JPost acknowledges, defends censorship

Guest post by Lurker:

To David Horovitz [Jerusalem Post editor-in-chief]:

I am disappointed that you have chosen not to respond to my query below, regarding the Jerusalem Post's censorship of Edwin Bennatan's blog article.

Today, I found a new notice* posted on this same blog, which surprisingly acknowledged that "the Jerusalem Post found nothing improper in Mr. Bennatan's article itself". In spite of this, the notice says, the article "was removed from this site last week in resolution of a legal dispute concerning 'talkback' comments posted in response to his article".

If there were indeed defamatory or libelous talkback comments, then I can certainly understand why the Post would remove them. I can even understand why the Post might pay Mr. Freedman damages for libel. But what legitimate explanation can there possibly be for removing the article itself, which, according to Post's own statement, contained "nothing improper"?

It is painfully clear what happened here: Mr. Freedman obviously threatened legal action, and blackmailed the Post. Removal of the offending talkbacks along with an apology was not enough for him, and neither was an offer of a cash payment. No, Freedman wanted more, didn't he? He wanted the Post to censor an article that contained embarrassing criticism of his political opinions. And the Post cravenly complied.

The Post's capitulation to extortion raises serious questions about your paper's commitment to fundamental journalistic ethics: If a little-known two-bit extremist blogger is somehow capable of forcing the Post to completely censor an opinion piece that politely criticizes his opinions, then who is to say that powerful political figures cannot – and do not – force the Post to do the same thing, or worse? What reason is there to assume that the Post is not refraining from publication of criticism, or embarrassing information, regarding individuals far more important and powerful than Seth Freedman – people who might blackmail the Post into hiding things they don’t want the public to see, just as Freedman has?

If you have a legitimate explanation for your paper’s behavior in this matter, I’d certainly be interesting in hearing it.

In a related matter, I ask you once again: To which "charity", exactly, has the Jerusalem Post contributed money at Mr. Freedman's behest?

Want to let the Post know what you think, too? Send an e-mail to David Horovitz and/or their blog administrator.

UPDATE: This morning, the notice was at the top of this page. But apparently, the Post had second thoughts, and removed the notice a few hours later. However, they seem to have forgotten to remove it from this other page containing the same blog article. I changed the link above to use the page that still contains the notice. And I've saved a copy, of course, in case the Post removes the notice from the second page as well.

Wherever I am, my blog turns towards Eretz Yisrael טובה הארץ מאד מאד

Censorship in the Jerusalem Post

Guest post by Lurker:

Thanks to JoeSettler for bringing to our attention the Jerusalem Post's recent outrageous act of censorship. I sent the following letter tonight to the Post's editor-in-chief, David Horovitz:

To David Horovitz:

Why has the Jerusalem Post censored this blog article by Edwin Bennatan? (The link is a snapshot from Google's cache.)

The entire article has disappeared, and has been replaced with this apology.

I understand from the apology that there were some user comments to the article that were deemed “defamatory, threatening, and inappropriate”, and I can certainly understand why the Post would delete such a comment.

But why was the article itself taken down? Did it contain something that you find to be “defamatory, threatening, and inappropriate”? If so, then what was it, exactly? And if it did not contain anything “defamatory, threatening, and inappropriate”, then why has it been deleted and replaced with an apology?

I would point out that the Post's censorship of this article has already become a subject of discussion in the blogosphere. (See here for an example.) This action calls into question the Post's journalistic standards, and its commitment to freedom of speech.

Mr. Horowitz: In the past, I have admired you for your defense of Israel against egregious media bias against Israel. The article by Bennatan was very similar to many such defenses that you yourself have presented in the past. His article was well-written, reasoned, and free of any ad hominem attacks or anything even remotely inappropriate. I am shocked that the newspaper under your editorship has chosen to censor it. I would not have expected this from you.

I (along with many others) am interested in an explanation of why the Post has done this.


P.S.: I am also quite curious to know which charity Mr. Freedman has selected for the Jerusalem Post to make a contribution to.

If you are also disturbed by the Post's censorship of this article, why not tell them? Here is David Horovitz's e-mail address.

Wherever I am, my blog turns towards Eretz Yisrael טובה הארץ מאד מאד