This is the day the Lord has made; let us rejoice and be glad in it.

–Psalms

I’m not sure the Lord made or brought this day.  But I do share the joy of this Biblical passage.  Today, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Linda Lefkowitz dismissed Rachel Neuwirth’s libel claim against me.  This is a day that has been over four years coming.  During that time there were moments when I truly didn’t know what would happen and what sort of jeopardy my family and I might be in.  There were “well-wishers,” friends of Neuwirth who celebrated in comments they attempted to publish here, that I would lose my home and face financial ruin.  Even when I blithely assumed that the American justice system couldn’t possibly vindicate such a case and such a charge, my lawyers warned me that anything was possible and that I could assume nothing.

But thank God, reason and reasonableness prevailed.  I should also add that Prof. Joel Beinin, who was also sued by Neuwirth as part of the same legal action, had Neuwirth’s claim against him dismissed several months ago.  Both of us have been vindicated.  Now we know that when we have a good faith belief that someone holds Jewish extremist views we’re allowed to say it and the law will uphold our right to do so.  The justice system may not do with the alacrity I would’ve wished.  But it finally did so.

I should add that Neuwirth can still appeal this decision to the Court of Appeal and so we could be doing another round of this in the future.

My lawyers performed stellar service to me and the cause of freedom of speech.  They did so despite the mounting legal costs absorbed by their law firm over the years the case dragged on.  I thank them for standing by me.

The only sadness I have is for the many others charged similarly with insulting or defaming a public figure who couldn’t muster the terrific pro bono legal defense provided to me by my attorneys.  There are so many faced with such legal intimidation who must fold in the face of it.

For bloggers, I wanted to mention the Berkman Center sponsors a terrific legal clinic, the Online Legal Media Clinic, which offers legal representation to bloggers like me accused of various offenses.  Unfortunately, it didn’t exist when my case began.  I’m glad it does now.

Stanford Professor Joel Beinin just won a court victory against Los Angeles pro-Israel activist Rachel Neuwirth, who’d charged him with libel in a case related to this blog.  Several years ago, Beinin wrote to me that Neuwirth had made a death threat against him, about which he was deposed in a separate case Neuwirth had filed against UCLA Hillel director Rabbi Chaim Seidler Feller.  I reported that here, and Neuwirth then included Beinin in the libel action she brought against both of us.

Originally, both our cases were joined, but when they came to trial a few months ago the cases were divided.  Beinin’s case was heard by a jury which found him not guilty of libel.  Mazel tov, Joel.  My case still awaits a decision from the judge who heard it.

David Horowitz eats crow

Joel Beinin settled his copyright infringement suit against David Horowitz out of court. The statement Horowitz was forced to publicize on his own website makes clear that he came out on the short end of the stick:

In February 2005, the Center for the Study of Popular Culture published a booklet entitled, Campus Support for Terrorism. The cover of the booklet included photographs of four individuals, including a photograph of Professor Joel Beinin of Stanford University that he had commissioned. In March 2006, Professor Beinin sued the Center for copyright infringement. The Center acknowledges using the photograph without consent, but believes its use was a fair use. When it learned that Professor Beinin had filed a complaint, however, it agreed to remove the photograph from the cover of its booklet and to make no further use of it. The parties have now agreed to resolve their dispute with no admission of liability. As part of that resolution, the Center will make a charitable donation in the amount of $27,500 to Raphael House of Portland, an organization that has for thirty years provided shelter for women and children fleeing domestic violence.

As noted above, Horowitz’s pamphlet featured a picture of Joel Beinin and other purported terror symps on the cover. Based on my fairly extensive understanding of fair use, I don’t believe Horowitz’s defense would’ve held up. But I’m guessing Beinin was concerned enough about his chances that he agreed to settle rather than proceed to trial. Unfortunately, he didn’t get an apology from Horowitz nor an admission of any culpability. But it’s still a moral victory.

What’s interesting about the above statement is it says that Horowitz removed the photo from the cover after Beinin filed a complaint. Which surely means that the former refused to remove the image when Beinin first demanded that he do so and BEFORE he filed the complaint. If so, that makes Horowitz a very stupid person. Even a copyright dolt can tell you that the first response to such a demand should be to remove the allegedly infringing material. If Horowitz didn’t do that he has only himself to blame and he’s lucky he got off so lightly.

What Joel has won is important. Next time, Horowitz will think twice before engaging in some of his most outrageous abusive conduct towards those on the progressive left. He’ll think twice before going after Joel Beinin, that’s for sure. It will also provide a legal record should others damaged by Horowitz’s venom choose to sue over similar issues.

My only regret is that Horowitz’s charitable donation is not going to the International Committee Against House Demolitions or B’Tselem or the Association for Civil Rights in Israel. It would’ve been very sweet to force Horowitz to donate to an Israeli-Palestinian peace group he really detests.

I’m feeling pretty good about having Joel as my co-defendant in our libel suit brought by Rachel Neuwirth. He brings good mazel.

Rachel Neuwirth has filed an appeal with the California Court of Appeals regarding the Los Angeles Superior Court’s decision to dismiss her libel suit against Joel Beinin and myself. So it’s back to court we go. If we win, the precedent of our previous victory protecting freedom of speech on the internet becomes that much stronger and if we lose…well, let’s not even go there.

