RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Excerpt: "Tzipi Hotovely gives speech to Israeli diplomats in which she says she will try to achieve global recognition for West Bank settlements."

Tzipi Hotovely addresses the Knesset. (photo: Miriam Alster/Flash90)
Tzipi Hotovely addresses the Knesset. (photo: Miriam Alster/Flash90)


Israel's New Deputy Foreign Minister: "This Land Is Ours. All of It Is Ours."

By Associated Press

23 May 15

 

Tzipi Hotovely gives speech to Israeli diplomats in which she says she will try to achieve global recognition for West Bank settlements

srael’s new deputy foreign minister on Thursday delivered a defiant message to the international community, saying that Israel owes no apologies for its policies in the Holy Land and citing religious texts to back her belief that it belongs to the Jewish people.

The speech by Tzipi Hotovely illustrated the influence of hardliners in Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s new government, and the challenges he will face as he tries to persuade the world that he is serious about pursuing peace with the Palestinians.

Hotovely, 36, is among a generation of young hardliners in Netanyahu’s Likud party who support West Bank settlement construction and oppose ceding captured land to the Palestinians. Since Netanyahu has a slim one-seat majority in parliament, these lawmakers could complicate any attempt to revive peace talks.

With Netanyahu also serving as the acting foreign minister, Hotovely is currently the country’s top full-time diplomat.

In an inaugural address to Israeli diplomats, Hotovely said Israel has tried too hard to appease the world and must stand up for itself.

“We need to return to the basic truth of our rights to this country,” she said. “This land is ours. All of it is ours. We did not come here to apologise for that.”

Hotovely, an Orthodox Jew, laced her speech with biblical commentaries in which God promised the land of Israel to the Jews. Speaking later in English, she signalled that she would try to rally global recognition for West Bank settlements, which are widely opposed.

“We expect as a matter of principle of the international community to recognise Israel’s right to build homes for Jews in their homeland, everywhere,” she said.

Hotovely will manage the ministry’s day-to-day functions, but Netanyahu will remain in charge of foreign policy.

During the recent election campaign, Netanyahu angered his western allies by saying he would not permit the establishment of a Palestinian state on his watch. On Wednesday he told the visiting EU foreign policy chief that he remains committed to a two-state solution.

Netanyahu’s spokesman, Mark Regev, declined comment on Hotovely’s speech, but said Netanyahu’s statements Wednesday reflected his policy.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+32 # Polisage 2015-05-23 18:40
I'm not certain what she means by "this land." I hope she realizes that the people come with the land. Does she want Jordan and Syria as well? Good luck with that.
Truth be told, she's not speaking to the international community--she' s talking to her boss and her party.
 
 
+32 # Radscal 2015-05-23 20:47
There is debate amongst Zionists of what exactly is "this land."

Merlin posted an Israeli document on RSN defining "Greater Israel," but I can't find it right now.

Netanyahu's Likud Party considers the West Bank, Gaza, Lebanon and much of Syria to be Greater Israel to be annexed shortly. They also state that much of Jordan is part of Israel, but will not annex it as long as Jordan doesn't mess with them... for now anyway.

http://mondoweiss.net/2011/11/netanyahu’s-party-platform-flatly-rejects-establishment-of-palestinian-state

The Home and Herut Parties consider all land from the Euphrates River to the Nile to be Eretz Yisrael. That is, in addition to Likud's claims, half of Iraq, all of Jordan, all of Syria, part of Turkey and the Sinai Peninsula.

http://herut.org.il/english/platform.html

Either way, all expect nearly all non-Jews to go away... one way or the other.

There is still an ever-shrinking number of Israelis willing to "settle" for all the land conquered up to 1967 (plus a few of the "settlements"), but they have no real power in the current government.
 
 
-21 # stannadel 2015-05-24 06:08
delusional Radscal
 
 
+11 # Radscal 2015-05-24 17:13
Read their party platforms.

If Zionists hate it so much when we quote them, they should revert to not saying these things where goyim can hear them.
 
 
+29 # cymricmorty 2015-05-23 18:55
As Israel's new top diplomat, I wonder how well Hotovely's ambitious goal of warming the rest of the world to Israel's genocidal land grab is going to go.

