Israel targets anti-war
dissent. Demonstrators are beaten and arrested. So are journalists and
activists. Arabs are vulnerable. So are Jews.
Military solutions are
prioritized. Opposition is called endangering national security. Saying so bears
no relation to reality. Israel claims might justifies right. Police states
operate that way.
Courts also silence criticism.
The Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI)
said so. Its new report is titled "The Silencer: Libel Litigation as a Threat to
Free Speech."
Israel targets social,
political, and environmental activists. Bloggers and social network users are
endangered. Politicians, businessmen, and other influential figures don't
hesitate to sue.
Whether defamation occurred
isn't important, said ACRI. Nor is compensation sought. At issue is silencing
criticism. ACRI's report explains. Its effect on free expression is
chilling.
In the 1970s and 80s, these
type suits emerged in America. They followed years of social activism. They're
called SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation).
Plaintiffs use them to silence,
intimidate or punish. They're used against outspoken individuals or groups. They
target public activism.
Nine US states ban them. How
effectively is at issue. Clever lawyers circumvent legal provisions. They find
ways to do so.
In the past decade, SLAPPs
became more common in Israel. ACRI received numerous complaints. Legal defenses
are costly and time consuming.
SLAPPs are a strategic tool.
They're used against employees "struggling against exploitation and deprivation,
demanding their rights, or attempting to organize a union."
Enormous disparities exist
between employers and employees. It's no fair fight. Plaintiffs can bankrupt
defendants in the process.
Activists, likeminded
organizations and academics, alternative media, and independent local
politicians are vulnerable. So are consumers criticizing faulty products.
Quashing their efforts is prioritized.
Although many SLAPPs end
inconclusively, they chill free expression. Defendants need costly legal
representation. Requiring it gets some to withdraw.
Some victories end up symbolic.
Time and expense go for naught.
Two types of SLAPPs
exist:
(1) Public interest
Some lawsuits follow
participation in public discourse. Generally it reflects something of common
interest. It may be worker rights, pollution, taking over public lands, or
faulty products.
(2) Chilling effect:
intimidation
SLAPPs by their nature are
chilling. No one wants to be sued. Plaintiffs consider "the likely damage to the
public's willingness to participate in public discourse whether the plaintiff's
intentions are malicious or pure."
Most SLAPPs reflect other
characteristics:
- Defamation: They're based on Anti-Defamation Law grounds
- Economic power imbalances: Pitting ordinary people against deep-pocketed interests assures fights wholly unfair.
- Local disputes: the more local, the smaller the number of people willing to influence public action.
- Absurd claim amounts: some are unconnected to damage caused.
- Baseless, borderline or negligible suits: SLAPPs rest on shaky grounds. Some courts reject them. At the same time, defendants must enlist legal help.
- Plaintiffs' refusal to accept an apology or correction. Doing so ensures protracted legal war.
- Warning and threatening letters: Sending them intimidates enough to silence.
SLAPPs entail social costs.
Free expression is chilled. Public activism and discourse are discouraged. Doing
so exacts a heavy price.
Democracy dies in shadows.
Sunshine is the best disinfectant. SLAPPs deter its effectiveness. They divert
arguments from public space to courts. Ordinary people are greatly
disadvantaged.
Civil suits take years. They're
financially and emotionally draining. Defendants have a heavy cross to bear.
Proceedings often end inconclusively. Vital critiques are silenced.
According to ACRI attorney
Avner Pinchuk:
"(W)e are witnessing libel claims with a weak or
even outlandish basis, yet which are an effective silencing measure against
social and environmental activists who speak on matters of public
importance."
"Though the
court seeks in the course of the trial to maintain a balance between freedom of
expression and the right to maintain one’s good name, it fails to see the big
picture."
Defense
attorney Ishay Shneydor added:
"(S)uing for
libel, or writing a letter threatening such a suit, is an inexpensive procedure
through which powerful forces succeed in deterring civic participation, placing
their critics in a defensive position and preventing or dampening public
dialogue on issues of importance."
"If we don’t
recognize this phenomenon and develop tools to deal with it, then we are
abandoning the public and strengthening those who have the power to silence
their opponents."
Haaretz
addressed the issue. Its editorial headlined "Speak out against
silencing."
It discussed a
disturbing reality. Growing numbers of people fear "participat(ing) in public
discourse due to fear of being sued and becoming embroiled in lengthy, expensive
legal proceedings."
"This is a
serious blow to the already fragile fabric of democratic life in Israel." Many
examples reflect what's ongoing. Mayors sue opposition councillors.
Social and
environmental organizations are threatened. Consumers fear complaining about
faulty products.
Solutions
require raising awareness. Protective laws need enacting. Israeli ones "merely
bolster the deterrent power of" SLAPPs.
Restoring free
expression needs to be prioritized. It's too important to lose. It's eroding
because powerful interests target it.
Israel's most
extremist government in history won't help. People are on their own to demand
better. It's their struggle to win or lose.
Stephen Lendman lives in
Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.
His new book is titled "Banker
Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity."
http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanII.html
