Jewish Week Associate Editor Jonathan Mark, never at a loss for words, blogs on just about everything Jewish.
Alan Dershowitz also rose to defend Palin (via Big Government.)
In an exclusive statement, famed attorney and Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz defended Sarah Palins use of the term blood libel from multiple detractors. As the Media Matters/MSM/Democrat narrative on the Tucson tragedy unravels, they are getting a lot more desperate in their attacks on Palin. Fortunately, there are still plenty of honest liberals around:
The term blood libel has taken on a broad metaphorical meaning in public discourse. Although its historical origins were in theologically based false accusations against the Jews and the Jewish People,its current usage is far broader. I myself have used it to describe false accusations against the State of Israel by the Goldstone Report. There is nothing improper and certainly nothing anti-Semitic in Sarah Palin using the term to characterize what she reasonably believes are false accusations that her words or images may have caused a mentally disturbed individual to kill and maim. The fact that two of the victims are Jewish is utterly irrelevant to the propriety of using this widely used term.
McCollum v. CBS, 202 Cal.App.3d 989, Court of Appeals of California, Second Appellate District, Division Three
July 12, 1988
***
Following these general allegations, plaintiffs allege that the defendants knew, or should have known, that it was foreseeable that the music, lyrics and hemisync tones of Osbournes music would influence the emotions and behavior of individual listeners such as John who, because of their emotional instability, were peculiarly susceptible to such music, lyrics and tones and that such individuals might be influenced to act in a manner destructive to their person or body.
***
Johns suicide, an admittedly irrational response to Osbournes music, was not something which any of the defendants intended, planned or had any reason to anticipate. Finally, and perhaps most significantly, it is simply not acceptable to a free and democratic society to impose a duty upon performing artists to limit and restrict their creativity in order to avoid the dissemination of ideas in artistic speech which may adversely affect emotionally troubled individuals. Such a burden would quickly have the effect of reducing and limiting artistic expression to only the broadest standard of taste and acceptance and the lowest level of offense, provocation and controversy.11 No case has ever gone so far. We find no basis in law or public policy for doing so here.
Can Mr. Dershowitz give us permission to say “niggardly” and “negate,” or do we need to get that from Jesse Jackson?
Can Mr. Dershowitz give us permission to say “niggardly” and “negate,” or do we need to get that from Jesse Jackson?
Sorry about the duplicate - cat on the keyboard.