To celebrate Yahu's new racist cabinet and to make up for Iran, the US very recently enriched Israel's welfare package with 1.9 billion in arms, including a deluxe assortment of Hellfire missiles, bunker-busting bombs and all-purpose bombs. It's being called a sale, but it's a gift.

http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/rania-khalek/obama-gives-19-billion-weapons-welcome-gift-israels-racist-government
____________________________________

A few minutes after I posted this, email tells me RSN has an article up about the Israel arms package.
 
 
+19 # Radscal 2015-05-23 20:50
Juan Cole wrote a quite accurate history of Jerusalem that shows it was under Jewish control for only a short time:

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/who_does_jerusalem_belong_to_20150518

David Sheen introduces Netanyahu's new Cabinet (by far the most right-wing ever):

http://www.alternet.org/world/prime-sinister-new-faces-netanyahus-new-israeli-government
 
 
+12 # cymricmorty 2015-05-24 10:14
Re: the David Sheen article, this overtly racist dream team Yahu has assembled is further proof (if anyone needed it), that there will be no two-state solution on his watch.
 
 
+11 # Misterioso 2015-05-24 10:20
Also, the United Kingdom of Israel lasted only 78 years (1000-922 BCE), a mere blip. And the biblical Hebrews never achieved domain over the coast from Jaffa to Gaza.

Those who ruled Palestine for lengthy periods were the Egyptians (615 intermittent years, including the era of the Muslim Mamelukes), the biblical Jews (414 intermittent years, of which they were truly independent for only 78 years) and the Romans (677 continuous years).

Palestine was also ruled for several centuries by two other peoples: the Arabs (Muslims), for 447 continuous years (638-1085) and the Ottoman Turks (Muslims), for 401 uninterrupted years (1517-1918).
 
 
+21 # Billy Bob 2015-05-23 23:01
Ah, yes!

Reminds me of that old Woody Guthrie song:

"This land is OUR land, This land is OUR land"
 
 
+15 # cymricmorty 2015-05-24 08:09
..."Your land is OUR land."
 
 
+12 # Billy Bob 2015-05-24 10:39
Oooh!

I like that even better!

I won't change my original post, so you get credit for that. You hit the nail right on the head!
 
 
+7 # cymricmorty 2015-05-24 10:51
Got that song stuck in my head now!

("This land is our land" segued into " 'cause the Bible tells me so." Sorry.)
 
 
+10 # tedrey 2015-05-24 11:22
"From sea to shining sea."

"I will establish your borders from the Red Sea to the Mediterranean Sea, and from the desert to the Euphrates River. I will give into your hands the people who live in the land, and you will drive them out before you." Exodus 23; Joshua 1

"Because the Bible tells me so."
"Manifest Destiny."
 
 
+21 # jimallyn 2015-05-23 23:41
Let's not be afraid to call a spade a spade. The Zionist regime in Palestine is evil, and those who support them, including the United States government, are evil too.
 
 
+12 # Kootenay Coyote 2015-05-24 07:52
All a bunch of fascist fanatics.
 
 
+8 # franpryor 2015-05-24 09:05
Isn't that what Hitler said when he marched into Poland and Czechoslovakia?
 
 
+10 # Misterioso 2015-05-24 09:48
1.

I've researched the matter thoroughly and did not find any special provision in international law that enables Israel to violate it with impunity.

For the record:

(A) Security Council Resolution 446 (22 March 1979) “[Affirms] once more that the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 is applicable to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem,
“1. Determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;.."

(B) Security Council Resolution 465 (1 March 1980) "determines that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity..."

(C) Israel's 1980 annexation of East Jerusalem was unanimously rejected by the UNSC in Resolutions 476 and 478.

(D) On 17 December 1981, the UNSC unanimously passed Resolution 497, which declared Israel’s 14 December 1981 annexation of Syria’s Golan Height “null and void.”
 
 
+5 # Misterioso 2015-05-24 09:54
2.

