The First Amendment of the United States Constitution and many state constitutions as well as state and federal laws protect freedom of speech. However, this “freedom” is not absolute; the United States Supreme Court has recognized several categories of speech that are excluded from this clause.
Among these exclusions include the publication of obscenity, child pornography laws, speech inciting imminent lawless action, and regulation of commercial speech such as advertising or any publication that may put national security at risk.
The point of these limitations on constitutional freedom is to find a balance between the right to free speech and other significant rights, such as those of authors and inventors over their works and discoveries (i.e copyright and patents), protection from imminent or potential violence against particular persons or the use of slander.
Despite these exceptions, the legal protections of the First Amendment are some of the broadest of any industrialized nation, and remain a critical, and occasionally controversial, component of American Jurisprudence. Ironically, despite Israel’s eternal “state of emergency” regarding national security, it has one of the most liberal approaches on this subject.
It seems natural that Israel’s Anglo community would be less in favor of censorship, yet it’s not the first time I’ve experienced fierce opposition to my divergent opinions on a variety of subjects on Anglo Israel’s popular “JANGLO” list.
Last week I posted my weekly “voleh article” on Janglo. The headline read:
As a lawyer and a loyal Israeli citizen, I feel responsible and unafraid to confront any topic, including the explosive issue of a judge accused of hitting his children.
I imagine that the following statement will be unpopular, but I will state it, nevertheless. I think it is high time that more people from within the legal system begin to express divergent opinions, even if they are unpopular (http://lawadv.com/an-explosive-issue/).
It’s not the first time articles I’ve attempted to publish on Janglo have been blocked and this time I decided to ask why. I received the response below within two minutes, and it didn’t surprise me at all: “Hi Tzvi. Janglo is not a place for people to make public statements about whatever they want. That post was inappropriate for Janglo. Shavua tov”.
And so I ask, what kind of changes do we want to make in this country? Is our present situation perfect or even good enough? Do we not need to change anything? Of course if everything were perfect then there would be no need for criticism, or to publish any controversial issues. How many of you truly believe there is no need for change? Or room for a divergent opinion? Is there no reason to apply freedom of speech in Israel?
I am not talking about publishing an issue regarded as illegal or dangerous to national security, nor am I publishing pornography. I am writing about a very problematic situation: the deterioration of the already low “Parental Authority” and how to cope with this situation.
This issue was never “taboo” and even MK’s such as Rabbi Ravitz z”l and others have tried to amend the laws and change the judiciary approach. But as we all know, the issue is very problematic and any “unpopular opinion” can be damaging to the next election. Therefore we will not be seeing many, if even one MK trying to pass any bill on the subject.
The facts are what they are: The situation has deteriorated; crime among children is rampant and there is no national plan on the horizon.
A public debate on issues that may seem uncomfortable is still a legitimate debate and by censoring this debate we will get nowhere. It’s time to deal with unpopular issues even if they are “explosive,” because the only way to deal with what is wrong is to actually deal with it rather than ignore it.
