Iranian human rights lawyer Abdolfattah Soltani has been sentenced to 18 years in prison by what the Iranian government refers to as “courts.” To his credit, Soltani refused to defend himself before the Iranian tribunal which blindly carries out the dictates of the religious leaders of the country.
Category: International
Submitted by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger
Is an opinion defamation? Is it defamation if it is worn on a t-shirt? Is it defamation if you post a picture of yourself wearing said t-shirt on Facebook? Is the manufacturer liable for civil damages a purchaser of their t-shirt incurred since they wrote the content later found defamatory? An unusual case in Spain raises these questions and more.
A woman in Madrid, Spain is certainly perplexed by a court ruling that found her guilty of a “dignitary tort”. She was sentenced and initially ordered to pay 2,000 euros ( ≈ $2640) in damages and a 240 euro-fine ( ≈ $317), but the court later reduced the damages on appeal to 1,000 euros ( ≈ $1320) and eight days of house arrest in lieu of the fine. Adding insult to injury, the claimant – her ex-husband – asked that the damages be paid in installments to supplement his 700 euro per month income ( ≈ $924 per month).
This is a cause of action here is one we do not have an exact analogy for in the United States, but defamation is close. Historically, the primary dignitary torts recognized in English and subsequently American law are battery, assault, and false imprisonment. These torts still exist under modern American tort law, but they also have criminal law counterparts because they contain elements of violence. Under modern jurisprudence, the term dignitary torts is more closely associated with defamation (slander and libel), false light, intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, and alienation of affections. In some jurisdictions, the use of the phrase “dignitary torts” is limited to those torts which do not require the threat of or actual physical injury. What was required in the present Spanish case was that the statement in question insulted someone’s dignity and effectively damaged that person’s reputation.
What did this woman do to merit this punishment? She posted a picture of herself to Facebook wearing a t-shirt with a slogan on it. Her boyfriend bought it for her while they were on vacation. It’s the kind of “gag t-shirt” commonly sold around the world. What did the shirt say that was so offensive? I’ll tell you below the fold.
Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
This week Huffpost ran an article titled:“IBM’s Role in the Holocaust — What the New Documents Reveal”, written by Edwin Black. The article was a followup to Mr. Black’s book “IBM and the Holocaust” published in 2001. As Mr. Black puts it justifying this particular article:
“Newly-released documents expose more explicitly the details of IBM‘s pivotal role in the Holocaust — all six phases: identification, expulsion from society, confiscation, ghettoization, deportation, and even extermination. Moreover, the documents portray with crystal clarity the personal involvement and micro-management of IBM president Thomas J. Watson in the company’s co-planning and co-organizing of Hitler’s campaign to destroy the Jews.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/edwin-black/ibm-holocaust_b_1301691.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009
These are of course pretty serious charges being made about one of the world’s most famous companies and about its founder. While I will present the nature of these charges and the specificity of the author’s alleged proof in the piece, it really is not my focus to condemn IBM one way or another, or even to vouch for the truth of the article. I will provide a link that offers a different perspective on these charges and will leave it to you the reader to decide what you think of them. My real purpose here is to discuss the necessary amorality of Corporations and what effect that amorality has upon nations and people. Continue reading “A Corporate Tale”
In a controversial interview, Harvard University professor Alan Dershowitz has called not only for the White House to sever ties with Media Matters, but has called upon Media Matters to fire staff member M.J. Rosenberg for this criticism of supporters of Israel. Clearly, this is not a first amendment issue that arises when the government is asked to engage in censorship or coercion with regard to critics. However, the demand for Rosenberg’s termination does raise serious concerns over the freedom for writers to raise often controversial topics and positions. Rosenberg was voicing a common objection over Israeli policy and the demands for his termination sends a chilling message for anyone who voices such positions.