(E) In accordance with the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, ratified by Israel, and further underscoring the illegality of the settlements, Part 2, Article 8, section B, paragraph viii of the Rome Statute of the International Court (1998) defines "the transfer directly or indirectly by the Occupying power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies" as a War Crime, indictable by the International Criminal Court.

(F) On 24 February 2004, the U.S. State Department reaffirmed its earlier position in a report entitled Israel and the Occupied Territories, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: "Israel occupied the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights after the 1967 War.... The international community does not recognize Israel's sovereignty over any part of the occupied territories."

(G) In its 2004 ruling, the International Court of Justice unanimously ruled that “No territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal.” The World Court denoted this principle a “corollary” of the U.N. Charter and as such “customary international law” and a “customary rule” binding on all member States of the United Nations.
 
 
+5 # Misterioso 2015-05-24 10:00
3.

(H) In the summer of 1967, "[t]he legal counsel of the Foreign Ministry, Theodor Meron, was asked [by Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol] whether international law allowed settlement in the newly conquered land. In a memo marked 'Top Secret,' Meron wrote unequivocally: 'My conclusion is that civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention.'” (New York Times, 10 March 2006)

(I) British Foreign Secretary William Hague regarding Jewish settlements in the West Bank (5 April 2011): "This is not disputed territory. It is occupied Palestinian territory and ongoing settlement expansion is illegal under international law..."

(J) US Secretary of State, John Kerry: "The US views all of the settlements as illegitimate."
(http://uk.reuters.com/video/2013/08/13/kerry-the-us-views-all-of-the-settlement?videoId=247087988&videoChannel=1)

(K) Even the Israeli Supreme Court has declared the West Bank (and Gaza Strip) to be under belligerent occupation. In 1979, the court declared "[t]his is a situation of belligerency and the status of [Israel] with respect to the occupied territory is that of an Occupying Power." In 2002, the court again held that the West Bank and Gaza Strip "are subject to a belligerent occupation by the State of Israel" and in June, 2004, it proclaimed "ince 1967, Israel has been holding [the Palestinian Territories] in belligerent occupation."
 
 
+4 # Radscal 2015-05-24 17:34
Thanks for collecting those into one post. I'll add:

UN Resolution 194, December 1948 (Truce after formation of Israel and start of the Nakbu)

"11. Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;"

UN Resolution #242, 1967

"(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;"
(That is, return all land taken in the "Six Days War" and return to 1948 borders.)
 
 
+3 # Radscal 2015-05-24 17:36
And on annexation of any conquered land:

Article 2 of the UN Charter embodies a prevailing legal principle that there could be “no title by conquest”, and that principle has been expressed through numerous international conferences, doctrines and treaties since the late 19th Century, including the First International Conference of American States in 1890, the United States Stimson Doctrine of 1932, the 1932 League of Nations resolution on Japanese aggression in China, the Buenos Aires Declaration of 1936, and the Atlantic Charter of 1941.

Under the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court (ICC), such action constitutes a war crime. Article 8.2(b)(viii) of the statute defines "the transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies" as a war crime.

Quite a contrast to the words of a terrorist and Israeli Prime Minister:

"The [UN 1947] Partition of Palestine is illegal. It will never be recognized. Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel.
All of it."
~ Menachem Begin (Iron Wall p. 25) before war of 1948
 
 
+3 # Misterioso 2015-05-24 18:41
Well said

I might add that in 1949, as a pre-requisite for being granted UN membership (after being rejected twice), Israel declared to the UNGA that it would abide by Resolution 194 as it also did by signing the Protocol of the 1949 Lausanne Peace conference. Its commitment to do so was incorporated into UNGA Resolution 273 (11 May 1949), granting Israel UN membership.

Israel is the only state admitted to the UN on the condition that specific resolutions* would be obeyed.

Shortly after gaining UN membership Israel reneged on its commitment to abide by the terms of Resolution 194, which the Arab delegation, including Palestinian representatives attached to the Syrian delegation, had accepted as a basis for peace negotiations at the Lausanne Peace Conference.

There is no question whatsoever that Israel is legally bound to abide by the terms of Resolution 194. Only Washington’s protection has prevented Israel from having its credentials rejected, as happened to apartheid South Africa.

