Monthly Archives: April 2020

Most citizens in the United States take the First Amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech as a source of patriotic pride. We have been taught that all speech is protected. Bad speech is overcome with good speech. No matter how much harm speech inflicts, when the First Amendment is in question, the Supreme Court feels it is its duty to defend all speech.

Thane Rosenbaum, a lawyer, novelist and Distinguished University Professor at Touro College, disagrees. In his informative and highly readable book, Saving Free Speech from Itself (Fig Tree Books), he explains how many of our assumptions about freedom of speech and the law are either incorrect as a matter of history or rest on a thin scaffolding of flawed reasoning. At the same time he shows there are many instances where America is shutting down free speech. In Rosenfelds view the time has come to save free speech from itself. His book deserves serious consideration in our current political and educational climate.

I must admit to being surprised to learn how little I understood the First Amendment. The Founding Fathers implicitly assumed free speech to mean that the government could not suppress any expression against the government, nor could private individuals be coerced into propagating government propaganda. In other words, free speech was initially a buffer against dictatorship and limited to freedom from government control. In 1919, this changed with Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.s stirring dissent in Abrams v. United States, which won over the American public by arguing that restraints on private speech were permissible only when speech constituted a present danger of immediate evil or an intent to bring it about essentially, the dont shout fire in a crowded theater test.

Rosenbaum attempts to reframe our assumptions about freedom of speech.

As Rosenbaum shows, free speech protection for private individuals is now used to violate peoples privacy and dignity. He describes how in 2011, the Supreme Court, in an 8-to-1 decision, overturned a jury verdict against the Westboro Baptist Church. The church set up a protest at the funeral of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, chanting slurs against gays and holding up signs reading God hates America and Thank God for dead soldiers.

Get Jewish Week's Newsletter by email and never miss our top stories Free Sign Up

Heartbroken by the fiasco of a funeral, the soldiers father sued. The 8-1 majority set aside all consideration for the family, piously invoked the right to free speech and further ordered that Snyder pay the churchs $16,000 in costs.

In other instances, Rosenbaum shows how the First Amendment is used to protect hate speech. Holocaust deniers and KKK members as well as possibly more benign flat earth and fake moon landing believers have all advanced their agendas under the umbrella of free speech. And most alarmingly he gives examples of how it is used to protect potentially fatal substances. Purveyors of, say, fake coronavirus cures and treatments can be sued on product claims, but anybody can get up on a street corner and make any claim that they want.

The coronavirus outbreak has also reminded us of the necessity of free speech as the Founding Fathers defined it. Dr. Li Wenliang, the Wuhan ophthalmologist who early on tried to warn the Chinese medical community about the virus potency, was forced by Communist Party authorities to recant his false comments. How many lives might have been saved if his speech had been free.

Dr. Lis warning is exactly the kind of free speech the First Amendment was trying to protect. Rosenbaum shows, however, that todays free speech is too often serving a different function. He writes: Here is what the First Amendment should never be called upon to protect: groups of nativists shouting Muslims Go Home; neo-Nazis marching through a hamlet [of] Holocaust survivors ; burning crosses on the lawns of African Americans; showing up to a military funeral to make ones hatred of homosexuals plainly known. They are, in fact, neither ideas nor debates. They are orgies of hate that amount to non-speech. Lets stop pretending we cannot tell the difference.

While this is not an explicitly Jewish book, Rosenbaums exploration of the harm caused by current applications of free speech will resonate with Jewish readers. His arguments about human dignity and free speech echo within the biblical notion of the image of God. Likewise he shows how Talmudic dictates that compare slander to physical harm and even death are backed up by modern scientific research that demonstrates that false speech can cause physical harm.

In an era in which American society has become radically polarized, Rosenbaum sets out to bridge the liberal-conservative divide, at least when it comes to permitted speech. He asks us to address some of our core ideas about American ideals. Not a bad thing to do when the government is ordering us to stay sheltered in place for the good of all Americans.

