer Gilad Sher are trying to use legal measures to get them to stop, or to block media outlets from giving them a platform.
It seems cut and clear, don't you think? No ambiguity at all.
I can see your comment at Coteret, Yaakov,
"The NIF tried to use legal measures to block freedom of speech. Tasteless freedom of speech, yes, but tatselessness is legitimate in a democracy. The word hubris seems tailor-made for the NIF these days."
If they think that the Im Tirtzu advertisement is libellous, then there totally within their rights to try and prevent its publication, no?
No Alex, they're not. If they think it's libelous, they're free to go to the courts to get an injunction against it. However, they don't think it's libelous. I'm hampered here in what I say because I've talked to someone in the know but don't have his permission to quote him. However, their reasons for trying to block Im Tirzu are political, not legal.
Fabian -
Yes. Apparently Didi decided it was better to post my first message rather than the second. Fine with me. Now that I've taken notice of them perhaps I'll follow them for a while. Unlike Mondoweiss, some of them are very serious people. Wrong, of course, but seriously wrong.
In other words, you can't reveal the evidence which justifies your position. When you're able to do so, I'll be listening.
You don't need my evidence, Alex. It's the other way around: they threatened the JP. The JP didn't blink, so they shut up. Does that look like someone who knows they're right? They also threatened Y-net; Y-net has also not backed down. They threatened Haaretz, and Haaretz complied and didn't publish the Im Tirzu ad: surprise!
Having read the post, I left a short comment. Within a few minutes it was deleted.
Funny how these Stalinist left-wing blogs/websites, which include the UK Guardian and Ha'aretz (many of my comments are simply pre-moderated out of existence on Ha'aretz) cannot tolerate dissent. If you to not subscribe to their world view - delete and ban, delete and ban.
Only that Yaacov's comment was not deleted at all. Read it here.
Sorry, Yaacov. No leftist conspiracy against your freedom of speech. You're not that important.
On another note, the JPost's excuse for firing Chazan is unacceptable.
Let's see: if David Horowitz sexually abuses Larry Derfner, doesn't Larry have the right to file suit?
And as Remez points out, both Ynet and Maariv continued to publish pieces authored by NIF members after receiving the same threat as the JPost. The only newspaper that ceased a columnist was the Post.
By the way... have you had access to the "threat"? It would be interesting to see whether it was actually such, and the wording used, don't you think?
Finally, you may say that the Im Tirtzu ads are free speech, just like the posters of Rabin wearing a swastika were also free speech. But Rabin got murdered. The NIF has a case for trying to stop that kind of speech.
I take it you didn't read the comments above yours? Because not only did someone else point to the republished comment earlier, but Yaacov acknowledged it as well!
Moreover, you're a fool if you buy such an argument, a fool clearly to strongly in the grips of an ideology to think rationally.
-Your example is classic strawman. Let's do the reverse, where we presuppose a conclusion: if Derfner FALSELY accuses Horowitz of sexual harassment, doesn't Horowitz have the right to fire him? The problem here is whether you think the ad warranted legal action or not. Obviously (if it ran the ad in the first place) Jpost believes it did not. So how are they unjustified in firing a writer actively engaged in sabotaging the paper?
-Umm Chazan RUNS THE DAMN ORGANIZATION. If you could attach the suit to any specific person, it would be HER. How is this NOT OBVIOUS.
-It's highly unlikely that Chazan will get murdered. If you really believe that, then perhaps you're the one under delusions of conspiracy.
Seriously, try not to spew nonsense? Please?
I take it you didn't read the comments above yours? Because not only did someone else point to the republished comment earlier, but Yaacov acknowledged it as well!
Moreover, you're a fool if you buy such an argument, a fool clearly to strongly in the grips of an ideology to think rationally.
-Your example is classic strawman. Let's do the reverse, where we presuppose a conclusion: if Derfner FALSELY accuses Horowitz of sexual harassment, doesn't Horowitz have the right to fire him? The problem here is whether you think the ad warranted legal action or not. Obviously (if it ran the ad in the first place) Jpost believes it did not. So how are they unjustified in firing a writer actively engaged in sabotaging the paper?
-Umm Chazan RUNS THE DAMN ORGANIZATION. If you could attach the suit to any specific person, it would be HER. How is this NOT OBVIOUS.
-It's highly unlikely that Chazan will get murdered. If you really believe that, then perhaps you're the one under delusions of conspiracy.
Seriously, try not to spew nonsense? Please?
Only a judge can determine if an accusation is false. But note that the JPost wasn't even accused; it was threatened with an accusation --and we haven't even been able to see the text of that threat.
So how are they unjustified in firing a writer actively engaged in sabotaging the paper?
If sabotaging a paper is reason enough for firing a journo, do you agree that the Guardian's Comment is Free was right to fire a columnist who also wrote for a site called Comment is Free Watch, which is devoted to trashing CiF?
Or is it just rightist newspapers that have the right to dismiss journalists that sabotage them?
I take it you didn't read the comments above yours?
I was precisely responding to the comment immediately above mine.
-Hmm, is the distinction between criticism and legal action not clear?
-Oh really? Looks like you missed this one:
Yaacov said...
Fabian -
Yes. Apparently Didi decided it was better to post my first message rather than the second. Fine with me. Now that I've taken notice of them perhaps I'll follow them for a while. Unlike Mondoweiss, some of them are very serious people. Wrong, of course, but seriously wrong.
February 8, 2010 1:05 PM
Nice.
Post a Comment