Freedom of speech, not freedom from criticism
There is a fundamental misunderstanding in the current Swedish newspaper controversy -- surrounding a report in Sweden's daily Aftonbladet that the Israel Defense Forces allegedly abducted Palestinians to harvest their organs, and the condemnations, calls for condemnations and disavowals of condemnations that have followed: The debate about freedom of the press is misplaced.
Israel denounced the report, which failed to include any evidence that the allegations had any truth to them, and Sweden's ambassador to Israel was quick to issue a condemnation. But the Swedish foreign minister then disavowed that condemnation on the principle that the government holds the right to freedom of speech sacrosanct, and criticism of the newspaper would violate that principle.
If Swedish officials prefers not to weigh in on the matter, that's their prerogative, but citing the press' freedom of speech as the reason for staying neutral is a feint.
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism.
The newspaper may publish what it wants -- though, as even Matthew Cassel of Electronic Initfada (no fan of Israel) points out, printing such a "baseless" report that "lacks credibility" was "highly irresponsible" -- but governments also must be free to criticize press reports, or the decision to publish them. It happens at White House news conferences on occasion, it happens in Jerusalem and there's no reason it shouldn't happen in Stockholm -- especially when the item under discussion is arguably a blood libel with potential dangerous repercussions for the Jewish community.
On the contrary, refraining from criticism runs counter to the spirit of free-speech rights.
By the same token, the Association for Human Rights in Israel apparently fails to understand this distinction. This week, the group criticized the president of Ben-Gurion University for disavowing an Op-Ed in the L.A. Times by a Ben-Gurion professor calling for a boycott of Israel because it is an "apartheid state" (see JTA's story on this here). If the professor, Neve Gordon, can write the Op-Ed, why can't the university president make her views known on the matter?
Freedom of speech doesn't only apply to the press.
And while Aftonbladet has the right to print what it wants, that doesn't mean it should. Newspapers have a responsibility to readers and to the subjects of their stories to be as fair and accurate as possible, and editors must make judgments in screening stories. Running a story about a clearly far-fetched and damaging allegation with no evidence to support it is just plain bad journalism.
Share
Facebook
15 Comments
Comments RSS Feed Reader Comments
Mr Heilman....seems to me that a fairer less fractious and antagonizing way of dealing with upsetting news is rather than everyone getting in a line and shouting epithets at those who are normally reasonable such as the recent article in the Swedish paper...perhaps just maybe, if the Israeli govt would act more civilly initially and at least offer to investigate rather than CASTIGATE immediately, calling names, perhaps it would send a signal to the world Israel is not in a perpetual SNIT and aggressively reactionary to any/every report of criticism/concern. As today I received a link and then found another to 2 old and forgotten Israeli news reports about lots of hankypanky going on concerning organ harvesting or missing organs....and the other was in a british medical journal here they are:
Abu Kabir Operating Organ Warehouse. By IsraelNationalNews.com
http://www.allbusiness.com/middle-east/israel/102662-1.html and then:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1173179
and I do so AGREE with your headline “freedom of speech not freedom from criticism” just as Y. Harkarbi warned in his book years ago.. Enough of this thin-skinned argumentative over reactionary libeling of any /all criticisms, enough!
1. Freedom of speech is freedom from government censorship; no more and no less. It does not apply to the press or any other nongovernmental party with respect to any other non-governmental parties. As a Justice once put it, freedom of the press applies only to those who own presses.
2. Given that the Palestinians and their friends have a long history of proven lying (it’s even enshrined in Islamic doctrine as “al Takkiyya"), and more significantly of accusing Israelis of Palestinian crimes (using human shields, attacking civilians, etc.), it would not surprise me to learn that there is actually involuntary harvesting of human organs going on in Palestinian areas.
I must agree with Miriam, we here in Israel should investigate organ harvesting, but only after we have looked into the use of gentile children to make matzos, Mossad’s envolment in the 9/11 terrorist attack, and the secret Jews who control the world!
The Swedish foreign minister cannot do anything about this. The constitution forbids him from condemning any article written.
If you have someone from the government that sit and approve articles to be published you will have a “taste police” that will cancel publications accourding to their subjectivity.
Its forbidden for Swedish government to censor anything published in Sweden. The point with that is that the person that publish have rights to publish but also responsabilitys for what they publish. If there is wrondoings done there is laws that work to punish the publishers. Its not for government to deal with that.