Scott A. Shay is chairman and co-founder of Signature Bank of New York and is the author of In Good Faith: Questioning Religion and Atheism (Post Hill Press, 2018).

Read more from the original source:
A Contrarian's View of the Uses, and Abuses, of Free Speech - Jewish Week

As we head into another election cycle, several CGA members have asked about their rights with respect to unwanted signature gatherers and other solicitors.

Weve heard many stories about belligerent signature gatherers who insist theyre exercising their constitutional rights; and about local law enforcement agencies that are unaware of the recent Supreme Court rulings in favor of grocers on this subject.

About forty years ago, the California Supreme Court ruled that speech and petitioning, if reasonably exercised, in areas outside privately-owned shopping centers is constitutionally protected.

In Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center (1979) 23 Cal.3d 899, 910 (Pruneyard), high school students disseminated information in a courtyard inside the Pruneyard Center, which was approximately 21 acres in total and contained 65 shops, 10 restaurants, and a theater.

According to the Court, these students had a constitutional right to be present on Pruneyard Shopping Centers private property because the shopping center was essentially a place for citizens to socialize and congregate in constitutional terms, it was a public forum.

Not all private shopping centers are a public forum, however. Indeed, the Pruneyard Court cautioned that signature gatherers and solicitors do not have free rein to express themselves at private shopping centers. So the main question becomes: when is a store considered not a public forum?

Whether a private shopping center is a public forum largely depends on the nature and characteristics of each individual store or shopping center. A shopping centers common areas, those which generally have seating and other amenities producing an environment that encourages shoppers to stop, relax, linger, gather, and chat is more likely to be viewed as a public forum.

But when a storefront is not designed to promote gathering and relaxing, such as the entrance area or the apron, the store is less likely to be viewed as a public forum.

The California Supreme Court recently highlighted the public forum analysis in Ralphs Grocery Co. v. United Food & Commercial Workers Union Local 8 (2012) 55 Cal.4th 1083 (UFCW).

Union members gathered directly in front of a Foods Co. store to picket, and apparently to dissuade shoppers from entering the store. Unlike Pruneyard, the Court decided that the area immediately outside Foods Co.s customer entrances and exits, at least as typically configured and furnished, is not a traditional public forum. The union activity interfered with normal business operations more than it would have in the less heavily trafficked common areas of a public forum.

Ultimately, it was determined that the area directly outside Foods Co. did not encourage activities such as meeting friends, congregating, or lingering. Similarly, in Albertsons, Inc. v. Young (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 106 and Van v. Target Corp. (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1375, the stores also successfully argued that their storefronts were not a public forum for expressive activity because the premises of each store was not designed to draw crowds like a traditional public forum.

As a first step to removing unwanted trespassers, stores should first evaluate their premises to determine if it is indeed a public forum.

Some factors to consider: are there seats, restaurants, walkways or common areas that encourage the public to gather like in Pruneyard? Or, are the premises simply intended for shoppers to enter and exit the stores or for customers to view a stores merchandise and advertising displays similar to the Ralphs v. UFCW case?

This analysis is highly factual, but the bottom line is: if the area encourages members of the public to meet friends, eat, rest, congregate or be entertained, the more likely it will be viewed as a public forum for signature gatherers and solicitors to exercise their freedom of speech.

After conducting the public forum analysis, another consideration is whether the signature gatherers and solicitors are engaged in union activities. In the UFCW case, the California Supreme Court ruled that while union members did not have a constitutional right to be at Foods Co.s entrance area and apron, the union members might have a statutory right to be present under the Moscone Act and Labor Code section 1138.1. Stores should thus also consider whether the signature gatherers and solicitors are engaging in union activities before seeking to evict them.

If the premises is not a public forum and there are no union activities involved, then stores may ask the trespassers to vacate the premises. As a practical matter, stores should review their leases to make sure they have authority and control over the apron and parking lot.

