I support the rights of people to speak freely, and do not wish to moderate or censor comments on my blog, but sometimes when I read comments (on my blog and elsewhere on the internets), I wonder if that is a wise choice. After all, this is not a public forum; it is my personal blog. I don't have to give anyone else a space to comment. I could close them or delete them at my convenience.
What are the limitations of "free" speech?
Most people would say that you do not have the right to incite violence, to slander another person, or to commit acts of libel, and I think that most people would say that although lying is not technically illegal (except under oath), it is essential to tell the truth if you wish to be taken seriously.
Part of my personal resistance to moderation/censorship is that I don't want to be the arbiter of truth-telling or determining whether a particular statement qualifies as incitement, slander or libel.
This particular statement, by Mr. Kohen, in my opinion, and the one prior to it that I responded to in the comments section, qualifies as slander: "6. I love it when people try to weasel out of their responsibility for supporting terrorists: "No- not me. I supported the Germans in WWII by going to Germany to help them- but not the Nazis". Right."
Now, anyone who knows me would probably say that if I had been alive in Germany at the time Hitler rose to power, I would have been thrown into a death camp long before the Jews were, because= before he got around to that death project, he rounded up anyone who would have opposed his regime. It's utterly absurd to call me a Nazi sympathizer.
I'm also not a terrorist sympathizer. I don't support people who use violence or fear of violence in order to obtain a political or ideological goal--whether the people who being targeted are civilians or members of the military of the opposition forces (which would probably be more accurately described as resistance). I am a pacifist. This makes me unpopular with a lot of people, especially the ones who feel that the only way to overthrow an oppressor is through force. C'est la vie, it's what I believe. I think the only way to end violence is to break it non-violently, and there are many creative ways to resist non-violently.
---
Then we have the question of "what is the truth?" It seems like a silly question, but is it? Mr. Kohen sent me a whole list of links that claimed to teach "the truth, " but as I pointed out, consider the point of view the truth is being told from. Most of the links he sent were from right-wing organizations and Zionist groups, so I wouldn't exactly expect for them to be objective.
Then there is the question of using holy texts as an unquestionable source of truth. Well, that works if you believe in the holy texts' infallibility, but what if you are an unbeliever? Does that mean that you have to accept something you don't believe in as truth?
There is a reason why separation of church and state is a good idea.
-----------------
The relationship of a blogger to a commenter is assymmetrical--I can write anything I want on my blog, whereas a comment can be deleted.
What are the benefits of silencing another person?
If I allow people to comment and say things that may incite violence, commit slander or libel, or spread untruths (or partial truths), am I complicit?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
You wouldn't be the first blog that decides to shut down freedom of speech when you are bombarded with cold hard verifiable facts that you can't answer.
Arab blogs often do that.
So it goes like this: You post rhetoric. I rebut and bring cold hard verifiable facts that you can't answer. You feel uncomfortable with that. I understand.
As to "non-violence", that's funny. The group of people you're supporting is the antithesis of non-violence.
And violence in the name of religion.
Mr. Kohen, I'm not denying some of the things that you've said because I am well aware that, in the course in this conflict, some Palestinians have perpetuated violence upon Jews/Israelis.
I don't condone it or approve of it.
I also am painfully and personally aware of how Israelis enact violence on a daily basis upon Palestinians; sometimes it is led by the government, sometimes it is led by settlers. Palestinians die every day here, and that is wrong. Most of the Palestinians who die have no affiliation with militant groups. They are children or innocent bystanders caught in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Israel (and my guess is you would too) calls this "collateral damage." I don't think that human beings are collateral damage. I don't condone or approve of Israeli violence, either.
For every "verifiable fact" that you put up, I could either find one to directly counter it or, at the very least, find an analogous incident or two that demonstrates how Palestinians have been victimized. To do so is a waste of time.
The question is, how much energy do I want to put into debating with someone who isn't going to be moved because no matter what the "facts" are, his religious convictions and holy texts tell him that God gave him a piece of land and he is within his right to push all non-Jews from it?
I am not clear about what group of people you think that I am supporting. It sure isn't Hamas or Fatah. I spent my whole day trapped inside today because there were snipers on the roof to protect Bush when his motorcade came through, and from what I've been told, people who went out to protest his visit were arrested.
That doesn't endear the PA to me; and I've never thought that Hamas was the answer to PLO corruption.