*UNGA Resolution 273 also calls for Israel's acceptance of the Partition Plan as a basis for negotiations re borders. However, by accepting UNSC Res. 242 when it signed the 1993 Oslo Accords, the PLO leadership in essence rendered the UNGA 1947 Partition Plan irrelevant.
 
 
+4 # Radscal 2015-05-24 19:02
Thanks. I've copy-pasta'd and added all your info to my Zionist Israel file.

From the other side, the Hasbara propagandists make much of the 1987 Hamas Charter, so here's some more recent quotes from Hamas leadership:

In 2006, Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, wrote to President Bush, “We are so concerned about stability and security in the area that we don't mind having a Palestinian state in the 1967 borders and offering a truce for many years,”

In 2010, Hamas political leader Khaled Meshaal stated that the 1988 Hamas Charter is “a piece of history and no longer relevant”.

In a 2012 CNN interview, Khaled Meshaal said that Hamas would “resort to a peaceful way” if Israel would agree to the creation of a Palestinian state.

In 2013 Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh reiterated that the Palestinian Arabs as a whole will never recognize Israel’s “right to exist”,(though he insisted that the Palestinians be granted the International "right of return").

In June 2014, Hamas agreed to a Palestinian unity government that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said would recognize Israel, renounce violence, and abide by the Oslo Accords, which called for a demilitarized Palestinian state.

Despite Zionist claims that Hamas is determined to "wipe Israel off the map," it is really the Israeli ruling coalition that is committed to never permitting a State of Palestine to ever even appear on a map.
 
 
+4 # Misterioso 2015-05-24 21:11
Yes, Hamas has long since declared its willingness to abide by the U.S. supported 2002 Arab League Beirut Summit Peace Initiative, which has also been agreed to by the PA, Hezbollah and Iran.

The only thing the Zionist entity* fears more than the 2002 Beirut Peace Initiative itself is the fact the Palestinians, all Arab states, Hamas, Hezbollah and non-Arab Iran have agreed to it.

Also, here is a brief summary of the Likud Party's Platform:

a. “The Jordan river will be the permanent eastern border of the State of Israel.”

b. “Jerusalem is the eternal, united capital of the State of Israel and only of Israel. The government will flatly reject Palestinian proposals to divide Jerusalem”

c. “The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.”

d. “The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria [sic] and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting.”

*Israel is neither a state nor a country, i.e., it has yet to officially declare its borders and have them accepted as such by the international community.
 
 
+3 # franpryor 2015-05-24 09:56
Like a naughty child, Israel continues to behave in an aggressive and unacceptable manner with no consequences from the international community. In fact, we continue to supply them with arms. Maybe it's time to call in an "International Supernanny" to teach them how to behave.
 
 
+4 # Activista 2015-05-24 12:31
RSN is erasing critical comments as MSM - we need true independent news - not news controlled by money.
 
 
+1 # Majikman 2015-05-25 08:02
This is VERY disturbing if RSN is erasing comments not because of abusive language, but because of content as you and John S, Browne state. Mark Ash needs to clarify.
 
 
+5 # Karen 2015-05-24 14:31
I say cut off all aide to Israel until they can learn to live nicely with their
neighbors.

No nicy,nicey, No money,money!!
 
 
+5 # JPCT3 2015-05-24 15:19
Ah, The age of equality of the sexes. Now we have facism with a pretty face!
 
 
+2 # John S. Browne 2015-05-24 16:08
#

Pursuant to the FACT that my rights, as well as at least Activista's rights [as she accurately states (and other's rights?)], under both the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), were violated by deleting my (our) comment(s), I hereby re-post my original comment(s) as follows:

"BULLSHIT if all of Palestine is Israel's land! Today, far too many, if not most, Israelis don't understand that the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. was allowed by God as punishment for the Israelite's constantly turning their backs on God and carrying out their own will over God's will. As a result of that "allowed-destru ction", they lost all title in perpetuity to that land; and all claims that God's Word(s), the Bible, claim that they would RIGHTFULLY be restored to it, are false.