Continue reading “Dershowitz Calls On Media Matters To Fire Critic Of Israel”
The Chinese have long believed that bear gall bladders hold special healing qualities — leading to the worldwide massacre of bears to feed the Chinese traditional medicine market. Now a publicly traded pharmaceutical company, Guizhentang, has introduced “Bear bile farms” where hundreds of bears are held in cramped cages to be harvested for their bile. The horrific practice is carried out on drugged bears with a hypodermic needle.
The Iranian Sharia courts have given the world a steady stream of horrific judgments — using the pretense of a legal system to mete out religious-based and perfectly medieval punishments. They have now added a fresh outrage. Despite worldwide condemnation, a trial court in Iran has issued its final verdict that Youcef Nadarkhani, 34, be put to death. His crime? Converting to Christianity. During the country’s Sharia law, such apostasy is punished by death.
Continue reading “Iranian Court Orders The Death Penalty For Christian Pastor Convicted of Apostasy”
Sometimes the Chinese are sooooo competitive. On the heels of the announcement of Russian scientists that they have grown a plant from 30,000 old seeds, Chinese scientists have announced that they have found an entire 300-million-year-old peat-forming forest at a site near Wuda, China. Of course, Americans have had the last laugh but pointing out that the Earth is only 5000-6000 years old, according to Creation Science and many of our leaders.
Scientists in Russia have announced that they have grown plants from seeds stored away by squirrels over 30,000 years ago in the banks of the Kolmya River in Siberia. The Institute of Cell Biophysics team claims to have raised plants of Silene stenophylla from the squirrel leavings. Of course, what they really found was a den of atheist squirrels since various presidential candidates and religious figures have agreed that the Earth is only 5000 to 6000 years old.
Continue reading “Atheist Squirrel Science: Russians Grow Fruit From 30,000 Year Old Seeds”
Recently released intelligence reports have shined light on how U.S. officials secretly demanded investigations of Charlie Chaplin — portraying him as a dangerous radical. The English intelligence officials at MI5 found no support for our paranoia about Chaplin as a dangerous communist. They also failed to show where Chaplin was born. What they did find did not please U.S. officials.
Continue reading “British Records Show Effort Of U.S. To Investigate And Discredit Chaplin”
Submitted by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger
Reasonable people tend to agree there is both a right to privacy and that it is necessary. But what exactly is the right to privacy? Justice Brandeis famously said in Olmstead v. U.S., 277 U.S. 438, 479 (1928), “The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man’s spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the government, the right to be let alone-the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. To protect, that right, every unjustifiable intrusion by the government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment. And the use, as evidence in a criminal proceeding, of facts ascertained by such intrusion must be deemed a violation of the Fifth.” Plainly put, at its heart a right to privacy is simply a right to be let alone.
However, do we need to specifically protect it or generally protect it? Is that right absolute? Laws, by definition and the nature of entering a social compact, are restrictions on absolute liberty found in the state of nature. One of the larger disagreements at the Constitutional Convention was about whether enumerated rights would serve to unjustly limit those rights versus a failure to enumerate rights would result in rights not being properly protected. This is a valid question surrounding this issue, especially since some would advocate enumerating the right to privacy by Constitutional amendment. There are advantages and disadvantages to both approaches. While specifically defining/enumerating a right creates a foundation for arguments surrounding said right, leaving a right’s definition nebulous allows jurisprudence greater leeway to evolve around fact specific instance and questions that in the long run can result in a more nuanced understanding and application of the right without the constraints a foundational definition might impose. In this light, consider the right to privacy.
Continue reading “Privacy Rights – To Enumerate or Not to Enumerate, That is the Question”
Submitted by Elaine Magliaro, Guest Blogger
Recently, the Wall Street Journal refused to publish a letter on the subject of climate change that was signed by 255 scientists—all of whom are members of the United States National Academy of Sciences. The WSJ chose instead to publish an opinion piece titled No Need to Panic about Global Warming that was written by 16 “other scientists.” It has been reported that the 16 “other scientists” include engineers, a physician, a retired airplane designer, a retired electrical engineer, and astrophysicists. Also included among the “No Need to Panic” authors are two men—one who questions whether smoking causes cancer (Richard Lindzen) and another who does not believe that asbestos is a health hazard (Claude Allegre).
