[Boot Hill]

per loin:   From the second one:
"The hate charges were dropped, and Jefferson County paid the Quigleys $75,000 after prosecutors concluded Dee Quigley's remarks to a friend were only in jest."

The only difference between that sentence and the nearly identical one in the first article is the addition of the phrase "prosecutors concluded Dee Quigley's remarks to a friend were only in jest". That may be fine from a criminal standpoint, but the Federal lawsuit against the ADL only involved the question of whether the Quigley's were defamed when they were publicly labeled anti-Semitic by a director of the ADL.

Whether said in jest or in seriousness, the Quigley's comments about using "Nazi scare tactics, including tossing lampshades and soap on their lawn and putting pictures of Holocaust ovens on their house", are beyond any doubt, anti-Semitic.

The only thing that saved the Quigley's is that the ADL's evidence was inadmissible in court. In other words, the Quigley's ARE anti-Semitic and skated on a technicality.

--Boot Hill

[per loin]

The only thing that saved the Quigley's is that the ADL's evidence was inadmissible in court. In other words, the Quigley's ARE anti-Semitic and skated on a technicality.

You are leaping to conclusions, rather than checking to see what the facts are. According to the Jewish News of Greater Phoenix, the ADL did not even listen to the tapes before publicly attacking the Quigleys. But the jury did hear the tapes before giving their verdict. From the above source:

The jury decided the alleged threats sounded more like private venting. Thanks to the tapes, though, the ADL was also found guilty of violating the Quigleys' privacy.

[wita]

The Quigley's are anti-semitic.

Quite a conclusion based on available evidence.

[Bonaparte]

Question: Do you believe any American has the right to publicly say, "I hate Jews"?

(Please notice that I'm not asking whether you personally approve of the statement in question.)

[VaGunGuy]

There's a slight difference between inadmissable in court and being obtained criminally. Hearsay is generally inadmissable in court, but isn't criminal. Wiretapping in violation of the statute IS criminal.

[American_Centurion]

Boot Hill:"In other words, the Quigley's ARE anti-Semitic and skated on a technicality."

I say so what if they are.

Being anti-semitic isn't grounds to bring charges or sue someone anymore than wearing pink shirts is.

Unless their "anti-semitic" views were acted upon, and caused harm to someone, there is no need for government involvement or courts.

IMO the Quigley's aren't the kind of people I'd go to dinner with, but they were at least defamed by the ADL, at worst harrassed by Jefferson County by being "charged" with a "hate crime". Since when is thought or speech a crime? This isn't freaking Canada.

[Poser]

"The only thing that saved the Quigley's is that the ADL's evidence was inadmissible in court. In other words, the Quigley's ARE anti-Semitic and skated on a technicality."

I think the problem here is that they were charged, in court, with a hate crime for a private conversation. The ADL and the neighbors had no right to tape the conversation or publicize it. They may, in fact, be anti-Semites, but that isn't illegal.

Private conversations are supposed to be just that, private. The ADL is now painfully aware of that as are other would-be conversation tapers.

[mikegi]

Whether said in jest or in seriousness, the Quigley's comments about using "Nazi scare tactics, including tossing lampshades and soap on their lawn and putting pictures of Holocaust ovens on their house", are beyond any doubt, anti-Semitic.

I agree with you. If you are going to make anti-semitic comments like these (which go far beyond things like "Jews love money", etc.) then you should expect to be called anti-semitic. Plus, these weren't simple comments (eg. "...money"), they were threats that could be put into action.

I think the Freepers supporting the decision against the ADL are missing a critical point: there is a difference between comments and threats.

[Poodlebrain]

Is Mel Brooks anti-Semitic? I've seen some of the most offensive humor directed at Jews in his movies. What technicality does he skate on?