"They also don't understand that, by becoming what destroyed six million of them in the late 1930s and early 1940s, they are just as bad if not worse than the so-called "heathen", the Palestinians, that they believe they "have every right" to exterminate and eradicate from "their" so-called "lands". Due to the history of Jerusalem's destruction in 70 A.D., they are no longer God's chosen people and thus entitled to eliminate all of their "Godless" neighbors.

(Continued)
 
 
+1 # John S. Browne 2015-05-24 16:11
#

"Most of the Israelis are Godless, too; in that they no longer have the One and Only True God as their God; and, because of their Godless inhumane fascism and mass-ethnic-cle ansing, they only have the false "god", Satan, as their lord and master. Therefore, all that they are doing to the Palestinians is, on a MUCH larger scale, worse than what they decry as the injustices being committed against them. Thus, they have little or no credibility in world affairs; and, in-truth, are human rights violators on a massive scale, and have been for decades now."

I also hereby legally demand and/or request that this comment (/these comments) not be illegally deleted and/or removed again, in violation of free speech rights.

#
 
 
+3 # Radscal 2015-05-24 19:14
I'm quite surprised that RSN deleted your original post. I'd read it before, so can testify it was there.

A private business is not restricted by legal or constitutional rights from banning speech. In fact, it happens all the time. I'm pretty sure that RSN is a non-profit organization, and I don't know if that makes a difference.

Still, I am a pretty firm proponent of free speech in almost any medium. I find your argument based on your beliefs in the genocidal desert god of the Jews, Christians and Muslims to be quite unsubstantiated , but I defend your right to make that argument.

RSN: Care to comment?
 
 
+2 # John S. Browne 2015-05-24 19:51
#

A sincere thank you, "Radscal", but you are quite wrong that private businesses, and/or non-profit organizations, are not restricted by legal or constitutional rights and duties to not ban, or violate, speech. If we, all people, have these rights innately, having been born with them, which we do and have been, and they are inalienable and immutable (they are an inseparable part of us---that are simply codified in the U.S. Bill of Rights and UDHR but exist independent of them), which they are, in addition to, because of our having them as an innate part of ourselves means we have the free speech right EVERY- WHERE, which we do, it cannot constitutionall y or legally be restricted, violated, limited and/or censored ANYWHERE.

Otherwise, if what you said were true, which it isn't, we would only have free speech rights "partially", which is totally ridiculous; because it would mean that such rights are supposedly not an innate, inalienable, immutable part of ourselves, or that we only have them so, "partially", also completely ridiculous. We either have our innate, inalienable and immutable rights COMPLETELY, or we don't really have them at all.

(Continued)
 
 
+2 # John S. Browne 2015-05-24 20:13
#

But, since we do have those rights, innately, inalienably and immutably, whether or not government(s), private businesses and/or non-profit organizations attempt to limit, restrict, violate and/or censor them, we have them COMPLETELY AND EVERYWHERE, WITHOUT *ANY* LIMITS *WHATSOEVER*. Most of us have simply been quite successfully indoctrinated and conditioned to believe as you stated, and have capitulated to that, TOTALLY-FALSE, belief.

Now, having said that, please don't misunderstand me. We certainly do NOT have the right to "cry wolf" about a "fire in a crowded theater" (falsely claiming that there is a fire when there is none). But that is NOT a true restriction of free speech.

I must add as well, though, that free speech includes unpopular and so-called "offensive" speech in general (as long as it does not include falsely "crying wolf"), even ONLY-written threats of terrorism and/or violence. Glenn Greenwald wrote about this recently, and referred to a pertinent piece of case LAW precedent *proving* this, Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), right here on RSN. [SEE http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/27914-with-power-of-social-media-growing-police-now-increasingly-monitoring-and-criminalizing-online-speech , and take notice of my comments in that thread.]

