According to the THE 'LECTRIC LAW LIBRARY(tm) (See www.lectlaw.com) libel is: "Published material meeting three conditions: the material is defamatory either on its face or indirectly; the defamatory statement is about someone who is identifiable to one or more persons; and the material must be distributed to someone other than the offended party; i.e. published; distinguished from slander. (For more details, see http://192.41.4.29/def/l032 )."
>From http://www.hfac.uh.edu/comm/media_libel/libel/ Why do I point this out? Because I've just read the most libelous piece of newspaper op-ed in my entire existence. To quote: (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/24/opinion/24friedman.html?oref=login&hp) "This brings us to this week's vote in the Israeli Parliament about whether to proceed with Mr. Sharon's plan for a unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. Mr. Sharon, a man of the right, has finally realized the demographic threat posed by Gaza to Israel and wants to get out. He is being opposed by the Israeli far right - the Jewish Hezbollah. This includes settler rabbis who have urged soldiers to disobey orders and, with winks and nods, have let it be known that if someone were to eliminate Ariel Sharon he would be acting out God's will. In this struggle between Jewish fanatics and Ariel Sharon, we must stand with Mr. Sharon. These settler rabbis are a blot on the Jewish people." Now let me see if I understand this. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. They've attacked and killed innocent people. They've launched attacks into foreign countries. They've threatened even more attacks. They are terrorists. Far right Jews are not terrorists. They are not dedicated to destroying anyone. They are not attacking other countries. They are not launching rockets or kidnapping people. There is no connection between these two groups other than in Friedman's libelous mind. Why did he make this comparison? To demonize anyone that is against his latest love, the Gaza retreat plan. He goes so far as to repeat reports that have been discredited by Israeli secret service about a threat to Sharon's life. He goes so far as to openly accuse 'settler rabbis' of supporting an assassination attempt. I read his 'op-ed' and all I see is demonization and libel. Where does the New York Times come off allowing this type of scare tactics to be published? How can they support such hate mongering. Friedman is just as much a terrorist at Hezbollah is. He seeks to spread fear and distrust of 'right wing Jews', he distributes his poison across the world and has a prestigious platform to do so with. I've heard al quida sermons with less hate against Jews. I've heard Hamas sermons with less hate against Jews. On the other hand, I have heard Friedman rants with more hate against Jews. Why does this hate monger have a podium to speak from? Why does the New York Times still support him. If I was a right wing Jew, I'd sue him. -- Michael Dinowitz House of Fusion http://www.houseoffusion.com Finding technical solutions to the problems you didn't know you had yet ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Purchase from House of Fusion, a Macromedia Authorized Affiliate and support the CF community. http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=38 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:132458 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
