Home » Internet Law Expert Lawyer
Category Archives: Internet Law Expert Lawyer
Ken Livingston anti-Semitic defence on LBC radio interview. What did Benjamin Netanyahu really say ?
In his interview on LBC on Saturday 30 May 2016, former London mayor Ken Levingston claimed that his alleged anti-Semitic comments that Hitler was in fact a Zionist and that Hitler had never intended to exterminate the Jews until one day he “went mad” were backed by similar comments by Israeli primes minister (and historian) Benjamin Netanyahu.
Ken Levingston repeated his claim about Benjamin Netanyahu at least 12 times during the radio interview. This was his unchallenged line of defence to the charge that he was anti-Semite.
So did Ken Levingston tell the truth about Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech or did he bent it in an attempt to rewrite history all over again?
Was Ken Levingston being honest with LBC’s listeners in relation to Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech or did he deliberately mislead them to avoid a charge that he was anti-Semite?
Judge for yourself.
Here is a link to the full transcript of the speech by Benjamin Netanyahu, which was referred to in Ken Levingston’s radio interview on LBC. http://www.pmo.gov.il/English/MediaCenter/Speeches/Pages/speechcongress201015.aspx.
To put things in context, Benjamin Netanyahu gave that speech to the 37th Zionist Congress on 20 October 2015. The section of the speech referred to by Ken Levingston was aimed to emphasis the active part played by the Mufti (Mayor) of Jerusalem Haj Amin al-Husseini, in the formation of Hitler’s final solution.
Haj Amin al-Husseini is considered by many as the forefather of the Palestinian nation so the point Benjamin Netanyahu was making was that Palestinian terrorism is not only motivated by nationalism but largely by deep routed anti-semitism.
The transcript of the paragraph of Benjamin Netanyahu speech referred to by Ken Levingston in aid of defending the charge that he was an anti-Semite is produced in full below:
| “And this attack and other attacks on the Jewish community in 1920, 1921, 1929, were instigated by a call of the Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin al-Husseini, who was later sought for war crimes in the Nuremberg trials because he had a central role in fomenting the final solution. He flew to Berlin. Hitler didn’t want to exterminate the Jews at the time, he wanted to expel the Jews. And Haj Amin al-Husseini went to Hitler and said, “If you expel them, they’ll all come here.” “So what should I do with them?” he asked. He said, “Burn them.” And he was sought in, during the Nuremberg trials for prosecution. He escaped it and later died of cancer, after the war, died of cancer in Cairo.” |
Reading Netanyahu’s words, it is clear that Ken Livingstone purposefully misstated what he had said. Hitler wanted to get rid of all the Jews. He did not care where they went. The Mufti convinced him that expelling them from Germany was not a good solution as they would come to Palestine instead. According to Mr Netanyahu it was the Mufti (clearly not insanity) which caused Hitler’s change of plans.
Did Benjamin Netanyahu say in his speech that Hitler was a Zionist as Ken Livingstone implied?
Clearly not. Netanyahu did not even mention the word Zionism in the relevant paragraph.
Did Benjamin Netanyahu say in his speech that it was insanity that drove Hitler to exterminate the Jews rather than a cold blooded plan? Definitely not.
There is clearly nothing in Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to even suggest that Hitler’s desire to expel the Jews from Europe was motivated by Zionism and it is clear from the speech that the Mufti influence the Hitler’s final solution. Not a word about insanity.
The only part that in Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech that Ken Levingston might have correctly quoted is Netanyahu’s suggestion that Hitler had not formed the final solution until 1929 after he met with the Mufti.
It is clear from reading Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech and from listening to Ken Livingstone’s interview that Ken Livingstone did not tell the truth when he claimed repeatedly that his comments were backed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. This was his only line of defence. “The Truth”, he said, which we can see he falsely claimed was backed by an acting Israeli Prime Minister.
You posted what? Online reputation legal issues
TECH-TAX: WITH DGIT
Yair Cohen Google Campus
So you’ve founded a start-up, now what?! You’ve had your big idea, you’ve researched your market, and you’ve taken the leap into the unknown… then what? Then, in amongst the long hours, the pursuit of the dream, the networking, the free beers and the pizza – suddenly there’s a tax return, a legal battle, a key team member gone…
Tax, talent and navigating online law will all feature in this event full of advice. Hear from the specialists that can help stop your mole hills becoming mountains!
Even information: http://london.techhub.com/events/techtax-with-dgit/
Corporate Social Responsibility and Social Media Websites
Corporate social responsibility might no longer be a term that refers to saving the rain forest or to paying coffee farmers a minimum wage. It could soon mean much more.