I have never thought that militant resistance to the occupation was the solution, both for the ethical reasons I've outlined and practical reasons (you can drag out a sniper led resistance for decades and never win an inch of land, and in the meantime, the opposition gets a great PR opportunity to portray themselves as victims and gifts of military aid from the US--how is this possibly a winning strategy for militants?)
From what I can see, this whole conflict is fueled by extremists on both sides--people like you who insist that Jews are entitled to a state called Israel because God said so, and people who align with a similarly bastardized version of Islam and think that Jews should be driven to the sea. The extremists align with opportunists who just want as much power and wealth as they can get.
Between the extremists and the opportunists, God help everyone.
You conveniently overlook the bottom line: If the Arabs wouldn't insist on violence, there would be no violence.
It's that simple.
And if we Jews of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza would do to the Arabs what they have been trying to do to us, then they would all be dead.
Lucky for them we're not like they are.
I'm not going to be moved on ANY level- including physically. There's no moral equivalence here between the Arab violence and our fighting back against Arab violence.
As I corrected you in an earlier erroneous post of yours, we DON'T believe that we need to "push all non-Jews from" OUR land. Just as we don't believe that everyone must be Jewish to be a good person.
But if they insist on violence, they obviously can't remain.
The Arabs insist on violence.
You spent your day trapped inside because there are a LOT of violent Arabs out there with guns who would want to murder your President. In Jerusalem, a LOT more were inconvenienced- and there AREN'T a lot of violent Jews who would want to murder your President.
jessica, the guy is a settler - an outsider, someone who WAS NOT BORN on this land. He's probably from Brooklyn. He has no more right to this land than I, an Arab from California, do. He probably goes and spits on Palestinian women in their houses and calls them sharmutas, like that famous clip from this past spring that no major news organization was willing to show. He probably carries an uzi on his back. He may not use his gone but he's sick and violent in his head. I think you should block him. It's no use trying to "debate" someone like this. He is a racist pig.
My opinion is that since it's your blog (and your life), you can feel free to make judgments about what is slander, libel, and hate speech. I think a sample question to ask is: does having someone allude to you and others on your blog as Nazi-sympathizers add to the discussion or detract from it? We know the answer.
Equally disturbing is talk that consistently refers to "the Arabs" as genocidal. This is the kind of bigoted speech that comes from someone who hates Arabs as an ethnic group, and again, it detracts from good discussion.
And you are correct in interpreting a personal threat (intended or otherwise) from the statement: "Time for you to leave too. We won't allow Nazi-sympathizers either."
As I see it, there's not a whole lot to gain from letting this persist.
If you want to see more racism, here it is, from Israel's own "founding fathers":
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2003/02/11/15727361.php
"tina",
I'm an Israeli Jew., This is my land. You are an Arab. This is NOT your land.
Arabs occupy 99.9% of the Middle East- with all of the oil. We sit on OUR tiny 1/10th of 1% without oil.
If the greedy, violent Arabs can't "make do" with what is theirs now, then they will end up hurting more and occupying less.
So enjoy sunny California- or Saudi Arabia (where no non-Muslims are even allowed to VISIT Mecca or Medina); and stop being a greedy, violent racist.
For your own good.
PS I love your "quotes". Here's just one example that you brought being exposed as the lie that it is:
David Ben Gurion, quoted in The Jewish Paradox, by Nahum Goldmann, Weidenfeld and Nicolson,
1978, p. 99:
"Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist. Not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushua in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population."
Now, a simple check on that reveals the truth:
* Nahlal: Established in 1921
* Kibbutz Gvat: Established in 1926
* Kibbutz Sarid: Established in 1926
* Kfar Yehoshua: Established in 1927
* The state of Israel: Re-established in 1948
So unless you now claim that Great Britain, who ruled over the land of Israel then, was somehow involved, you're a liar.
And if you DO still claim that, then prove it.
I publicly challenge you.
It reminds me of something that Arafat himself said:
"Reflections from Beirut" by Nabil Khalifeh (a political activist living in Beirut)
"Arafat is a pathological liar; we signed 72 ceasefires with him in a span of 18 months in 1975-1976, and he broke each and every one of them, whenever he felt that the balance of power was shifting to his advantage.
To refresh the memory, he is quoted to have said: ‘I am ready to kill for the sake of my cause; wouldn't I lie for it?’"…
Oh yes, and one last point: Even if I were from Brooklyn, which thankfully, I'm not, this would be my land.
The land of Israel belongs to the nation of Israel- no matter where the individual was born.
What I find really funny is that to you, this was Arafat's land and he was an Egyptian- born and raised in Cairo!
Post a Comment