I suspect that Ms. Winfrey’s legacy won’t be just the big things she built — the school she created, the girls she educated and the fortune she amassed. It won’t be just the movies she produced or the novelists she promoted or the politicians whose fortunes she boosted. It won’t be just her talk show or her magazine or her philanthropy, the firsts she’s achieved or the good she’s done.
It will also be the idea that every woman’s body is a battleground, that our appetites are to be mistrusted and subdued, that fat is an enemy to be combated with every weapon available, that the war is never over and that thinness is a woman’s true life’s work, just as it’s been so much of hers.
The Freedom of Speech is enshrined in First Amendment.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The Fourteenth Amendment further adds “ nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
The U.S. Supreme Court often has struggled to determine what exactly constitutes protected speech. The following are examples of speech, both direct (words) and symbolic (actions), that the Court has decided are either entitled to First Amendment protections, or not.
Freedom of speech includes the right:
Not to speak (specifically, the right not to salute the flag). West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).
Of students to wear black armbands to school to protest a war (“Students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.”). Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
To use certain offensive words and phrases to convey political messages. Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971).
To contribute money (under certain circumstances) to political campaigns. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).
To advertise commercial products and professional services (with some restrictions). Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976); Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977).
To engage in symbolic speech, (e.g., burning the flag in protest). Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989); United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990).
Freedom of speech does not include the right:
To incite imminent lawless action. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).
To make or distribute obscene materials. Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest. United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).
Defamation speech
Hate and violent Speech
There is landmark case of Brandenburg v Ohio in 1969, which lay the foundation of rules governing hate or violent speech. Wikipedia description of the case is worth reading.
Clarence Brandenburg, a Ku Klux Klan (KKK) leader in rural Ohio, contacted a reporter at a Cincinnati television station and invited him to cover a KKK rally that would take place in Hamilton County in the summer of 1964.[9] Portions of the rally were filmed, showing several men in robes and hoods, some carrying firearms, first burning a cross and then making speeches. One of the speeches made reference to the possibility of “revengeance” against “Niggers“, “Jews“, and those who supported them and also claimed that “our President, our Congress, our Supreme Court, continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race“, and announced plans for a march on Congress to take place on the Fourth of July.[10] Another speech advocated for the forced expulsion of African Americans to Africa and Jewish Americans to Israel.[11]
Brandenburg was charged with advocating violence under Ohio’s criminal syndicalism statute for his participation in the rally and for the speech he made. In relevant part, the statute – enacted in 1919 during the First Red Scare – proscribed “advocat[ing] … the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform” and “voluntarily assembl[ing] with any society, group or assemblage of persons formed to teach or advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism”.
David French writes in NYT about recent controversy in universities over hate speech. “For example, surprising though it may be, the First Amendment does largely protect calls for violence. In case after case, the Supreme Court has held that in the absence of an actual, immediate threat — such as an incitement to violence — the government cannot punish a person who advocates violence. And no, there is not even a genocide exception to this rule.
But that changes for publicly funded universities when speech veers into targeted harassment that is “so severe, pervasive and objectively offensive that it effectively bars the victim’s access to an educational opportunity or benefit.” The First Amendment scholar Eugene Volokh has helpfully articulated the difference between prohibited harassment and protected speech as often the difference between “one-to-one speech” and “one-to-many speech.” The legal commentator David Lat explained further, writing, “If I repeatedly send antisemitic emails and texts to a single Jewish student, that is far more likely to constitute harassment than if I set up an antisemitic website available to the entire world.”
As a result, what we’ve seen on campus is a mixture of protected antisemitic (as well as anti-Islamic) speech and prohibited harassment. Chanting “Globalize the intifada” or “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” at a public protest is protected speech. Tearing down another person’s posters is not. (My rights to free speech do not include a right to block another person’s speech.) Trapping Jewish students in a library while protesters pound on library doors is not protected speech, either.”
David French writes great concluding paragraph; “Confronting hatred with courageous speech is far better than confronting hatred with censorship. It is obviously important to protect students from harassment. I’m glad to see that the Department of Education is opening numerousTitle VI investigations (including an investigation of Harvard) in response to reports of harassment on campus. But do not protect students from speech. Let them grow up and engage with even the most vile of ideas. The answer to campus hypocrisy isn’t more censorship. It’s true liberty. Without that liberty, the hypocrisy will reign for decades more.”
Obscene Speech
Obscene speech is not protected under First Amendment. Initially courts had hard time defining “Obscene”. Even one judge remarked, I know it is obscene when I see it. Ultimately in Miller v California 1973, Chief Justice Warren Burger outlined what he called “guidelines” for jurors in obscenity cases. These guidelines are the three prongs of the Miller test. They are:
(1) whether the average person applying contemporary community standards would find the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; The Court defined material appealing to prurient interest as “material having a tendency to excite lustful thoughts,” or “a shameful or morbid interest in nudity, sex, or excretion.”
(2) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and
(3) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.
Defamation Speech
The courts mostly want to err on the side of allowing more freedom of speech than restricting it. It is especially important in cases of public officials who are accountable to public and need scrutiny of their actions by the public and press without fear of defamation law suits which may have chilling effects on free speech. Error is inevitable in any debate and courts do not hold it against the defendant as long as there was no intentional aspect in the error.