Many store leases place responsibility for maintenance and control of these spaces on the tenant grocer while some leases reserve this authority to the landlord. In the latter case, the store may need to ask the landlord for assistance in removing the unwanted trespassers.

If the signature gatherers and solicitors do not leave the premises, the store has options, including: The store may seek help from the local authorities, explaining that the stores premises are not considered a public forum.

We encourage store operators to meet in advance of a trespassing issue with the local police chief or sheriff to discuss their understanding of the law in this area, and their willingness to assist in the removal of trespassers.

CGA may be able to assist with the educational effort if your local law enforcement agency exhibits a lack of understanding of the law on solicitors and signature gatherers in front of stores.

Another option available to retailers is to sue for trespass and seek an injunction to prevent the trespassers from entering the stores private property.

When a store seeks injunctive relief against the trespassers, it would not be surprising if the trespassers filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike the stores complaint. An anti-SLAPP motion is a special motion designed to dismiss claims interfering with protected speech.

This is exactly what happened in Ralphs Grocery Co. v. Victory Consultants, Inc. (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 245. In this case, Food-4-Less and Ralphs filed a lawsuit to enjoin trespassing signature gatherers from operating in front of their stores. The trespassers filed an anti-SLAPP motion, contending that that their signature gathering was a constitutionally protected activity.

The Court of Appeal agreed with Ralphs that the signature gathering was not a protected activity because the stores were open to the public to buy goods, not to offer their property as a traditional public forum.

The main takeaway is that signature gatherers and solicitors do not have free rein to use store property as a public forum. First, stores must evaluate whether their premises are a public forum. If not a public forum, then second, determine whether the solicitors are engaging in union activities that may give them special statutory permission to be present.

And finally, if the store is not a public forum and there are no union activities involved, stores should know that there are remedies available to remove unwanted, trespassing signature gatherers and solicitors from their premises.

This article appeared in California Grocer, Issue 1 (2020) and is republished with permission. California Grocers Association.

[View source.]

Visit link:
Update: Signature Gatherers and Solicitors | Downey Brand LLP - JD Supra

click to enlarge

Radicals in the Heartland: the 1960s Student Protest Movement at the University of Illinois, by Michael V. Metz. University of Illinois Press, 2019.

Radicals in the Heartland: the 1960s Student Protest Movement at the University of Illinois by Michael V. Metz gives an insightful, well-documented analysis of events that shaped each year of the 1960s at the University of Illinois Champaign-Urbana campus. The account is juxtaposed against what was occurring nationwide regarding the Vietnam War, civil rights, freedom of speech and students' feelings that they should be treated as adults. The early 1960s had its share of disagreements, but by the end of the decade, full-fledged violence had erupted.

Metz, who took part in the student movement, identifies the many student groups that organized on campus, provides biographical information about the main leaders and includes a section of first-person reflections by the leaders who went on to successful careers after graduation.

The book is divided into six parts and is well-researched, full of documented newspaper reports, archived materials and quotes by students and faculty.

The preface explains the catalyst of later events. George Stoddard, the president of the University of Illinois, was hired in 1946. A huge supporter of free speech, which some viewed as communistic, he argued for the end to a state law that prohibited political candidates from speaking on a college campus. Champaign State Representative Charles Clabaugh, who viewed the U of I as "the hotbed of communist influence," led the passage of a new law in 1947. Called the Clabaugh Act, it prohibited certain organizations from accessing university resources, and university administrators had the authority to decide. For over 20 years this law created controversy and conflict. Who or what was subversive? Who would decide and how?

In 1953, Stoddard met his end. The newly appointed U of I board trustee former Illini football hero Red Grange made a motion of no confidence in Stoddard. Stoddard resigned on the spot; Grange never attended another board meeting.

David Dodds Henry was named interim president and then hired in 1956. He would face the impact of the Clabaugh Act when controversies arose over such issues as the academic freedom of faculty, the university's role in recognizing campus student groups, even the strict curfews and dorm rules.

