by Herbert I. London, Family Security Matters
At long last an attempt is being made to curtail blatant anti-Semitic commentary at American universities. The Israel Law Center warns that universities “may be liable for massive damage” if they fail to prevent anti-Semitism on campus.
The center sent hundreds of letters to university presidents drawing a line in the sand. This Israel civil rights center is carrying out this campaign in response to an alarming number of incidents against Jewish and Israeli students at U.S. universities.
A lawyer for the center, Nitsana Darshan-Leitner said, “Anti-Israel rallies and events frequently exceed legitimate criticism of Israel and cross the line into blatant anti-Semitism, resulting in hateful attacks against Jews.” A student at Rutgers, to cite, one example, said he was called “a racist Zionist pig” in a public Facebook posting. That comment was made when the student questioned a Student Assembly decision to donate money to the Palestine Children’s Relief Fund, a nonprofit organization with ties to the Holy Land Foundation, a foundation that has funded Hamas – a recognized terrorist organization.
University officials noted that free speech provisions militate against disciplinary action; clearly
a case can and should be made for the free and open exchange of ideas on campus. In fact, every provision should be made to foster free speech. However, intimidation is another matter. Using methods to stifle free speech is the overarching issue. As George Santayana noted, “The first duty of the tolerant person is to be intolerant to intolerance.”
Ms. Leitner contends that “perpetrators of hate” are exploiting academic freedom and First Amendment provisions to create an environment of intimidation, one that prevents Jews from exercising their free speech.
Presumably the warning distributed by the center will prompt U.S. colleges and universities to take appropriate action against the growing problem of campus hate.
A former Brandeis student Hershel Hartz maintains that universities have a double standard in which anti-Semitism is protected as free speech while other designated ethnicities are scrupulously protected from discriminatory acts.
The center letter also points to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project which held it illegal to provide support to a terrorist organization, even for supposed humanitarian purposes (a clear reference to the Rutgers program).
The center’s notice sets the stage for a responsible reaction to the rash of anti-Semitic actions on American campuses. As I see it, it is about time.
@ Laura:
Is it not remotely possible there is another Bill Levinson.? There just happens to be 40 listings for Bill levinson in the Manhattan phone book.
Are you the only Laura on this good earth?
CuriousAmerican Said:
there is a difference between censorship and not allowing others to speak,slander and libel. That is what a court is meant to define if it becomes a gray area for ordinary citizens. You do not fight hate speech with protests that represent mob behavior. All of this is already demonstrated, that is why there is a problem. the ones with the bigger, louder and more aggressive protests win. The fomenting of mob behavior is what the nazis did to attack their jews. Truth rarely arises from mob behavior which is what the current problem is. Intimidation of Jews is unacceptable, unless it is acceptable to extrajudicially liquidate the attacker.
Some of what Shurat HaDin does is wonderful.
But not all of it. They should use discretion.
You do not fight hate speech with censorship; but with truth.
@ CuriousAmerican:Lawfare is another form of warfare and should be used much more now. Public relations has been unsuccessful for whatever reasons. Running away from using the law because one is afraid it will be used against them is inadvisable. They are, right now using it against the Jews, but the Jews have not been using it up to now. That includes the rights of Jews to settle in the west bank under international law. As for the Kapo Jews representing the jew killers they should get the same.
@ CuriousAmerican:
I agree. Up to the point where ‘speech’ becomes physical. . . .
The cure for bad speech is more speech.
The only alternative to that is the Thought Police
— and by their very nature, THEY have more in common (and more in sympathy) with the bad guys.
ARE Muslims Happy?
The Muslims are not happy!
They’re not happy in Gaza .
They’re not happy in Egypt .
They’re not happy in Libya .
They’re not happy in Morocco.
They’re not happy in Iran ..
They’re not happy in Iraq .
They’re not happy in Yemen ..
They’re not happy in Afghanistan.
They’re not happy in Pakistan.
They’re not happy in Syria .
They’re not happy in Lebanon.
So, where are they happy?
They’re happy in Canada.
They’re happy in Australia.
They’re happy in England.
They’re happy in France.
They’re happy in Italy.
They’re happy in Germany.
They’re happy in Sweden.
They’re happy in the USA.
They’re happy in Norway.
They’re happy in every country that is not Muslim.
And who do they blame?
Not Islam.
Not their leadership.
Not themselves.
THEY BLAME THE COUNTRIES THEY ARE HAPPY IN!
AND THEY WANT TO CHANGE THEM TO BE LIKE THE COUNTRY THEY CAME FROM . .
