My Jewcy Response to the Goldman Case

In protest to the injustice of the Lisa Goldman case, I published the following article in Jewcy. Wither you agree with my position or not, please leave a comment at the end of the of piece.

Money Quote:

Curtailing the freedoms of the press, speech, and movement is a price that is too high to justify the existence of the amendment to the Infiltration Prevention Law. A democracy should not cage its citizens for the sake of potential threats. One may expect such laws in countries like Iran, Egypt, North Korea, and Saudi Arabia, but not from a country that proudly proclaims it is the only democracy in the Middle East.

Moreover, it is not clear to me that much public good is served by this law. In a healthy and vital democracy the role of the press is to keep the government accountable by giving the people reliable and independent information about their world. When the government bars its journalist from investigating for themselves the reality of their neighbors, it weakens its democratic character.

2 responses to “My Jewcy Response to the Goldman Case

  1. It is a point of no return if the Israeli government will play with the notion of protecting the citizens by deciding for them their whereabouts. How come the German autoreties actally protected thier citzen without punishing him for being independent and going to Lebanon?! No penalty or sanction on someone for (such an offense) should be even consider . It was not a fraudulent act and no one should be punished up to four years in prison.
    At times like these the legal system appears inhumane and unfair. Merely the investigation is treating Lisa in an unfairly way.
    I am ashamed that it is even a question that people are still debating about.

  2. In Tamara’s comment to the article she says, “I am ashamed that it is even a question that people are still debating about.” I, too, think it’s a silly thing to debate–a veritable no-brainer. A government that limits freedom of press is a government with something to hide, or at least that is how it will be perceived. It really isn’t to their benefit UNLESS THEY HAVE SOMETHING TO HIDE. Those who wish to suppress the press usually say either, “X must remain secret for the sake of National security,” or “Journalists cannot X for the sake of their own protection.” The first justification is stronger than the second, and justifiable as long as the data in question eventually, and in a reasonable time frame, becomes declassified. The second justification is a form of paternalism. The funny thing about paternalism (at least in America; I’m sure Israel has it’s equivalents) is that people pick and choose when they want to apply it. When protecting people hurts big business, Republicans are against it, e.g. workers’ rights. When it comes to protecting people from the shameless Jenna Jameson, they are all for it. Journalists are usually educated and at least somewhat rational. They understand the risks, weigh consequences, and act as they see fit. This is very different from something like euthanasia, where decisions are made under strain, discomfort, or fear. We see the effects of press-restraint in the so called “war” in Iraq. The coverage is so tepid, the imagery so watered down, that Americans who don’t have family members in the military forget that there is a “war” going on while we Christmas-shop for our obese children.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s