Tom Tugend wrote a good story in today’s Jewish Journal about my court victory in Neuwirth v. Silverstein. It lays out a little bit of the history of my case and the one involving Chaim Seidler Feller that preceded it.

There are two highly amusing allegations leveled by her attorney, the estimable Chuck “We’ll Take It to the Supreme Court” Fonarow. First, he alleges that Joel Beinin and I showed “actual malice” in defaming Neuwirth. What’s so odd about this claim is that he didn’t even make it in his case against us. In order to prove libel against a public figure a defendant has to show “malice.” Yet he never alleged this because he believed it would be patently obvious to the court that Neuwirth was a private figure. What Fonarow apparently forgot was that Neuwirth brags all over the web that she’s an internationally respected journalist. The judge took note of this even if Fonarow didn’t.

Further, Fonarow alleges that I called Neuwirth “Jewish trash.” I didn’t. But why let the facts get in his way. The real facts are that a commenter here calling themselves “JEWISH TRASH: RICHARD SEILVERSTEIN” [sic] (and the name was intended to disparage ME, not Neuwirth) published a comment noting “A SICK MIND SUCH AS RICHARD SILVERSTEIN POSSES.– TRULY ROTTEN.” I replied that the sentiments in the comment reminded me of Neuwirth. In fact, a review of the comment indicates that both the IP and e-mail addresses very likely are Neuwirth’s herself. So it appears SHE may’ve called me “Jewish trash,” not the other way around.

Also ironic is the fact that Fonarow charges Beinin and I with “malice.” Keep in mind this is a woman who has called numerous Jews she hates “Kapos,” among other epithets. That’s about the most malicious insult you can hurl at a Jew. So I ask you–who’s guilty of malice?

It’s unfortunate Fonarow can’t try his case solely in the media. He might have more success than he’s had in court so far.

Stay tuned for Neuwirth’s possible appeal to the State Court of Appeals.

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.

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.

It is hot and heavy these days what with the counterattacks by the organized Jewish community’s Israel protectorate against dovish Jews. We’ve covered here a number of these stories. Now, here’s a new one (actually not ‘new’ but new to this blog). Cecilie Surasky of JVP told me recently that Joel Beinin, Stanford University professor and Mideast peace activist, had had an invitation to speak at the private Harker School in San Jose rescinded at the last minute by the School’s headmaster.

I contacted Joel to ask him what happened and he advised me he was writing an Op Ed piece about the incident. Now, Cecilie informs me via Muzzlewatch it’s been published in the San Francisco Chronicle, Silencing critics not way to Middle East peace:

Last Sunday in San Francisco, the Anti-Defamation League sponsored “Finding Our Voice,” a conference designed to help Jews recognize and confront the “new anti-Semitism.” For me, it was ironic. Ten days before, my own voice was silenced by fellow Jews.

I was to give a talk about our Middle East policy to high school students at the Harker School in San Jose. With one day to go, my contact there called to say my appearance had been canceled. He was apologetic and upset. He expected the talk would be intellectually stimulating and intriguing for students. But, he said, “a certain community of parents” complained to the headmaster. He added, without divulging details, that the Jewish Community Relations Council of Silicon Valley had played a role.

It is instructive to read the “explanation” provided by the JCRC of its actions:

[Editor's note: Diane Fisher, executive director of the Jewish Community Relations Council of Silicon Valley, says that although she left a message for the school principal, she never actually spoke to him, and any suggestion that the council was responsible for the cancellation of Beinin's appearance at the school is inaccurate and an "unlikely inflation of JCRC's influence."]

If you’ll recall the ADL’s involvement in getting Tony Judt’s invitation to speak at the Polish consulate cancelled recently, Abe Foxman and David Harris used almost precisely the same language in attempting to mitigate their role. We didn’t tell them to cancel Judt. We merely explained to them that it wouldn’t look good for the government of Poland, given its history, to host a speaker inimical to Israel and Jewish interests.

So Fisher’s denial of playing a major role in this incident is disingenuous. Besides, one must ask whether other JCRC community volunteers or Harker parents with some connection to the JCRC played an even more direct role.

Harker’s headmaster used code to explain his decision to cancel the event:

And the Harker School in San Jose recently canceled a talk by a Palestinian supporter after a few students and parents complained that a different lecturer already aired that viewpoint in the fall:

“We’re slowly learning how sensitive this really is,” said Christopher Nikoloff, head of school at Harker.

These are almost precisely the same words used by James Nicola of the NY Theater Workshop in explaining why he was delaying the production of My Name is Rachel Corrie scheduled for his theater. He believed you couldn’t put on the play in the hypercharged political atmosphere in New York City without first “contextualizing” (whatever that means) the entire issue and preparing the Jewish community for the controversy that would undoubtedly ensue.

Over and over, we read of otherwise progressive individuals intimidated by the firestorm of opposition coming from groups like the JCRC. Silencing of respected academics like Joel Beinin is shameful. We in the Jewish community only do ourselves a disservice when we reveal we’re afraid of letting the world hear about ideas that diverge from the so-called communal consensus around Israel.