WHERE THEY WERE UNHAPPY.
Excuse me, but . . ..
How stupid can you get?
Yeah it does.
Or no politician, priest, preacher, rabbi, or imam would be safe.
It does include the freedom to lie, or do you want Christian Evangelicals to impose truth, and decide the Talmud is full of lies?
Think ahead.
@ Laura:
Your right on Laura and it appears to be happening more often. I am sure Ted is aware of them, at least I hope so.
Ted should list those names that are used by these so called characters.
People, Commenter #2 IS NOT BILL LEVINSON, but a person who frequently impersonates israpundit commenters here and on other sites. When it is actually Bill Levinson, his name shows up as a red link.
Jewish students need to stop whining and give it to them back in kind.
There are two sides to this.
The group is ShuratHaDin.
It has some successes. It’s threats of lawsuits were responsible to a large degree for
the scuttling of the 2011 flotilla, WITHOUT VIOLENCE, which was very impressive.
I have to give them credit for that.
But before one goes scuttling free speech, remember that it backfires.
Canada and Europe have hate crime laws … but they are ineffective against anti-semitism. More often than not, they prosecute Anti-Islamic criticism. Look what happened to Geert Wilder for his FITNA video.
Michel Houllebecq was sued for merely criticizing the literary merit of the Koran.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/2209121.stm
Brigitte Bardot has been sued and lost in court.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/may/15/france.davidhearst
The laws, intended to protect Jews, will protect Muslims.
The first victim of vigorous enforcement of these laws will be ISRAPUNDIT.
If you say: Demonizing Israel is anti-semitism; they will go after ISRAPUNDIT for demonizing Palestinians.
If you say: Delegitimizing Israel is anti-semitism; they will go after ISRAPUNDIT for delegitimizing Palestine.
And so on.
As ugly as it gets … Free Speech should be left alone.
Calling someone a “racist Zionist” may be ugly, but it is not a threat and should not be actionable.
It is no accident that those nations with hate crime laws are more anti-semitic than the USA.
DISCORDIA (Canada’s Hate Crime laws did not stop this)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcedmeGewF0
I do not think anything so bad has happened in the USA.
The way to beat them is to retaliate in protest. Have anti-Muslim protests.
Pass out literature blaming Israel for its crimes. Which you can only do if hate crimes are NOT made legal.
You could win the debate easily.
But suppressing criticism (even illegitmate criticism) is totalitarian and will backfire. They will end up suppressing you. DO NOT GIVE THEM THE LEGAL AMMUNITION TO DO IT.
@ keelie:
Keelie,
Libel and defamation have very high barriers for proof, and on top of that, one has to show financial damage as a result. Hurt feelings are not enough
As a result, free speech DOES effectively include freedom to lie, at least in this country.
The libel/defamation standard is much lower in the UK, but the left and the Islamonazis have used such liberal libel laws to silence legitimate critics who dare tell the truth about them. There was an American Jewish writer – Rachel Ehrenfeld – who was sued by a Saudi prince for statements she made in a book about him. They were in fact true, but he knew that she did not have the money to contest the lawsuit, and he won by default. While that decision is not enforceable in the USA, she can no longer travel to Britain, its territories, or even many British commonwealth nations, as she would be arrested and jailed for contempt of court and refusal to pay damages. This although she never set foot inside the UK. All the Prince did was buy a copy of her book on the internet.
So no, thank you – I would rather have our more stringent libel laws.
I would prefer that the approach be based on the lies that are presented on every poster and that are exuded from every mouth, including those of the “professors”. These can be handled, no doubt, under existing defamation laws, without disturbing “free speech”.
Free Speech does not include the freedom to lie…
@ Bill Levinson:
Bill,
The anti-Semite card may be useless against the sub-human Marxist scum that run the academy, but in the wider world, you can find a jury that will buy it. This is particularly true where you have universities in Red State areas, sympathetic to liberals.
This tactic might not work at Berkeley, but would probably work at Rice or Duke.
Too many Jewish students are part of the chorus railing against Israel for this to work anymore. U.S. campuses are ground zero for defending the Palestinians. You can scream and kick until you’re blue in the face but the anti-Semite card is a loser for good now.All it does is elicit laughter and scorn.
Two can play that same game.
Would they be ok with the Jewish students using THEIR free speech to stifle that of the Muslims, the Palys, the lefties, and the other usual suspects?
This is the crux of the matter.
If university presidents don’t get the message, they can find themselves shorn of their half-million dollar salaries & out on the street, hunting for work in the real world.