Efforts to oppose the showing of the film “Rachel,” documenting the accidental death of an anti-Israel militant, and the appearance of the young woman’s equally radical mother at the San Francisco Jewish Film Festival have resulted in the S.F.-based Jewish Community Federation’s resolution to stop funding activities that oppose the right of Israel to exist.
James Sinkinson
These efforts and this resolution have been characterized by some as opposition to the First Amendment and its guarantees of free speech.
Likewise, the successful efforts of local Jews to convince merchants not to advertise in the (now effectively defunct) Berkeley Daily Planet, a campaign in which I was involved, were attacked on the same basis — as attempts to stifle the free flow of ideas.
Yet this free speech argument is specious. The First Amendment to the Constitution protects our rights to have our say without government interference. But it does not obligate us to support financially all forms of expression.
It is legal for anyone to show the “Rachel” film. It is legal to offer pornography on the Internet. Like it or not, it is legal to publish anti-Semitic hate speech.
But this does not obligate the Jewish Community Federation to fund speech that it doesn’t approve of. It doesn’t obligate merchants to advertise on pornographic Web sites or advertise in a publication that prints hateful speech.
Our capitalistic democracy makes possible the doctrine of free speech. But this same society also requires that ideas stand up on their own strength. It is mandated that ideas be permitted free expression, but it is not mandated that they be given a venue or a forum. If you want to show the offensive film or publish the hateful op-ed, someone has to pay the price — willingly. You have to sell it to somebody.
Should the SFJFF show movies made by the Ku Klux Klan in the name of free speech? Not if it expects to sell tickets to the show. Should the San Francisco Chronicle publish fundamentalist ravings about alleged perversions of homosexuality? Not if it expects to find readers and advertisers.
The notion that the federation must or should fund the expression of ideas the majority of its donors don’t support is nonsensical. The idea that merchants must or should advertise in a newspaper that spews anti-Semitic (or homophobic) editorial is equally foolish. This simply isn’t what the First Amendment guarantees — it has nothing to do with free speech.
Those of us who support Israel and oppose anti-Semitism have little choice. We cannot legislate anti-Israel and anti-Jewish speech out of existence — and, being believers in free speech, we should not.
But we can oppose speech that is damaging to Jewish interests using our economic power. We can dissuade those who support these hateful ideas financially to withdraw that support. But I would go further: It is not only our option to oppose expressions that are offensive and damaging to Jews; it’s our obligation. Never again means never again.
To those who object to such a strategy, I would suggest they review the rights protected by the First Amendment.
James Sinkinson of Oakland is the director of Facts and Logic About the Middle East (FLAME).
All
03/12/2010 at 04:00 PM
Sinkinson is correct. There is nothing in the 1st Amendment that forces anyone to publish or broadcast or support anything in particular. It just proscribes gov’t interference in such. But still his argument is glib and disingenuous. The argument is not that either the Federation or Sinkinson in his campaign against the Daily Planet acted in violation of the 1st Amendment, but that both actions were a violation of its spirit and without doubt shameless efforts to curtail and undermine the marketplace of ideas in favor of his peculiar ideology. In his defense Sinkinson plays the anti-Semitism card but its just a canard. Both actions are those of intellectual cowards who prefer to silence those with whom they disagree.
Login to reply to this comment or post your own