If you look on the JCRC’s own website you will see that it sponsors events that have a hard-right Israeli nationalist perspective. You will never see this community sponsor a talk by Israeli doves like Yossi Beilin, Yossi Sarid or Amir Peretz. I doubt you’ll ever hear Peace Now’s perspective represented at any event of theirs. You will hear Ehud Olmert’s press spokesperson. You will hear Palestinian ‘Zionist,’ Noni Darwish. This JCRC (not all local JCRC’s are so rigid) seems to take a hardened ideological perspective on matters related to Israel. So when Fisher claims her group’s influence is being exagerrrated, don’t you believe it.

When will groups like the JCRC, AIPAC, ADL and AJCongress and Committee realize that shutting Jewish dissenting voices out of the debate makes them look like the Israel hegemonists that they really are. No one likes someone who claims to speak for all Jews when it’s clear they don’t. You lose crediblity when you overstate your case or overreach in the way the JCRC did in this case.

Joel Beinin in the ‘pantheon’ of campus terrorism with Rachel Corrie and Sami al-Arian (photo: Rick E. Martin/SJ Mercury News)

David Horowitz has never been known for his deft touch in the rough and tumble of intellectual and political debate. In other words, the guy’s a hatchet man out for the blood of the academic left. Horowitz reserves an especially fond place in his heart for those he deems enemies of Israel. Further, he reserves the choicest of choice places for Jewish critics of Israel. That’s why he chose to steal a picture of Stanford Middle East studies professor Joel Beinin and slap it on his hatchet job of a book, Campus Support for Terrorism.

In the process of publishing his pamphlet, he appropriated an image of Beinin without seeking permission from its owner. After Beinin saw his picture displayed as a leader of campus terror he contacted the photographer who owned it. The latter promptly assigned the image to Beinin which allowed him to sue Horowitz for copyright infringement. In case any of my readers believe this is a relatively minor matter not worthy of legal proceedings, I must say that at least twice people have appropriated pictures of me from this blog and used them at other websites to heap abuse upon me for my political views. In both cases, the images were removed. But in one of those cases I had to retain a copyright attorney to threaten the blogger’s publisher with a Digital Millennium Copyright infringement. And this cost me money, time and aggravation. So I know precisely what Beinin is going through and I’m with him 100% in this battle against gnaivishe (“thieving”) tabloid ideologues like Horowitz.

Here’s Horowitz’ pathetic response quoted in the NY Times:

[Horowitz] asserted that revised covers of the pamphlet in subsequent printings would not have the photograph.

But the picture, Mr. Horowitz said, is beside the point, adding, “The leftists claim to be concerned about the chilling of free speech, but think nothing of using the courts to chill speech.”

As for his first point, it is beside the point. The damage has been done to Beinin’s reputation. Subsequent printings which omit the offending photo cannot undue that damage. So Davey still has a little old problem that won’t go away just because he says he’s going to play nice in the future.

And don’t you just love Horowitz’s whining about violation of his own free speech rights via the lawsuit. Of course, the lawsuit has nothing to do with free speech. Horowitz is entitled to say any damn thing he wanted about Beinin (and he has I’m sure and probably mostly lies or distortions). But he’s not entitled to use an image owned by someone else without the owners permission if the owner objects to his use.

In a San Jose Mercury News article Horowitz attempts an alternate defense:

I didn’t say he was a terrorist. I said he supported terrorism,”

Big deal. Big difference! You see, in Horowitz’s alleged mind Beinin “supports terrorism” because he’s critical of Zionism and Israeli policies against the Palestinians. Beinin counts himself as an anti-Zionist, which I am not. But it’s a goddamn shame to let David Horowitz call Beinin a supporter of terrorism merely because he’s critical of Israel. I consider myself a progressive Zionist, but I am also critical of Israeli policy toward the Palestinians. No doubt Horowitz would call me names as well. But neither Beinin, myself nor anyone else deserves such a base smear for having principled differences with Israel.

This exchange is also instructive:

“I consider Beinin to be a supporter of terrorism,” Horowitz said. “I know that he supports the Palestinian Liberation Organization. I am going to guess that he supports the Palestinian Authority, which is Hamas.”

Beinin responded: “As usual, Horowitz is either flat out wrong or makes arguments from innuendo. I have never said that I support the PLO or any of its constituent organizations. I have argued that the U.S. and Israel ought to negotiate with the Palestinian Authority, not because I support it but because it is the pragmatic way to make progress toward peace. I definitely do not support Hamas.”

And lest you dismiss Horowitz as a right-wing nutjob, consider this from the Mercury News story:

A nationally known writer and Republican firebrand, center president Horowitz is said to have the ear of Bush adviser Karl Rove and others in the White House.

Since Horowitz is a braggart and publicity hound who may’ve been the source of the information included in this quotation, we might doubt this statement. But it’s certainly possible or even likely that it’s true.

Finally, if Horowitz can accuse Beinin of being a campus terrorist I think it’s only fair that we accuse Horowitz of being an ideological terrorist. If the damn shoe fits let him wear it.