Comments on: Plaut Loses Appeal in Nazi Abuse Case

By: Richard Silverstein

Richard Silverstein — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 08:20:14 +0000

Amir: I certainly agree with you. But the situation is diff. than one in which one private individual insults another. In this case, a bus is a public conveyance & the driver prob. made the comments publicly in front of others, which would add to the damage done to the victim’s reputation and self-esteem. I’m not arguing one way or the other about the legal action, but I am arguing that the insult was very severe & worthy of serious punishment.

By: Amir

Amir — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 06:17:20 +0000

I think the bus driver’s employer should fire him or otherwise penalize or warn him, not a court of law.

By: Richard Silverstein

Richard Silverstein — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 04:20:19 +0000

Judy: Neuwirth is not a rich corporation. But she IS a public figure somewhat akin to a public official (though she is not an elected official). She didn’t like the fact that I called her a Kahanist & tried to stifle my ability to call her that by filing a frivolous lawsuit. That’s the essence of what a SLAPP suit is.

By: Richard Silverstein

Richard Silverstein — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 04:16:39 +0000

Sagi: First there is no such thing as a SLAPP suit in Israel so calling Gordon’s suit such is absurd. Second, I believe as in the Talmud that dinah d’malchuta dina hu (“the law of the land is the law”). In other words, I observe the laws of my own country & take advantage of legal defenses offered to me by those laws. I don’t expect Neve Gordon to follow laws or principles of U.S. law because he’s subject to Israeli law. Third, if I was an Israeli my comments would still not have entitled her to prosecute me because I called her a “Kahanist” and not a Nazi. Calling someone a Kahanist esp. if their views ARE Kahanist is not actionable. Fourth, Plaut has done far worse than calling Gordon a Juden-rat & kapo. He’s attempted to get him fired from his job on political/ideological rather than academic grounds.

As for the issue of free speech, I’ve never claimed I’m a free speech absolutist. Speech that advocates harming individuals is not protected speech in my mind. Masada2000 often violates this principle by issuing physical threats against Michael Lerner & advocating rape against Jewish women.

the court ruled that everything Plaut wrote about Gordon is factually correct

This is patently false. The court didn’t rule on whether the statements were “factual.” In fact, Gordon is not a Judenrat nor a kapo. So how could the court have ruled that these statements are “factually correct?’ It ruled on whether the statements were permissible under the law.

No court in any other democratic country would agree that this is “libel.”

Interesting that Sagi doesn’t seem to appreciate the laws of the state of Israel & claims that it is not truly democratic. That’s an argument I often make though in other contexts. Glad we agree on something. And again this is factually false since various countries have laws prohibiting various forms of speech. Germany I believe has laws regarding “Nazi speech” that are similar to Israel’s.

the same court declared your hero and role model Norman Finkelstein to be a Neo-Nazi and Holocaust Denier!

You’re so obtuse you don’t understand the diff. bet. a court saying you can call someone a Holocaust denier and a court saying someone IS a Holocaust denier. The judges didn’t make the latter determination–only the former.

Bar Kochba: I think you’re prob. right. The appeals court if I understand the judgment (& I haven’t seen the actual papers) upheld portions of the lower court ruling and overturned others. But the main pt. to me is that it upheld a significant finding of the lower court against Plaut & that the latter champions the ruling as a total vindication which it is not.

Gordon did not deny any of the facts in the case

Didn’t deny them? He denied everything Plaut said about him.

the idiot judges agreed.

So much for respect for the rule of law. I guess you think judges who agree with you are brilliant solons…

I may start suing people myself everytime they hurt my feelings.

So you think being called a “Nigger” (e.g. “kooshie”) would merely “hurt your feelings??” And you think a bus driver should be allowed to use racist language toward a customer (I presume the security guard was a bus rider) in a public conveyance?

By: amir

amir — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 20:59:39 +0000

Speeking of freedom of speech, I read recently that a bus driver had to pay a security guard 30,000 shekels becasue he called him a “kooshi”. I don’t favor insulting speech, but I don’t think it should penalized by court. I may start suing people myself everytime they hurt my feelings.

By: jenny

jenny — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 18:22:41 +0000

PS There was no “conviction” because it was a civil suit, not a criminal suit.

Gordon did not deny any of the facts in the case but thought being called a “Judenrat wannabe” was not permissible under freedom of speech, and the idiot judges agreed. Down goes freedom of speech.

By: Rod Brown

Rod Brown — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 17:23:33 +0000

“Richard, you stated that Plaut is “lying” when he said the court overturned the verdict.”

“An Israeli appeals court has upheld a libel judgment that resulted from a dispute between two Israeli academics, but drastically slashed the damages.” (Chronicle headline)

‘Upheld’ = “Overturned” ?

“A lower court in Nazareth found Mr. Plaut guilty of libel in May ”

… so found guilty of libel ..

“In a 2-to-1 ruling last week, a three-judge panel of the appeals court, also in Nazareth, upheld the trial court’s ruling”

….and still found guilty …

So ‘upheld’ and ‘found guilty of libel’ means ‘overturned’ and ‘not guilty?’

By: bar_kochba132

bar_kochba132 — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 14:31:54 +0000

Richard, you stated that Plaut is “lying” when he said the court overturned the verdict.
Here is an excerpt from the article you linked to:
———————-
The majority opinion said that Mr. Plaut was entitled to criticize Mr. Gordon’s pro-Palestinian actions and other views, including his support for Norman G. Finkelstein, a professor of political science at DePaul University who later resigned from his position after losing a tenure bid in a highly publicized case that focused on his criticism of Israel (The Chronicle, September 14, 2007).

But the appeals court agreed that Mr. Plaut’s use of the term “Judenrat”—or “Jewish council,” as the wartime Jewish leadership groups in Europe that were forced to collaborate with the Nazis were called—was unacceptable in Israeli public debate.
———————————-

I am afraid that I don’t understand it the way you do…it said Plaut had every right to criticize Gordon, but it is politically incorrect to use Holocaust allusions. It says he DIDN’T libel him.