(Continued)
 
 
+1 # John S. Browne 2015-05-24 20:34
#

Therefore, even if what I stated in my previously-dele ted comment(s) were truly "anti-Semitism" , which they are NOT, they would still be protected free speech ANYWHERE, INCLUDING ON RSN IN A "MEASLY" COMMENTS SECTION. As I've stated before, RSN and other websites that have opened comments sections, have opened them up to the public, thus they ARE subject, and/or have made themselves subject to, the laws, particularly THE SUPREME LAW(S) OF THE U.S., THE CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF RIGHTS, AND/OR INTERNATIONAL LAW(S), governing free speech rights and duties, AND THEY *CANNOT* LEGALLY VIOLATE THEM.

Ironically, if RSN and other websites did not open, and/or did not have, comments sections, they would NOT be violating freedom of speech; but, because they did and/or do, they have the incontrovertibl e constitutional- and-internation al-law duty(ies) to not violate freedom of speech; which, as I said, includes, under the law, almost all speech, including so-called "offensive" and/or unpopular speech.

Just because they don't like some things that some people say, like myself, and/or falsely believe that it is "anti-Semitism" , etc., they CANNOT legally or constitutionall y censor those things that are said; and, if they are True Americans and truly believe in and uphold constitutional rights, they must allow it to be said and/or written, and to remain so; otherwise, they are perpetrating illegal censorship and illegally violating the Constitution and other laws.

(Continued)
 
 
+1 # John S. Browne 2015-05-24 20:51
#

Additionally, even if a couple, several or "many" readers complain about comments such as mine, RSN and others are legally obligated to uphold freedom of speech first and foremost, and to refuse to remove the so-called "offensive" comment(s) [unless, and ONLY if, those comments TRULY violate laws that are NOTHING BUT constitutional, AND THAT DO *NOT* VIOLATE FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN *ANY* WAY, SHAPE, FORM OR FASHION *WHATSOEVER*]. Again, they CANNOT constitutionall y or legally delete them.

Further, free speech JUST AS MUCH, OR EQUALLY, includes religious free speech, and/or free expression of religion, regardless of whether some, many or most people disagree with it; and, once more, religious expression CANNOT be legally or constitutionall y censored either.

So, RSN, do you truly and fully uphold constitutional and international laws and rights, including freedom of speech, or not?

#
 
 
0 # Radscal 2015-05-24 22:39
The origin of rights is an interesting philosophical discussion. I’m familiar with the “natural rights” school of thought. Putting aside the “god(ess)(s)-gi ven rights” claim, I can understand the supposition that all creatures have all rights “naturally,” and only the imposition of outside power restricts them. For instance, social creatures impose and enforce norms of behavior that “restrict rights.”

But all that is irrelevant to the issue of law and Constitutionali ty. To wit:

“Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…”

The government cannot make certain speech illegal (the Supreme Court has ruled it applies to all governments, not just Congress). That’s it. And of course, some speech is not protected by the First Amendment at all, as you noted.
 
 
0 # Radscal 2015-05-24 22:40
But private organizations absolutely have the power to restrict speech, and they do it all the time. I don’t mean illegal speech, just speech that is outside the norms set for that business.

For instance, it is perfectly legal for an employee to tell a customer that a competitor’s product is better than the one the employer sells. But, it’s also quite legal for the employer to fire the employee for saying that.

Phil Donahue got fired from MSNBC for saying perfectly true things about the false evidence used to rationalize invading Iraq.

Even government employees, (who enjoy the most unrestricted free speech of any employees because their employer is bound by the First Amendment), can be penalized, including firing for certain speech that would be perfectly legal outside of their job.

Websites with comments sections have “Terms of Service” that no one reads. But if you do, you’ll see MANY restrictions that particular website can enforce. And they almost always include some vague phrasing that they can interpret quite subjectively. Perfectly legal.

Still, I am a strong proponent of allowing most any speech and allowing the listener/reader to make of it what they will. So, I hope RSN responds to explain why they deleted your original comment.
 
 
0 # John S. Browne 2015-05-25 00:51
#

No matter how supposedly "legal" these things "are" that you claim are "legal", they are both wrongly so-called "legal" and not truly legal at all; and you rationalize their being unconstitutiona l as if they are not unconstitutiona l, and ignore the truth of it in further rationalization (s) of illegal, supposedly "legal", "Terms of Service", et cetera.

