- YOUR FREEDOM ENDS WHERE MINE BEGINS FULL
- YOUR FREEDOM ENDS WHERE MINE BEGINS PRO
- YOUR FREEDOM ENDS WHERE MINE BEGINS FREE
He now has another opportunity to present his arguments to the court, and then to an appellate tribunal, if necessary – three legal venues are open to him to make his case.
Netanyahu is correct, that he is the most castigated man in Israeli public life, that his version of the facts governs and not the State’s, he had the opportunity to present this argument to the Attorney General. These allegations are the stuff of blanket control, of an attempt to systematically bias, influence, and prejudice the very public, Netanyahu wants to determine his guilt or innocence. These claims, should they be proven, are not the stuff involved in the cases Dershowitz & Co.
YOUR FREEDOM ENDS WHERE MINE BEGINS PRO
All the while, reportedly, Netanyahu was engaged in squelching negative press– arguably for another quid pro quo. The state claims it was a systematic effort involving substantial press control, not just of substance, but of extent, timing and duration of positive coverage. Netanyahu and family claim they were only involved in moderating a few articles, and ostensibly this is not a benefit. Now, the law in Israel is quite clear that bribery involves: “money, monetary value, a service or other benefit,” in exchange for something of benefit. How? By inciting the people, who march, threaten, and attack the legal systems and prosecutors, such that they fear for their lives – to the extent of requiring police protection. He gets to say negative things about his accusers, all the while trying to muzzle them. The lopsidedness of Netanyahu’s actions is even more troubling because a chunk of the population has bought into his story. (The very rule of law and the role of the courts and the judiciary being sacred to party-founder, Menachem Begin).
YOUR FREEDOM ENDS WHERE MINE BEGINS FULL
And certainly Netanyahu wants to promote full and open discourse right? Surely, he would encourage the police and prosecutors to honestly report their findings correct? He would never attack the rule of law or branches of government for doing their job - which is essential to a democracy. The reason? Because we want full and open discourse, which is a rudiment of democracy.
YOUR FREEDOM ENDS WHERE MINE BEGINS FREE
These cases hold the press must feel free to publish negative material – as courts want to avoid the prospect of “chilling” – meaning curtailing unflattering press. claim these cases assert the proposition that protecting all press is vital to preserving democracy. Ours revolves around alleged bribery (a crime) for positive coverage.
They relate to alleged defamation (a civil claim) for negative press. Moreover, the legal cases he does cite are distractions, red-herrings. (To be sure, the British report does discuss payoffs for positive press, but the findings are not binding and were never implemented). It notes a few European cases, one American case, and relies on a briefly mentioned 2000-page British Commission inquiry - which actually has no legal weight – not even in Britain. So, certainly, this would be a case of first impression – because, it probably ain’t done much. We call this, in law, “cases of first impression.” And no, you wouldn’t expect to find many prime ministers offering a bounty in exchange for allegedly substantial policy and quotidian control of coverage. Lack of precedent is not an excuse for not creating one, as I am sure Mr. Well, having read the brief, it doesn’t actually say that.
The right to unfettered freedom of the press is the crux of Netanyahu’s defense as asserted by his legal team of “four American luminary jurists,” two of whom are notoriously unknown, but no matter.Īs represented by lawyer-Dershowitz and echoed by client-Netanyahu, their position is that that there is “ no precedent in history – no precedent in the history of Israeli law, or international law – in which favorable coverage is deemed to be bribery.” The story is apparently true, recounted in a Harvard Law Review article by Zechariah Chafee, Jr in 1919 and entitled “Freedom of Speech in War Time.”