Powered by WebAds

Monday, July 18, 2011

Double standards in criticizing Israel's anti-boycott law

Law professor Eugene Kontorovich points out some of the double standards being invoked by critics of Israel's anti-boycott law.
Most European nations – and Israel – have numerous laws criminalizing speech that would not conceivably pass muster under the First Amendment. This does not mean these countries deny freedom of speech; merely that there are competing ideas.

But even the US has a law against boycotting Israel. It has been on the books for decades, and has been regularly enforced, but no one has suggested it is unconstitutional – and that is for a law protecting another country’s economy. Moreover, Israel’s law, unlike the American one, applies only to organizing boycotts, not to actually adhering to one.

In any country, guarantees of free speech do not apply to speech that causes actual harm, – like yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theater. Some countries take this quite far. Great Britain has strong libel laws that prevent people from truthfully condemning public officials. While the law is widely criticized, no one has suggested Britain has thereby lost its democratic status. Critics of Israel’s anti-boycott law denounce it as fascist. In Europe, calling others fascist has gotten prominent politicians prosecuted – prosecutions that have not provoked lectures on free speech from the EU or America’s State Department.

EVERY NATION has laws against conspiracies to cause economic harm: antitrust laws prohibit speech when its purpose is to unfairly cause economic harm. And the common law makes it a tort to “interfere with prospective business advantage,” i.e. scaring off someone’s customers.

The anti-boycott law prohibits speech intended to cause economic harm to businesses solely because of their national identity. Nondiscrimination laws commonly ban plans to deny business to specified groups of certain national or ethnic origins.

Israel’s new law bans discrimination against businesses because they are Israeli.

Most European states – and Israel – have laws prohibiting speech that is perceived as “hateful” or which simply offends the feelings of particular groups. Often such speech expresses important viewpoints.

A boycott of Israel promotes hatred of Israel, and certainly offends the vast majority of Israelis. To be sure, boycott supporters argue that at least when it comes to settlers, such hatred is deserved, but that is always the opinion of those whose speech is blocked by such laws.

The boycott movement is designed to imperil the State of Israel, and can actually do so. This danger outweighs the benefits of allowing such speech, especially since the law does not in any way limit advocating policies or viewpoints that such boycotts are supposed to promote. Indeed, the law has a characteristic crucial for free-speech scrutiny – it is “viewpoint neutral.”

That is, it applies to boycotts of Israel whether organized by the left wing or the right wing.

Like most European democracies, Israel’s constitutional protection of speech has long been narrower than America’s.

One example is that speech restraints have long been used against right-wing groups. Just recently, a prominent right-wing activist has been prosecuted for “insulting a public official,” after denouncing those responsible for expelling Jewish families from Gaza in 2005. In recent weeks, police have arrested several rabbis for authoring or endorsing obscure treatises of religious law that discuss (allegedly too leniently) the permissibility of killing enemy civilians in wartime.

Most saliently, the far-Right party of Rabbi Meir Kahane was kicked out of the Knesset because its views were deemed racist. Such actions manifestly constitute interference in political expression, and would clearly violate freespeech norms in the US, but that does not make them unconstitutional in Israel. Nor did these actions trigger alarm among the international community.
The cartoon at the top of this post was drawn by a young Russian immigrant named Tatiana Soskin. She attempted to affix it to a storefront in Hebron, was immediately arrested and was eventually sent to jail for two years. The New York Times, the 'human rights' organizations, the State Department (Mrs. Clinton's husband was the President at the time) and the Europeans were all silent. None of them came to Soskin's defense.

Free speech for me but not for thee?

Read the whole thing.

Labels: , , , ,


At 4:48 PM, Blogger NormanF said...

The Israeli Left is selective when it comes to free speech. Its happy when Israel's "dual justice" system moves to firmly repress right-wing views but it screams bloody murder when its own interests are threatened. Its defense of democracy extends to those agree with it. Every one else is simply not entitled to its benefits.

At 6:47 PM, Blogger Samuel_Michon said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.


Post a Comment

<< Home