All rules that abridge freedom of speech, as RSN's and most comments sections of websites' Terms of Service do, whether Congress makes a "law" supporting that abridgment or not, are unconstitutiona l and therefore completely illegal; though, as you said, they are claimed to be "perfectly legal". And all "laws" that supposedly make those abridgments "legal", are unconstitutiona l, and therefore in reality truly illegal.

Many things in the U.S. have been pronounced "constitutional " and "legal" by the high courts of the states and the federal government, that are neither constitutional or legal; and all of us should be, though most of us are not, well-versed enough on the matter of what is truly constitutional and what is not, that we do not AT ALL accept any of the truly UNconstitutiona l that has been pronounced "constitutional "; especially in this present time when the unconstitutiona l is pronounced "constitutional " rampantly, and as never before; for all unconstitutiona l "laws" are legally, completely null and void.

(Continued)

#
 
 
+1 # John S. Browne 2015-05-25 00:53
#

RSN will probably never respond as to why they deleted my and other's comments, but they simply did so because of false complaints by complainants that, like you but worse, have little or no respect for, and/or little or no correct understanding of, free speech rights and what the expression of them in the First Amendment and Article 19 of the UDHR really mean, particularly with regards to the constitutionall y-correct interpretations of the First Amendment in SCOTUS case law precedent(s).

In addition, as longtime "journalists", they have too long swallowed the long-held myths and/or false beliefs, indoctrination and conditioning, literal brainwashing, and capitulated-to unconstitutiona l "laws", as to what the First Amendment and free speech allegedly mean and/or how they are supposed to be "correctly" interpreted. Thus, they hold onto those fraudulent beliefs as if their lives depended upon it, that is how insidiously-eff ective the programming as to what supposedly is, and what supposedly is not, freedom of speech, or part of protected free speech, has been. And the public, of which you are a part, has by and large swallowed it "hook, line and s(uc)ker" as well, falsely and/or wrongly holding onto those lies as if their lives depended upon it also.

(Continued)

#
 
 
0 # John S. Browne 2015-05-25 00:54
#

As I already alluded to, we either have true, full and complete freedom of speech, as well as the "natural" ownership within ourselves of that right and those other inalienable, immutable and inseparable rights, or we don't really have any free speech or any of those other rights at all. But, since we do possess those rights innately within us, it is long past time to stop letting them be "interpreted away from us", and "limited", thus corralling us into blindly accepting our own enslavement, and "Pied-Pipering" of us over the edge of the cliff to our destruction.

We are not to be anybody's slaves, least of all to those who pen us in with fraudulent limitations of our inalienable, immutable and irremovable rights in the false guise of "rightness". We must break out of all those "shacklings" of ourselves, and attempts at separating us from our natural rights, and must (re)assert our LIBERTY(IES) as never before! We are nobody's slaves unless we allow ourselves to be made, and/or kept, such by capitulating to the enslavers' nefarious manipulations, and rules and "laws" that entrap and imprison us in a "reality" of the evil puppetmasters' making, a "reality" and prison that does not really exist unless we continue to accept, believe and further their lies and enslavement.

(Continued)

#
 
 
0 # John S. Browne 2015-05-25 00:54
#

Break out of it! Stop falling for and continuing to swallow the "matrix" illusion(s) of freedom while imprisoned in Evil's clutches! Break off the shackles! Cease being willful participants and perpetuators of Evil's deceptions that enslavement is liberty [or, as George Orwell so aptly put it, "Freedom is (supposedly) slavery"; and/or, to expand upon that more fully, 'Slavery is (supposedly) freedom']! You are nobody's slaves unless you continue to let yourselves be! So, no longer believe ANY of their limiting and enslaving lies! (I've taken the "red pill", not the "blue pill", how about you?!)

http://www.form-legal.com/wordpress/

#
 
 
+3 # Activista 2015-05-24 19:56
thank you Radscal for the principle - the censorship kills democracy and empires.
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.
Voltaire"
 
 
0 # John S. Browne 2015-05-24 20:12
###

[Sorry, I neglected to hit "Reply", so I moved the comment that was inadvertently posted here, to its rightful place as a "response", or continuation, to and/or of my original comment(s).]

###
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN