≡ Menu

Neuwirth Loses Libel Case Against Tikun Olam

Tonight is not a good night for Rachel Neuwirth. Like Casey at the bat, she took a mighty swing & like Casey she struck out.

She sued me for libel in Los Angeles Superior Court because I called her a “Kahanist swine.” Her claim was that this was the same as claiming she was a Jewish terrorist since Kahane Chai, Meir Kahane’s Israeli political party, is designated by the U.S. Treasury Department as a terrorist organization.


Her attorney, Charles Fonarow, told my attorneys that her case was a “slam dunk.” Seems Los Angeles Superior Court Judge John Reid had a different idea. It’s also important to note that Judge Reid is no activist liberal judge. He teaches law at Pepperdine University law school where Kenneth Starr is the dean. He’s a law and order conservative and he understood the principles of free blog speech that were involved in this case. He understood that calling someone a Kahanist swine, while not perhaps the most refined turn of phrase in the world, is permitted in the context of public discourse on an issue of great civic importance.

We won the case with an anti-SLAPP (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) motion under which the defendant must prove that his speech was made in a public arena and furthered a public good and that the plaintiff was a public figure. Rachel’s key argument was that she is a private figure (she argued that she was merely a real estate agent) and the my blog was a private forum (because I “controlled” it), all of which are patently false since she herself calls herself an “internationally respected journalist” in her online bio. That my blog is a public forum is also patently obvious as 250,000 unique visitors each year indicate. And I no more ‘control’ the 6,000 comments published on my blog than I control the entire web.

One of the beauties of the SLAPP motion is that the losing plaintiff must pay defendant’s reasonable court costs. This system was purposely designed to inhibit well-heeled individuals from bringing frivolous lawsuits against whistle blowers and other do-gooders. As the judge’s ruling states:

These lawsuits are generally brought to chill the valid exercise of constitutional rights. A SLAPP suit lacks merit and will achieve its objective if it depletes the defendant’s resources or energy because the aim is not to win but to detract the defendant from his or her objective. [An anti-SLAPP motion] is a procedural remedy to dispose of such suits expeditiously and thereby protect defendants’ free exercise of First Amendment rights on matters of public interest

So Rachel will have to dip into her savings to pay for our legal bills. I say “ours” since Rachel figured she’d kill two “kapo” birds with one stone by also including Joel Beinin in her suit. No doubt Joel is a figure who particularly irks her since he holds a distinguished academic position at Stanford University. Unfortunately, she struck out as her suit against Beinin failed as well.

The judge understood the important of protecting speech on an issue as critical and controversial as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and agreed that Neuwirth was merely trying to stifle speech she disagreed with–rather than bringing a serious charge of libel.

He also raised an importance point which even I hadn’t considered in preparing my defense. Since truth is a defense in libel suits why didn’t she argue that the portion of my statement in which I called her a “Kahanist” was false? I think we could’ve made a good case against her if she’d raised this defense since her views, like Kahane’s, are so virulently anti-Arab. But she never even made the claim.

Another good point that he raised was that just as no reasonable reader would believe I was calling her a literal “swine,” so no reasonable reader would believe I was calling her a literal Kahanist “terrorist.”

Neuwirth’s claim against Joel Beinin involved a statement he made in the Alef discussion group informing members that she had made a death threat against him. She, along with Campus Watch, have claimed that this is a lie. Well, now I have the police report in front of me from the Stanford University Department of Public Safety reported (case IR 03 265 0181) on September 22, 2003. Beinin is so weary of this matter that he expressly asked me not to publish the report details here. But suffice it to say that Neuwirth DID call him a kapo and other vulgar demeaning terms. She likened him to Daniel Pearl and said that Beinin might meet the same fate as a traitor to his people. She noted that Hitler took care of those who were traitors first (not sure what this means exactly). Beinin felt so disturbed by the content of her calls that he called the police. The report quotes verbatim from her calls and documents the threat.

Now, I want to address the hazirfleisch with the unlikely name of “Cinnamon Stillwell” at Campus Watch who called Beinin a liar. During the lawsuit I could not speak of this matter on advice of counsel. But now the world can see who lied and who told the truth.

My attorney tells me that Neuwirth appeared quite upset at the end of the hearing. Her attorney told Judge Reid that he planned to appeal his decision to the State Court of Appeals. They were apparently both upset that the ‘slam’ didn’t ‘dunk.’ But the fact that the judge wrote a ten-page, intensively-researched opinion shows that the judge attached considerable importance both to the case and to his decision. It’s hard to believe that a higher court would rule against Judge Reid in this matter unless he made a serious error. And the very fact of the length of the brief and the amount of effort he lavished on it argues against that possibility.

Though I do not wish for an appeal, I would welcome one for one reason only. The higher this case goes, if affirmed, the more important a precedent it becomes in California jurisprudence. Protecting the rights of those who debate the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a matter worth fighting for and worthy of judicial affirmation.

Finally, I’d like to thank my pro bono legal team from Dewey & LeBoeuf. They are heroes to me. They took this on out of a commitment to protect First Amendment rights and with little prospect of financial remuneration. They believed in my right to speak out forcefully about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Unfortunately, others have threatened me with similar lawsuits in the past and perhaps some will do so in future. I think we have taken a stand that such intimidation will be met with a firm defense of my First Amendment rights and those of all bloggers.

Bufferfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedintumblrmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedintumblrmail
youtubeyoutube

Comments on this entry are closed.

  • D. November 28, 2007, 8:11 AM

    I’m so glad to hear you won the suit. Nice to know the First Amendment still lives.

  • H. November 28, 2007, 8:42 AM

    Way to go Richard, you commie pinko al qaeda terrorist supporter pedophile apologist swine.

    You get the joke, right?

  • A. November 28, 2007, 10:01 AM

    Daniel Pearl?? Wasn’t he killed by thugs in Pakistan? How is he relevant to any of this?

    Perhaps a straitjacket and a rubber room are what Neuwirth really needs.

  • Richard Silverstein November 28, 2007, 3:00 PM

    Hucklebee: We’ve heard fr. one of Rachel’s friends, no doubt. I swear, if I wanted to elicit sympathy I couldn’t have made up better hate than this guy/gal.

  • H. November 28, 2007, 3:15 PM

    Richard – Sorry about that. that didn’t go over right. I was trying to be sarcastic and show how silly her lawsuit was. I figured you’d laugh. I tried to insuiate that it was a joke/sarcasm. All hail the 1st amendment and thick skins!

  • Richard Silverstein November 28, 2007, 5:57 PM

    I’m sorry too. You have no idea how many people have commented seriously here using precisely the terms you did to insult me. I didn’t get the joke & I apologize. But don’t worry–unlike Rachel Neuwirth, I wouldn’t try to sue you even if you did mean it (which thankfully you didn’t).

  • H. November 28, 2007, 7:15 PM

    Thanks. That’s going to save me a trip to Dewey & LeBoeuf!

    Stay strong Richard.

  • P. November 29, 2007, 5:53 AM

    Congratulations, Richard.

  • J. November 29, 2007, 8:26 AM

    Richard, congratulations on this victory. Part of me was a bit envious that your blog merited a libel suit — I don’t think anybody on the right has noticed mine, besides the people who, legitimately, leave comments. But the truth is that I am sure it was a harrowing experience for you, and now you are vindicated. I hope Cecelie S. writes this up. And I am happy for Joel Beinin, too.

    Jerry Haber, a.k.a., the Magnes Zionist

  • s. November 29, 2007, 10:52 AM

    Kol Hakavod, Richard!
    I hope this empowers all the sane individuals and organizations out there who are afraid to speak out.
    You’ve probably heard of the Jewish congregation whose members don’t dare speak out on Israel/Palestine because they’re afraid of the Rabbi, and the Rabbi keeps silent on these issues because he doesn’t want to upset the congregation :)

  • Richard Silverstein November 29, 2007, 12:51 PM

    Shamai: That’s funny & would be typical of the paranoia this subject can induce in people.

  • Z. November 29, 2007, 3:46 PM

    “She noted that Hitler took care of those who were traitors first (not sure what this means exactly).”

    Perhaps she refers to “The Night of the Long Knives” when Hitler had rival Nazis murdered.

    Zhu Bajie

  • J. November 29, 2007, 4:07 PM

    Shammai could have told you about the true story of the leftwing baal-koreh (Torah reader), a noted Israeli human rights lawyer, who was barred in a modern orthodox shul from publicly reading from the Torah when a rightwing congregant complained about him. T

    Only he is too modest to tell such stories — and I am deeply ashamed to have to repeat them.

    Jerry

  • y. November 29, 2007, 4:40 PM

    Congratulations Richard, glad to hear the good news!

  • T. November 29, 2007, 5:09 PM

    Well first congratulations! This is an excellent victory for free speech on Palestine and Zionism. I didn’t understand the point you made about ‘Rachel’s key defense’ since she was the plaintiff and you were the defendant, but I assume you meant her primary argument rather than defence.

    I don’t think Zhu Bajie is right that the reference to ‘traitors’ is to Roehm’s and other blackshirts murder. They weren’t considered traitors but dangerous radicals whose ‘anti-capitalism’ (in the eyes of the industrialists and army chiefs) would endanger the Nazi project. I think the reference is more sinister – to the placing of socialists, trade unionists and other anti-fascist Germans in Dachau etc., where of course most were murdered. They were the traitors because they were seen as internationalists and therefore traitors to the Volk.

    By coincidence, I sued The Times in London for defamation earlier this year and the settlement has just been agreed, which involves agreed damages paid to the Palestinian Friends of Bir Zeit University charity and an apology on the link below.
    http://timesonline.typepad.com/david_aaronovitch/2007/11/tony-greenstein.html

    Some may think this an attack on free speech but I would disagree. The accusation, totally false, that I have spent most of my life intimidating and harassing Jewish students, i.e. that I am anti-Semitic, is designed to close down free speech. Numerous times when having been invited to speak on campus the allegation that I am ‘anti-Semitic’ is raised. This is a way of closing off this particular attack.

    Anyway well done!

    Tony Greenstein

  • Richard Silverstein November 29, 2007, 6:27 PM

    Thanks, Yaman. As someone who faced almost precisely the same type of legal persecution, I only wish your case could’ve gone better.

    Jerry’s story of the baal koreh reminds me of the midrash about sinat chinum which destroyed the Temple: pointless hatred between brothers which so weakens the Jewish fabric that the community is destroyed.

  • K. November 30, 2007, 5:34 AM

    I’ll add my congrats at your backbone and success. as one more prone to serious insults (I would have included “and your mama dresses you funny”) I also applaud your restraint. Compared to the daily insults throughout the blogosphere, yours remains the domain of a real mensch.

    Kudos, to you, sir, and keep up the good works.

  • AS November 30, 2007, 7:26 AM

    Richard, congrats — I’m glad for your sake that you won the suit; and this also tends to confirm my suspicion that the rabid anti-Arab types out there are not so much “people with strongly held opinions different from mine” as “complete idiots.”

  • G. December 1, 2007, 10:18 PM

    You’ve helped draw a line in the sand Richard, thanks and congrats.

  • Mary Lou Chellman February 26, 2014, 5:57 PM

    Standing and applauding. The personal toll is high. Standing your ground deserves high respect.
    Congratulations, Mary Lou