According to Media Matters, most of the scientists who signed the WSJ op-ed do not publish peer-reviewed papers on climate research. In addition, more than a third of them have links to fossil fuel interests.
Peter Gleick, a member of the National Academy of Sciences and a MacArthur Fellow, wrote an article for Forbes descrying the WSJ’s actions.
Gleick wrote:
The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board has long been understood to be not only antagonistic to the facts of climate science, but hostile. But in a remarkable example of their unabashed bias, on Friday they published an opinion piece that not only repeats many of the flawed and misleading arguments about climate science, but purports to be of special significance because it was signed by 16 “scientists.”
The new Libyan government has adopted many of the habits of its previous regime like torture and it can now add homophobic leadership. Libya’s new United Nations delegate to the U.N. Human Rights Council used a resolution to combat violence based on sexual orientation to denounce homosexuals as threatening the survival of the human race.
Continue reading “Libyan U.N. Envoy Denounces Gays and Lesbians As Threatening Humanity”
Many people have complained about a new policy of “American Exceptionalism” in our wars and foreign policy. It appears however that we may have to call it a policy of “American Incoherence” after reading the latest remarks of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — policies that are understandable only to our leaders. Clinton (who supported the armed intervention in Libya because of the threat of citizen deaths) has announced that no troops can be sent to Syria without the consent of the regime. I happen to oppose military intervention in Syria, but we continue to convey to the world that the only guiding principle in our foreign policy is opportunism.
Continue reading “Clinton: No Troops Can Be Sent To Syria Without Assad’s Consent”
A case out of York, England could raise the question of whether inebriation is a defense to animal abuse. A 20-year-old student was arrested for allegedly frying the pet hamster of his roommate while drunk.
Continue reading “English Student Arrested For Frying Roommate’s Pet Hamster”
Submitted by Mike Spindell, guest blogger
It has long been my conviction that Saudi Arabia is a bigger player on the world stage than it is given credit for in media reports. The normal Western prejudice viewing this country as a cultural, repressive backwater may be true if one looks at the non-royal Saudi citizenry. However, the Saudi Royal family and its minions are quite sophisticated in worldly matters and for years have skillfully played the game of international politics. Odiously repressive Royals, enforcing an archaic view of Sharia Law, can nevertheless be quite modern and sophisticated in outlook. Everywhere in our current and in our historic world, there have been many examples of a nation’s elite demanding adherence to repressive religious standards, while indulging themselves in what is forbidden.
“WHOWhatWHY” an excellent investigative news site run by Russ Baker, a distinguished investigative journalist, ran an article that caught my attention. This article discussed the fact that most media was diffident and/or silent in reporting that Saudi Prince Walid bin Talal, had invested $300 million in Twitter, a privately held corporation:
“Twitter’s market valuation is something like $10 billion (choose what huge number you prefer). Given that, why would this company, which is all about empowering ordinary people to communicate unfiltered and thereby get control of their lives and their governments, sell a big chunk to a representative of one of the quintessential repressive forces—an element that has a stake in preventing exactly the sort of communication that defines Twitter?” http://whowhatwhy.com/2012/02/02/close-reading-the-saudis-a-twitter-investment-and-the-end-of-arab-spring/
It is common knowledge at this point that Twitter has been the driving force in much of the uprisings now characterized as “The Arab Spring”. With Twitter, government opponents were able to organize their ranks/actions and quickly communicate news updates to people who would not be able to get this information from a controlled media. In an oil rich country, such as Saudi Arabia, ruled with an iron fist by the top half of one percent, there is great danger of overthrow by a people poverty stricken in the midst of great opulence. Mr. Baker finds it curious when in the past year Twitter has had an ominous change in policy, at the same time allowing an investment by a member of one of the world’s most repressive regimes. Is this merely coincidence or an indication of an underlying effort to prevent the Saudi Royals from following the fate of other Islamic countries ruled by despots? Continue reading “Twitters Arab Winter?”