Excellent statement by the editor. As for Zolidus, s/he misses the point and confuses criticism with censorship.
“ A ministry spokesman, Anders Jorle, said that the Swedish government had “no position on the allegations” and quoted from the blog of foreign minister Carl Bildt where he said that “freedom of expression and press freedom are very strong in our constitution by tradition.”
The Swedish government has not in fact defended free speech with the vigour that is now claimed. On February 10, 2006 the BBC reported that the website of a far-Right political party’s newspaper had been closed down in relation to the Danish cartoon controversy during which cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad caused mass protests by Muslim groups in Europe and around the world.
http://www.robinshepherdonline.com/sweden-runs-for-cover-as-foreign-ministry-refuses-to-condemn-anti-semitic-outrage/#more-936
...THUS SAYS THE LORD TODAY 8/26/09 By Way OF ME JOSHUA A PROPHET OF THE UPMOST HIGH… ( I AM HERE and WALK
AMONG YOU )
ye have seen all that Jehovah your God hath done unto all these nations because of you for Jehovah your God, he it is that hath fought for you.
Behold, I have allotted unto you these nations that remain, to be an inheritance for your tribes, from the Jordan, with all the nations that I have cut
off, even unto the great sea toward the going down of the sun.
And Jehovah your God, he will thrust them out from before you, and drive them from out of your sight and ye shall possess their land, as Jehovah
your God spake unto you.
Thus saith Jehovah, the God of Israel, Your fathers dwelt of old time beyond the River, even Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Nahor
and they served other gods. When ye transgress the covenant of Jehovah your? God, which he commanded you, and go and serve other gods, and
bow down yourselves to them then will the anger of Jehovah be kindled against you, and ye shall perish quickly from off the good land which he
hath given unto you
JOSHUA the Prophet 08/26/09
IF YOU TRY TO HARM ME YOU WILL DIE A HORRID DEATH…
I BRING FEAR TO AWAKEN THE CHOSEN PEOPLE OF JEHOVAH!!!
REPENT...JESUS IS COMMING AGAIN AND HE ALONE WAS THE TRUE MESSAIAH!!
T H E Y A R E W A T C H I N G Y O U N O W ... DEATH IS AT YOUR NECK THIS VERY MOMENT YOU READ THIS!!!
DO NOT REJECT ME OR YOU REJECT THE ONE WHO CREATED YOU..
JOSHUA
TR,
But you do believe that SOME Jews (not the “real” ones
WOULD harvest human organs, don’t you? And what’s your scientific research tell you about the inclination of gentiles to harvest organs? Or do you just specialize in Jewish “blood libel”?
- 1
- 2
- Next Page »
Leave a Comment
To leave a comment, you must first be logged in to JTA. If you are not registered, please click here.
Already a JTA member?
Need to know? Get JTA's free e-newsletters!
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- Yaakov Cohn on Connecting the dots: Susan G. Komen, J Street and Bill Clinton
- Herbert Kaine on Times travel writer on Israel: ‘A politically iffy burden’
- Lloyd Trufelman on Netanyahu doth protest too much?
- ASC on Times travel writer on Israel: ‘A politically iffy burden’
- John Q. Public on I am Jewish
Kevin Kamberg
08/25/09 04:00 PM
I concur with Heilman’s argument here.
That said… as I watched the controvery over the Swedish paper’s claims develop, it seemed pretty obvious that many of the reactions were every bit as knee-jerk as the claims allegedly were.
A calmer, more rational, more objective criticism would have called on the newspaper to more fully investigate the IDF’s claim that the scars were the result of an autopsy. Which, frankly, makes sense. The IDF had every incentive in the world to do autopsies and document as precisely as possible the actual cause of death… precisely because everything about said deaths is going to be controversial.
It would be a foolish mistake of epic proportions for the IDF not to want to go above and beyond in documenting how Palestinians died at the hands of IDF members.
And I say this as a frequent critic of the policy decisions by those in control of the IDF.
It just makes more sense that the scar was the result of an autopsy than that it was the result of harvested organs. And the zealotry of conservative Zionists is their rage against the Swedish paper missed a golden opportunity to demonstrate their lack of bigotry. Instead they proved themselves bigots of the same magnitude as those they were raging against.