Thursday, March 10, 2016

Should political lies be prosecuted as libel?

The Israeli writer below is unthinking.  He says "Hate Speech Is Not Free Speech".  But it is.  If we allow that hate speech can be banned, anything you disagree with can be banned.  It is the ultimate slippery slope. 

A more sophisticated writer might have argued that political lies should be prosecuted, as Donald Trump argues.  Lies are are an essential feature of libel and libel has never been protected speech.  And the words deplored below are clearly libel.  The Israeli government could well launch a lawsuit claiming that Israel has been libelled by the lies concerned.

Israeli lawyer Nitsana Darshan-Leitner already does some of that in a private capacity.

It is not hate speech that should be prosecuted.  It is lies

University professors enjoy the benefits of academic freedom and free speech. These cherished concepts are essential ingredients in the unhindered exchange and flow of ideas.

Joy Karega, a non-tenured assistant professor of rhetoric and composition at Oberlin College, a liberal arts institution in the state of Ohio, made an utter mockery of these hallowed principles by spewing out a toxic torrent of antisemitic screeds on her Facebook page.

Let’s be absolutely clear.

These rants could have been written by a neo-Nazi foaming at the mouth. They certainly have no place in civilized discourse. That they were posted by a woman of color is surprising and disappointing. African Americans, having been the victims of prejudice and violence, should be aware that racism is a malignancy that undermines and demeans society at large.

Has Karega fallen under the baneful influence of Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan?

With her eyes wide open, she crossed a dangerous line and entered the realm of antisemitic incitement. Not for a second can she claim that her vile and ignorant comments are protected by the sanctity of the First Amendment.

She should be severely reprimanded, if not punished.

In a series of posts in the past few years, which she has since taken down, Karega issued a litany of baseless and absurd accusations.

She claimed that Israel was behind the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 in the United States and the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris in 2015. These are the kind of accusations that come from the filthy mouths of antisemites and Islamic radicals, who have a lot in common.



Anonymous said...

Some people are mentally unhinged.

Use the Name, Luke said...

It is not hate speech that should bhe prosecuted. It is lies


It is possible to say something true in the most gracious manner possible, yet still have someone call it hateful. Often that truth is something the person calling it "hate" needs to hear for their own well being.

A "heckler's veto" is a popular tactic to suppress truth, and thus must never be considered a useful standard for suppressing speech.

Bird of Paradise said...

In that case all of these collage administrators should be heild liable for all the lies they tell these students so should those who print these so callled Text books the various eco-freak groups(EDF.Greenpeace,Sierra Club Etc)that uses Global Warming in their misleading ads and Obama who has already received a few pinnochios for all his lying

Anonymous said...

The problem of prosecuting lies is that you will have the problem of the haters calling the truth a lie and prosecuting people who have told the truth.

Use the Name, Luke said...

In order to prosecute someone for lying you need to prove at least 3 things in court:

1) What the truth actually is.

2) That what was said or printed was substantially different from the truth. For example, a quote could be technically accurate, but if the context substantially changes the meaning or understanding of the quoted words, then the quote is not the truth.

3) That the person who did not tell the truth knew what the truth actually is or should have known what the truth was according to the case standards.

For criminal conviction these must be proven "beyond reasonable doubt". For civil litigation the standard is "preponderance of evidence".

Spurwing Plover the fighting shorebird said...

Q. How do you know when Obama is lying? A. His lips are moving

Anonymous said...

Bird of Paradise,

In order to prosecute someone for lying you need to prove at least 3 things in court:

You must be talking about in the abstract or what you may want to see because none of the things you mention is grounded in law.

See US v Alvarez.

Anonymous said...

Punishing lies would obliterate the left. The would be held speechless.

Birdzilla said...

Anon 7:32 Then lets do it watch these university administrators run like scared rabbits

Bird of Paradise said...

Anon 4:39 Hey Obama has earned Three Pinnochios from the Washington Post for saying it was easier to buy a gun then to buy a book or vegitables

Anonymous said...

Bird of Paradise,

Nice try at a deflection. It failed miserably.

There is no basis in law for your long, tortuous, and illogical rambling at 7:51 PM. None.

Secondly, it almost seems as if you are saying that as Obama lied, you can lie. Or if Obama is a clown, you can be a clown.

Is that really the direction you want to go?

Bird of Paradise said...

Anon 7:02 Go Pound Sand you dip-wad

Anonymous said...

7:02 AM - Wasn't 7:51 PM from Luke-said and not Bird-of-P - ?!

Anonymous said...

Oh yay!

Bird of Paradise shows his "tolerance" for speech with which he disagrees!

It is clear that Bird of Paradise identifies with the beliefs and actions of the left more than anything.

Anonymous said...

Bird of Paradise shows his commitment to freedom of speech!'


Faced with argument that shows him to be more like Obama than anything, he responds with proof he is just like Obama.