mekubal wrote:
For those who readily wish Rabbi Dr. Eidensohn to press on despite danger of a lawsuit. You are giving him very dangerous advice. While I believe that he would be offered some sort of protection on account of Israeli privacy laws, on the other hand he can be in serious danger and here is why.
I realize that I asserted in a previous comment that I believed( and to a certain extant still do) that he has been trolled. However, given the way things have unraveled and that through phone conversations as admitted that he owns this blog, and that his only true defense would be to lie and say that he doesn't, something I don't believe he would do as an Orthodox Jew, we come down to the greater problem of his potential liability.
Having not fully navigated the Israeli system I will leave that out for now, in part because my knowledge there is lacking, and secondly because that is not the only place that he is liable to damages.
I will start with the US. Under US and European law libel is, "the printed communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image". Pursuant to that the Supreme Court Rulings of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc, and Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, have served to limit and define the limits of free speech in printed media.
Furthermore Supreme Court decision Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co., as well as Congressional Act 47 U.S.C. § 230(the Cyberlibel law) did two primary things of which the owner of this blog has to concern himself. First it made owners of moderated blogs liable for the postings of their commentators as well as their own postings. Secondly it allowed for libel suits where ever said material was or had been viewable. In other words within the US you would be open to the possibility of being sued 50 separate times.
Then we can move on to Europe most especially nations such as England, France, and Spain which have Universal Jurisdiction laws, allowing plaintiffs who are not present within their borders to file complaints against those who are not present within their borders. All three also allow someone to be tried in abstentia for such civil cases. To put that into plain English a lawsuit can be filed there, and if R' Eidensohn is not able to make a defense in those nations he may be found guilty without ever being able to offer a defense.
Furthermore both in the US and England the person in question does not need to be specifically mentioned but only indirectly, but knowingly referenced.
If these things cannot be undeniably proven you have once again opened yourself to the possibility of lawsuit on an international scale if the referenced person truly wishes to pursue such action. As a moderated blog, even allowing comments like that to go up, you open yourself to the possibility of lawsuit, as you have to approve them. To elevate them to a main post with no substantial proof shows your endorsement and can be considered "real malice" as "real malice" is defined in US and European law as disregard for the truthfulness of the statement.
If you want to be successfully sued for libel than by all means follow the advice of Jersey Girl. Otherwise perhaps it is time to take more care in what commentators post and what you as the blog owner allow them to post.
Perhaps these latest problems, though I will admit that there was an aspect of bullying to them, especially in the requirement to remove any and all mention, despite that though, perhaps it was Hashem's way of saying it is time to clean it up.
RaP's Farewell PostI am truly sorry that you were bullied into silence. I hate bullies and bullying. It is not a cultured, let alone a Jewish, attribute.
Two quick questions for Rabbi Dr. Eidensohn/da'as torah:
Did you consult with a competent lawyer or lawyers in Israel familiar with this area of law, relating to the alleged "libel", on a blog yet, regarding your rights and defenses in the face of the alleged threatening Email you received?
I am positive that there must be those who would defend you, probably even pro bono (for free). It can still be done!
Hopefully you have retained digital copies of all the posts you deleted for your own files if further clarification needs to be made and for your own legal protection!
I assume that you have no further interest in receiving and posting my additional posts and comments on this blog from this point on.
As you know I have shared your main concerns and I have spent well over a year researching and debating the issues of the problems at hand, and this probably means that I will no longer participate in your blog.
I have no regrets so please do not feel bad for me, and I am happy to have served as a catalyst in unmasking and showing the world the true colors of those who have bullied you, and by association Rav Shternbuch and the BADATS, into silence, for who will yet have to answer in ways that they will not be able to intimidate into silence.
Kol tuv!
May 11, 2009 2:15 PM
In the US, there is freedom of speech and blogs fall under "freedom of the press, first amendment".
In the US, what this attorney tried to do to you would be considered a SLAPP (Strategic law suit against public policy) in order to silence your First Amendment right of Free Speech.
In the US, an attorney could be disbarred for filing a SLAPP and reprimanded for even threatening it.
Furthermore in many US states, you could sue someone who files a SLAPP suit against you and collect damages. (Anti SLAPP States).
If you have no right of freedom of speech in Israel, then you may as well just pack up and forget blogging because now, anyone can control every word you write just by threatening you with a lawsuit.
In the US, there are certain conditions that have to be met for libel:
1. first of all "the person who is not to be mentioned" is a wealthy and well known celebrity so the burden of proof of libel would be virtually impossible to meet. It is unheard of to get a libel judgment against a famous person because he has to prove absolute malice in your intentions. You can look at "rags" such as the National Enquirer and see that this is true.
2. There has to be no other reason for your post except that you wish to malign the person. This is impossible to prove true in this case since you are trying to understand halachic implications of many issues.
3. what you write has to be untrue and it has to be proven that you KNEW it was untrue. This is also not the case since it is quite obvious that you believe everything you write.
4. opinion - most of what is posted on this blog is opinion and not being presented as fact and therefore cannot be libel. This is why anonymous comments cannot be libelous. Nor can you be held accountable for anonymous comments.
5. no actual injury. The person who does not want to be mentioned in a blog has not suffered any financial or other provable injury.
6. Fair comment on a matter of public interest. Obviously the future of the Jewish religion is of importance to both you and the posters of comments.
7. Religious privilege - it is normal for a Rabbi such as yourself to issue religious opinions and rulings on a topic. To attempt to restrain your right of Free Speech, by threatening a SLAPP suit, in the US would also be restraining your Right to Freedom of Religion. In the US, this is a serious crime and punished as such. What if Rabbis could never say "such and such is not kosher?" That is restraint of Freedom of Religion.
I would recommend that you get in touch with Orthomom a wonderful blogger who was sued for libel. She prevailed and I am pretty sure that her attorney was free.
The threat of a SLAPP suit against your blog is indicative of the level of control that these missionaries have on the Orthodox Jewish world.
Daas Torah seemed to be a beacon of hope in what appears to be a lost battle. Now, that this blog is completely under the control of Evangelicals who are restraining MY rights of Free Speech, why even bother to fight?
I live in the US, in fact in the same state and county as the "person who does not want to be mentioned" on a blog.
Perhaps, I am the right person to file the anti SLAPP suit against the "person who does not want to be mentioned", because it is MY First Amendment Right of Free Speech is being restrained.
Furthermore, if you want to somehow host this discussion from my IP address (or something like that), I would love to be sued for libel for blogging about the "person who does not want to be mentioned".
I have a friendly relationship with some of the writers from the local newspapers and also in Brooklyn, where I used to write for a Jewish paper. My goal would be to get the name of the person who does not want to be mentioned in a blog in as many Jewish and secular newspapers as possible.
Most journalists welcome a SLAPP suit because it is lots of free publicity for their publication and cause and in the end, they usually get to collect a few thousand dollars in an anti SLAPP suit on top of it.
I would really LOVE to be sued in a SLAPP by "the person who does not want to be mentioned in a blog". Then I could publicize and bring this cancerous issue among the Jewish people to light.
Maybe I should just start a blog for the sole purpose of discussing "the person who does not want to be mentioned in a blog" and his goal of destroying Judaism with his billions of dollars of oil money and his puppet quasi Rabbis.
If this is a topic that posters are interested in, I will do it.