Social media users are like the coffee farmers but only in the sense that they work extremely hard in return for very little. Social media users work for the social media corporation by producing never-ending internet content and by falsifying friendship and relationships. Social media users dance and sing before their masters and often strip themselves off the rights to privacy and basic dignity. Social media sites will not exist without the hard labour of users in the same way that coffee chains will not survive without an army of coffee farmers. Read the full article: Social Media Sites and Corporate Social Responsibility
By: Yair Cohen
"Encourage the young to create our new internet laws"
The Internet and the laws that are meant to protect us are only in their infancy. At present, the law plays catch up, particularly because of lack of vision and the lack of understanding of trends. In reality, Read more on New Social Media Law
By: Yair Cohen
How to Remove Internet Pages from Google
It is possible to remove web content from Google quickly and here is how to do it:
Internet Law Centre. Keeping domain names secure
You do need to bear in mind however, the recent data which was published by Google which shows the type of requests to remove web content that Google is likely to accept.
This is good information to have for anyone who is involved in any sort of business or has been the subject of a recent threat of internet defamation against them. Unfortunately … Read More on Internet Law Expert Blog.
By Yair Cohen
Remove Defamation on Money Saving Expert. Defamation Lawyer Yair Cohen wins court order against Money Saving Expert
By Kit Chellel – Bloomberg News
Sep 30, 2011 12:00 AM GMT+0100
People who use fake names to post critical comments about companies on websites may not be as anonymous as they think, as firms use the courts to unmask online accusers.
MoneySavingExpert, a British personal finance site with 5 million readers, was forced to hand over personal details about three users calling themselves Againstjpc, GomerPyle and Ladybirds, following a London court ruling in August. The three wrote comments on the website accusing JPC Group Sales Ltd., an affiliate of a U.K. publishing company, of being a “criminal enterprise” and “a scam,” the company said in court filings.
Similar orders have been granted in the U.K. over comments posted on Google Inc. (GOOG) blogs and comment boards at its YouTube unit’s website, said Yair Cohen, a lawyer for JPC. Louise Rutter, spokeswoman for Mountain View, California-based Google, declined to comment.
“There have been a few of these cases and they are becoming more common,” said Korieh Duodu, a media law specialist at London firm Addleshaw Goddard LLP. “It is clear there is a significant footprint left by Web users, who are not always aware of how much information can be revealed about their identities when they publish material online.”
While Internet users have traditionally enjoyed the freedom to air controversial views without using real names, courts can order websites to hand over e-mail and Internet-protocol addresses, and other personal details, if anonymous comments go too far. A person who disrupts Web forums with inflammatory or offensive remarks is known as a “troll” in Internet slang.
‘Online Anonymity’
Disclosing the identity of Web users shouldn’t be taken lightly, said Eric King, human rights and technology adviser at advocacy group Privacy International. It could even be illegal, unless the comments caused serious harm.
“Online anonymity is a hugely important aspect of the right to privacy,” he said.
In 2007, the owner of a fan site for soccer club Sheffield Wednesday was forced to disclose the identities of several users after what a judge described as a “sustained campaign of vilification” against the club’s directors. Financial websites Motley Fool and Interactive Investor had to provide information about a user known as Zeddust in 2001, following a lawsuit filed by internet service provider Totalise Plc.
In the U.S., with stricter laws protecting freedom of speech, judges have sometimes found in favor of victims of online abuse. Former model Liskula Cohen won an order from a New York judge in 2009 requiring Google to identify a blogger who defamed her, while another model, Carla Franklin, won a similar ruling in 2010 over comments made on YouTube.
Court Order
Cohen, the JPC lawyer at firm Bains Cohen, said the company would now apply for an order against Internet provider TalkTalk Telecom Group Plc (TALK) to get the physical address of one of the individuals who posted the remarks on MoneySavingExpert. The company plans to sue the person for defamation, he said.
TalkTalk said in a statement that it “would never disclose any information” without a court order.
JPC, part of the Wyvern Media brand which publishes the Lincolnshire Telegraph and the North London Chronicle, said in an e-mailed statement that anonymous posters of abuse cost small businesses hundreds of thousands of pounds every month. “We are determined to bring our abusers to justice,” it said.
Brendan Perrett, head of operations at MoneySavingExpert, said the site hadn’t initially provided information about its users because of its privacy policy and the U.K. Data Protection Act.
“The job of balancing the consumer viewpoint and right to give their views without letting people unfairly tarnish companies’ reputations is never an easy one,” he said.
Duodu said the issue of freedom of speech had to be considered by companies deciding to tackle online abuse.
“The other concern for corporations is that they should be wary of stifling genuine debate. Seeking the closure of websites because of a few detractors can lead to a massive public relations own goal,” he said.
To contact the reporter on this story: Kit Chellel in London cchellel@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Anthony Aarons at aaarons@bloomberg.net
Social media lawyer Business Talks 