In 1960 two major issues created deeply divided opinions over academic freedom. Student Edward Yellin's pending fellowship that included a teaching assistant position was in jeopardy when it was revealed he had been subpoenaed years earlier by the House Un-American Activities Committee and refused to answer questions. Then Leo Koch, an assistant professor, published a letter in the Daily Illini advocating for premarital sex for "mature" students. In both cases, opinions were hotly debated. Yellin kept his fellowship; Koch was fired.

Metz explores the Free Speech Era, 1965-1967, in Part II. The impact of a 1964 large student protest against the prohibition of political activity at the University of California, Berkeley, spilled over onto other campuses. Some tried to hold a protest at the U of I campus, but few showed up. The Daily Illini editor, later famed movie critic Roger Ebert, wrote that 801 students at Berkeley had been arrested, but "we don't have 801 students who would understand why 801 students would want to be arrested for denial of free speech."

Vietnam hadn't yet become the overarching issue; a 1965 protest drew only 12 students. There was more interest in ending strict dorm rules. Students Against the Clabaugh Act (SACA) pushed for an end to the law but without success.

Students wanted to form a W.E.B. Dubois Club, which was considered, incorrectly, to be a communist organization. Trustees, who had first approved the group, reversed their decision. SACA changed its name to Students for Free Speech and invited a professed communist to speak on campus, raising concerns by many, including parents. Although the speaker drew 2,000 on the porch of the Union Hall, not much came of the event.

Women joined student groups that were mainly led by men; the women were often harassed, treated as secretaries and ignored. Women spoke up against strict rules: a 10 p.m. dorm curfew on weeknights, midnight on weekends, required skirt attire for Sunday dinner and in bowling classes. There was a policy that couples could only meet in lounges in the dorms and must have three feet on the floor. The first female student president, Patsy Parker, pushed for changes. A midnight rally against curfew failed as 9 fraternity men showed up and heckled the women.

Communism and curfews had been the focus, until the next stage, Part III: The Antiwar Movement, 1967-1969. Anger against the Vietnam War increased: male students openly burned their draft cards, students held sit-ins. At the University of Wisconsin in Madison, students led a sit-in against the Dow Chemical Company, a producer of chemicals used in the war. U of I students held their own five-hour sit-in, barring all interviews.

Across the country, Vietnam protests gained momentum. Civil rights gained interest; Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert Kennedy were assassinated in the spring of 1968. In August that year the Democratic National Convention in Chicago led to riots. "A stark choice faced student activists," Metz writes. "Either let go of hopes for wide-scale political change and thus escape establishment retaliation, or continue the struggle by fighting violence with like violence." Most chose the first and few the latter, according to the author.

In Part IV, The Violent Time, 1969-1970, Metz follows the actions that led to the outbreak of violence. Many students had attempted to hold peaceful protests with speeches on the quad and at the student union. On Oct. 15, 1969, the nationwide Day of Moratorium, 9,000 U of I students participated in all-day events and a march. Peace turned to violence in the spring of 1970 after four students were killed at Kent State University. Illinois State Superintendent of Education Ray Page declared, "Four students that should have known better than to have participated in outright revolt against the forces of law and order lie dead." Students were shocked and angered. May 4-8, 1970, in Champaign has been called the week that was the "most violent period in the 100-year history of the university." There were protests, marchers throwing rocks and bottles through windows, sit-ins in the middle of intersections, marches to the president's home and arrests. Many, though, peacefully went about their lives.

On Saturday of that week, activities, speeches and music were planned on the quad. Students enjoying the spring weather congregated, some sharing a picnic, others throwing a frisbee. Then suddenly the Illinois National Guard came from both sides of the quad, surrounded the throng of people, arrested some and took them to Memorial Stadium to be held.