When it comes to prosecuting defamation, the law treats regular citizens and public figures or celebrities on different standards. Because criminals, celebrities, and other categories of people that are common topics for discussion and media coverage have in some sense agreed to be talked about, when they sue for defamation, they have a higher burden of proof.
Public Figures & Celebrities; For defamation to be successful the public figures have to prove that not only the published report was false but also the malice. Constitutional actual malice means that the defamation was published with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false. Reckless disregard is not simply negligent behavior, but publication with serious doubts as to the truth of what is uttered. They also have to prove the damage it caused, such as out-of-pocket loss, impairment of reputation and standing, personal humiliation, and mental anguish and suffering.
Private Citizens; Private citizens have to prove only that the information published or statements made against them are false and they do not have to prove malice. They have to prove the damage it caused and the compensation will be limited for actual provable injuries, such as out-of-pocket loss, impairment of reputation and standing, personal humiliation, and mental anguish and suffering. If Private Citizen also prove actual malice, then they will be entitled as well to collect punitive damages.
Recently two Georgia election workers won about $150 million verdict against Rudy Giuliani in defamation law suit. They, as private citizens, proved that Rudy not only made false statements against them, but did so with malice. They won compensation as well as punitive damages. The jury awarded Ms. Freeman and Ms. Moss a combined $75 million in punitive damages. It also ordered Mr. Giuliani to pay compensatory damages of $16.2 million to Ms. Freeman and $16.9 million to Ms. Moss, as well as $20 million to each of them for emotional suffering.
There are three level of evidence used in courts. The ” defamation” cases require clear and convincing evidence. The three level of evidence are;
Preponderance of Evidence; To prove an element by a preponderance of the evidence simply means to prove that something is more likely than not. In other words, in light of the evidence and the law, do you believe that each element of his/her [claim/counterclaim] is more likely true than not? It has greater than 50% chance of being true. This is mostly used in civil cases.
Clear and convincing evidence; According to the Supreme Court in Colorado v. New Mexico, 467 U.S. 310 (1984), “clear and convincing” means that the evidence is highly and substantially more likely to be true than untrue. In other words, the fact-finder must be convinced that the contention is highly probable. In percentage the evidence is about 85% true.
Beyond Reasonable doubt; This level of evidence is used in criminal cases. This means that the prosecution must convince the jury that there is no other reasonable explanation that can come from the evidence presented at trial. In other words, the jury must be virtually certain of the defendant’s guilt in order to render a guilty verdict. In percentage the uncertainty is about 98%. Beyond reasonable doubt does not mean from any doubt, but the doubt one may have is miniscule, less than 2%.
Sources; I have cut and pasted some parts of the article.
Israeli security officials scored a major intelligence coup in 2018: secret documents that laid out, in intricate detail, what amounted to a private equity fund that Hamas used to finance its operations.
The ledgers, pilfered from the computer of a senior Hamas official, listed assets worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Hamas controlled mining, chicken farming and road building companies in Sudan, twin skyscrapers in the United Arab Emirates, a property developer in Algeria, and a real estate firm listed on the Turkish stock exchange.
The documents, which The New York Times reviewed, were a potential road map for choking off Hamas’s money and thwarting its plans. The agents who obtained the records shared them inside their own government and in Washington.
Nothing happened.
For years, none of the companies named in the ledgers faced sanctions from the United States or Israel. Nobody publicly called out the companies or pressured Turkey, the hub of the financial network, to shut it down.
A Times investigation found that both senior Israeli and American officials failed to prioritize financial intelligence — which they had in hand — showing that tens of millions of dollars flowed from the companies to Hamas at the exact moment that it was buying new weapons and preparing an attack.
That money, American and Israeli officials now say, helped Hamas build up its military infrastructure and helped lay the groundwork for the Oct. 7 attacks.
Fascinating story and a valuable inside look into recent history. Those who claim Israel had no option but to bomb Gaza into oblivion should read this. There are always options and choices. Netanyahu and his cronies made many terrible decisions over the years, and ignoring this huge red flag looks to be one of the worst ones.
Failure to stop the money, failure to predict the attack, attack gets cements support for Netanyahu when he was politically vulnerable. Were I of a suspicious nature, I would suspect Bibi wanted Hamas to attack.
Ukraine is on border of Russia and a buffer between Russia and many NATO countries. If Ukraine falls, there is no doubt that Russia will not stop there and will extend its aggression to other NATO countries-and that is a threat to our national security. Unfortunately, the support for this crucial country is being held hostage to partisan politics.
While our national interests are obvious in Ukraine, but what are our national interests in Israel? So far, the only national interest stated by Government, politicians, and all columnists (including Thomas Friedman) is that Israel is the only Democracy in the Middle East, which is also in doubt considering religious extremists taking hold in Israeli political parties and Judicial mess. Well, what do we expect? We always supported dictatorships and authoritarianism in other Middle East countries and did our best to keep them in power. What is so special about Israel being a Democracy that we abandon all our moral values and give unconditional support to Israel despite violent oppression of Palestinians for decades-and which is contradictory to all Democratic values. We can get more bang for our buck for supporting many other Democracies in the world than continue to support an apartheid regime.
