Comments on: What if they published a blood libel and nobody rioted?

By: Michael Lonie

Michael Lonie — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 03:40:30 +0000

Veeshir,
The Elders are very old fashioned and they might not take to a woman running such an important office, no matter how incompetent the current head is. He’s also the nephew of one of the Elders (which is how he got the job in the first place). We need a new set of Elders.

By: Veeshir

Veeshir — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 16:41:44 +0000

I know it’s not my business, but at the next meeting you people should try to get Meryl
promoted to head the media.
The ones you have in charge now just don’t seem very competent.

By: Alex Bensky

Alex Bensky — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 13:23:24 +0000

I am a lawyer but not an expert on libel law, so at least under U.S. law who would have actual standing to sue is not clear to me. However, our First Amendment, while not as limited as the academic left would like it to be, is not unlimited. One condition for libel is publishing something defamatory and untrue either knowing it is false or with reckless disregard for its truth or falsity.

My offhand, nonprofessional guess is that publishing an allegation when you haven’t even bothered to check on its veracity would at least be prima facia evidence of defamation in this country. I have no idea what the Swedish law is or, more importantly, whether a Swedish court would be likely to rule that Jews can be legally defamed.

This gets very little world attention. Evicting a couple of people who hae not paid rent after a lengthy litigation process, on the other hand, draws international condemnation.

By: Dick Stanley

Dick Stanley — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 03:33:59 +0000

Figures it would be the Swedes. Very chummy with the the Nazis until Hitler started losing the war.

By: Elisson

Elisson — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 22:10:50 +0000

Damn. Now I’m going to have to boycott IKEA.

Your post deserves to go on the front page of the Washington Post and/or the New York Times. Which means, of course, that it’ll never happen.

By: Herschel

Herschel — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 21:56:58 +0000

I believe that a lawsuit is absolutely necessary to publicize the fact that this is a scandalous lie, otherwise some Swedish fools are going to believe it’s true. Its time to hit back hard with something that will scare the hell out of anyone that contemplates writing the same kind of ridiculous hate garbage.
There has to be consequences for this kind of anti-Semitic behavior, or, things will spiral out of control.

By: Meryl Yourish

Meryl Yourish — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 21:06:11 +0000

The problem is you’d have to sue them in Swedish courts, and it would have to be the IDF, I presume, or the state of Israel, doing the suing. Also, you’d be bound by Swedish libel law, whatever that is. I expect that aside from the denunciations, there will be no action, though I’d love to see them sued for libel. I think we could even find a Jewish lawyer or three to help.

By: Furious Israeli

Furious Israeli — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 18:49:43 +0000

While I’m hardly an expert on international law (or even Israeli law, for that matter), isn’t that a clear-cut case of libel? Isn’t libel something you can sue somebody for? I mean, isn’t that how Holocaust deniers get prosecuted? It’s not simply because they’re saying the Holocaust didn’t exist (since as vile as that is, it still falls under freedom of speech), but because they claim Jews lie about the Holocaust for whatever reasons, when it’s been proven beyond reasonable doubt that it did happen, ergo Jews do not lie about it, which makes it a libel case.

Since the Swedish newspaper is making a serious allegation it can’t possibly prove, wouldn’t that make it liable for prosecution for the exact same reason? It’s like if I claimed American troops in Iraq massacred and raped every single Iraqi civilian they came across, or something idiotic like that. Wouldn’t I be required to produce evidence to back my claim or get the sh*t sued out of me by angry American soldiers?