Thus ends the decade; Metz provides a final analysis. He applauds the students for speaking up, changing the course of the war and being influencers of later movements. He believes they were not extremists, but rather engaged individuals with a deep-seated feeling of moral right. He also claims they failed at political revolution. Mayhem ensued, but the silent majority prevailed and does so today. The students did not stop "the strength of the established order," he claims.

Cinda Ackerman Klickna was a student at the U of I, starting in 1969, but acknowledges she was unaware of all that was happening on campus. Her involvement was as a bystander, which may surprise those who know her now.

See more here:
U of I protests of the 1960s - Illinois Times

Even as questions persist as to how China handled its own coronavirus pandemic including whether the Chinese government effectively silenced doctors and nurses who spoke out in the early days of the virus spread the United Nations has reportedly appointed China to serve on a UN Human Rights panel designed to help identify threats to the freedom of speech, and governments who are carrying out enforced disappearances and arbitrary detention.

International news reports that Chinas appointment came Wednesday, just as countries like the United States began to probe deeper into how the novel coronavirus, COVID-19, was allowed to spread so quickly inside mainland China, and whether Chinas reported death count just over 2,500 from the virus was, indeed, accurate.

It now seems, according to reports cataloging the return of thousands of cremated remaisn to families in and around Wuhan, China, the coronavirus epicenter, that more than 40,000 likely died from the virus in the Wuhan area alone.

The UN, always on the cutting edge of global matters will allow China to have a say in selecting at least 17 UN human rights mandate-holders over the next year. China will also assist in screening candidates for UN human rights positions.

Its absurd and immoral for the UN to allow Chinas oppressive government a key role in selecting officials who shape international human rights standards and report on violations worldwide, the executive director of UN Watch, which first reported Chinas appointment to the panel, told media in a statement. Allowing Chinas oppressive and inhumane regime to choose the world investigators on freedom of speech, arbitrary detention and enforced disappearances is like making a pyromaniac into the town fire chief.

The appointment seems particularly egregious in light of Chinas approach to the coronavirus pandemic and reports that the Chinese government, already well known for curbing the freedom of speech of its constituents as well as their access to vital information, silenced doctors who raised the alarm on coronavirus.

The New York Times reported in early February that Chinese officials initial handling of the coronavirus epidemic allowed it to spread.

Back in December, weeks before China admitted the outbreak, Dr. Li Wenliang sent a warning about seven people with a mysterious illness to an online chat group that included medical students, per the NYT. Quarantined in the emergency department, the doctor wrote to the group. Hours later, officials from the health department summoned the doctor and sanctioned him for sharing information. He was then compelled to sign a statement of secrecy and told his warning constituted illegal behavior.'

In those weeks, the authorities silenced doctors and others for raising red flags, the NYT adds. They played down the dangers to the public, leaving the citys 11 million residents unaware they should protect themselves.

As for arbitrary detention, in the weeks and months before China suffered the first coronavirus outbreak, the Chinese government was being investigated for a series of concentration camps, where millions of ethnically-Chinese Muslims, known as Uigurs, were reportedly being kept in cramped, unsafe conditions and forced to work as slaves in Chinese factories.

Read the original:
China Appointed To UN Human Rights Panel To Help Identify Threats To Free Speech - The Daily Wire

By Lawrence DavidsonBackground: Weaponising anti-Semitism

Anti-Semitism has been weaponised. That is, the Zionists, within and without Israel, are using the charge of anti-Semitism as a weapon to silence those who are critical of the Israeli state. In wielding this weapon, Zionist organisations and the media outlets they control or influence have released a flood of slander and libel. The charge of anti-Semitism is levelled at anyone who opposes Israels inherently racist policies and is supportive of Palestinian human rights. And, where the Zionists have sufficient political influence, as is the case in so much of the United States, they are making every effort to encourage laws that make criticism of Israel illegal because, they claim, it is ipso facto anti-Semitic. In this way, the weaponisation of anti-Semitism maliciously defames individuals, corrupts legal systems and also threatens any reasonable notion of free speech.

In cases where individuals and organisations are labelled anti-Semitic as part of a concerted campaign of defamation, one would hope that the libel laws would offer some protection and / or relief. And, as we will see, in some cases such as the United Kingdom and Australia, this has proven possible. However, in the United States this has not happened. To understand why requires a short history lesson on the evolution of free speech, as against the need to protect individuals, particularly public persons such as those running for office, from defamation.

American attitudes towards free speech, which form the foundation for much of the countrys legal thinking when it comes to libel, slander and defamation, can be traced back to the writing of John Stuart Mill (1806-73). Mill was an influential English utilitarian philosopher and liberal thinker who supported the growth of democracy in the 19th century. He also considered what aspects of democracy would need the strongest defence. For instance, he supported a very broad interpretation of freedom of expression. He laid out his position in an 1859 book entitled On Liberty. Here he argued that allowing a broad interpretation of free speech was the best way of establishing what is true and what is not. Even if an opinion is false, the truth can be better understood by [publicly] refuting the error. Mill had faith in the citizenry (or at least the educated middle class of his day) to recognise, through the process of debate, what is true when it came to public pronouncements. If any argument is really wrong or harmful, the public will judge it as wrong or harmful. Thus, for Mill the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, [in this case by suppressing his or her public speech] is to prevent harm to others. However, considering that defamation was subject to rebuttal, the citizenry would ultimately reject such falsehoods without state intervention.

Even though Mills faith in an educated publics ability to know truth from falsehood has proven, at least as far as this author is concerned, quite naive, Mills notion of erring on the side of government inaction when it comes to slanderous or libelous speech has had much influence in the United States.

In 1919, sitting as an Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court, Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote a series of decisions that laid out the future standard for judging prosecutable speech: The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. The example Holmes used for such an extreme case was that ones First Amendment right to free speech would not permit someone yelling fire in a crowded theatre. The libel laws in the US have followed this same path towards setting a high bar for any demonstration that free speech has been abused. Thus, in terms of defamation one now has to prove that the presentation in question is meant to defame (and is not just an opinion) and is put forth with actual malice [New York Times v Sullivan 376 US 254 (1964)]. This is particularly the case for public figures bringing suit for defamation. Public figures in the United States seem to be in a special category of people who are expected to attract a certain amount of, apparently legally acceptable, slanderous and libellous abuse.

The fact is that, in the US, libel is so difficult to demonstrate in both federal and most state courts that such suits are only rarely attempted. It is clear that in this case protecting an idealised principle of free speech has taken precedent over protecting the reputations and public standing of individuals.

As it has turned out, this situation has given American Zionists a wide field to use the weaponised charge of anti-Semitism with near impunity. A good example of this has been the smear campaign waged against the Democratic Partys presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders, who is himself Jewish. Called an anti-Semite over and again, Sanders has relied on the American progressive community to defend him. There is no indication that either Sanders or his legal advisors have considered suing his defamers for libel.

The misbalance between freedom of speech on the one hand and recourse to legal protection against slander and libel on the other is greatest in the United States, and in this case, public figures appear most at risk. In England and some of the Commonwealth countries such as Australia, a somewhat greater balance exists, opening up the possibility of legally defending oneself against defamation.

Anecdotally, a key historical root in the evolution of this more balanced standard for Britains defamation law is the 17th century decision to outlaw duelling transforming an often deadly engagement into a supervised courtroom debate. As of today, English law allows actions for libel for any published [untrue] statements which are alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual(s) [including businesses] in a manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of him, her or them. There are exceptions to and defences against this standard, but it certainly opens up a more reasonable opportunity for defending oneself against defamation than exists in the United States.

The same can be said for a Commonwealth country such as Australia. Here, the primary purpose of the law against defamation is to protect citizens from false statements about them that may cause harm to their personal or professional reputation.

Lets take a look at a few recent examples of successful challenges to libellous defamation issuing from Zionist sources.

Members of the United Kingdoms Parliament and those running for Parliament who are critical of Israel or otherwise supportive of Palestinian rights have suffered repeated exaggerated and fabricated allegations of anti-Semitism. Finally, in 2019, one such victim, Mrs Audrey White, former Member of Parliament (MP) for Liverpool Riverside, decided to sue the British paper the Jewish Chronicle for libel. She was able to prove that this Zionist paper had, over a series of four articles, published fake allegations that she was an anti-Semite. These pieces turned out to be part of a campaign of false charges waged against many left wing politicians. Ultimately, in early 2020, the paper was forced to admit, in print, that it had lied about Mrs White, and pay damages and court costs. It was also demonstrated that the paper had engaged in unacceptable obstruction of the investigation that led to the libel ruling.

This is not the first time the Jewish Chronicle has been sued for defamation. In August 2019 the paper was forced to pay a cash settlement to InterPal, a British charity providing aid for Palestinians. The Jewish Chronicle had implied that interPal was a terrorist organisation. The paper now faces a financial crisis and is reportedly operating with a $2 million deficit. It is staying afloat due to financial contributions from community-minded individuals. [Editors note: on 8 April 2020 the Jewish Chronicle announced that it has gone bankrupt and will cease publication.]

A similar series of events have taken place in Australia. Again, political figures are targets if they are critical of Israel or otherwise supportive of Palestinian rights. Take the case of former Labour Party MP Melissa Parke, who had the courage to assert that, To say that Israel has become an apartheid state is not anti-Semitic; it is a simple statement of fact and international law. She went on to suggest that Palestinian resistance, including retaliatory missile launches from Gaza, were a consequence of decades of brutal occupation. Finally, she drew attention to, and criticised, Zionist influence on Australian politics. For this she was described as an anti-Semite in a front-page story in the tabloid Herald Sun and similar piece in the paper West Australian. She was also slandered by Colin Rubenstein, executive director of the Australia / Israel and Jewish Affairs Council. He publicly described Parke as a fanatic and someone trafficking in conspiracy theories. She sued them all for defamation. To date both the Herald Sun and the West Australian have been forced to published retractions and offer apologies.

The weaponisation of anti-Semitism by the State of Israel and its Zionist allies worldwide should serve as a clear warning to American legislatures and courts that it would be both fair and wise to bring the countrys libel laws into closer conformity with those of the UK and Australia. Indeed, it can be argued that to simply ignore the defamation that is now being rolled out by the Zionists actually puts free speech in danger. Here is how this is happening.

The profuse and persistent use of slander and libel is an attempt at censorship. If you will, it is an attempt to silence a certain category of speech under the cover of free speech. The United States has a worse-case scenario of this fraudulent approach because American Zionists seek to use slander and defamation as a basis for novel speech-restricting law. Here they weave a particularly tangled web declaring that it should be illegal to stand in opposition of one form of racism (Israels racist policies towards the Palestinians) because to do so supposedly reflects another form of racism (they can assert this only by equating opposition to Israeli policies with anti-Semitism). It is enough to make your head spin!

John Stuart Mills 19th century assertion that If any argument is really wrong or harmful, the public will judge it as wrong or harmful has proved unreliable. Most people are buried in their local affairs and, in the present case, have no objective information or experience to judge the behaviour of a foreign country in this case, Israel. All they can go on is media and government messages which, in the US, are influenced by pro-Israel lobbies. This means that, with the possible exception of college campuses, there is no public debate as Mill would understand it. So, how is the average member of the public to judge Zionist slander and libel to be wrong and harmful?

The situation really demands legal recourse to seek retraction and compensation for purposeful falsehoods, not only for the sake of peoples reputations and public standing, but also for the sake of maintaining a reasonable doctrine of free speech. Weaponised words and concepts are, most of the time, synonymous with falsehood and propaganda. In that environment, free speech is diminished and corrupted.

More:
A Zionist attack on free speech - Redress Information & Analysis