Crackdowns on free speech are increasing worldwide. Afghanistan, Russia, China, Hong Kong, Florida, Texas...
Israel just reached the using fire hoses on protestors level.[1]
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/25/world/middleeast/israel-j...
Israel just reached the using fire hoses on protestors level.[1]
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/25/world/middleeast/israel-j...
This article doesn't say, but it does appear from other reporting that the community colleges implemented these policies without influence from state politicians.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-06-12/communit...
That means it is not an analogue to the Texas scenario, where the university censured people because the politicians said to.
Until we know, I don't think we can say if this is an attack on free speech or not.
We accept it’s a police state and kowtow in between as due to recent experience we know the alternative is open violence
The hose just got a lot bigger.
And, let's say, the Court also hasn't been exactly non-partisan lately either (if it reminds you some other country, then you are right, these things can happen anywhere). So, many people were very unhappy with such situation, where a largely self-perpetuating body (the Court controls a lot of appointment process too) has nearly infinite power over the elected officials.
Given that one major party (or rather coalition, but let's not get into the weeds) has lost the elections, but enjoys the power in the Court, and the other has the majority in the parliament, but has their actions constantly blocked by the Court with motivations like "it doesn't look reasonable to us", the inevitable readjustment happens. It does not mean at all the Court - or any courts - lost all ability to review the decisions of the government, far from it. It just means that use of that particular tool - declaring any decision "unreasonable" and be done with it - has been restricted. Of course the side that enjoyed using that tool doesn't like it at all. But the Court still has all the power of review that it had using any other tools - including all the laws previously passed and those Basic Laws that exist. It just moved from "infinite power" to "limited power".
This seems a bit misleading. There's a lot more to it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Israeli_judicial_reform
> The Supreme Court can declare Knesset legislation unconstitutional. The reform would permit the Knesset to override such a ruling by reintroducing the legislation and approving it with a majority of Knesset members.
> Levin and the ruling government coalition have stated that the above is the first step in their judicial reform, and that additional steps are planned, including changing the appointment process of legal advisors to government ministries, such that they are appointed and dismissed by the ministers; making their legal advice a recommendation rather than binding on the ministers; and making them subordinate directly to the ministers rather than to the Justice Ministry's professional oversight.
> The coalition is also advancing a number of other bills concerning Israel's judicial system and the balance of powers, including reforms to widen the authority of the Rabbinical Court, allowing them to act as arbitrators in civil matters using religious law, if both parties consent; bills limiting the ability to call for a no-confidence vote and other methods for dissolving a sitting Knesset; bills prohibiting criminal proceedings against sitting Prime Ministers; and bills permitting key public service positions to be positions of trust appointed by politicians rather than professional appointments.
That said, the two last paragraphs is not actually an objection to anything I said, it's just saying "but also they plan to do other bad things". Maybe they do, maybe they don't - it doesn't change the nature of the particular thing they passed, and that's what I was addressing and that's what the comment I was answered was alleging (it said "just removed", not "planning to remove" or "going to remove" - and that's false).
As for the first paragraph (after the link), I suspect what it refers to is part of another bill, and as such it's kind of hard to discuss because these change all the time as part of inter- and intra-coalition wheeling and dealing. I did not find any reference to this provision being part of the law that actually passed, if you have any (non-Wikipedia) reference to it please provide it. On its face, it looks ridiculous - that means to nullify any Supreme Court decision the parliament has to just vote on it twice (and the majority is implied - you can not pass any bill without having majority anyway) - so there's no point to have any court at all. This exaggerated ridiculousness suggests to me something is missing - this is not how it works and even people wanting to somehow establish a dictatorship (which nobody in Israel actually wants, despite what both sides claim - they just want to bend the system towards the party they favor) does not do it by passing a law saying "anything I say twice is the truth". Why then bother with saying it twice anyway - once should be enough? It just doesn't make any sense, all politics aside, so I suspect the real bill, whatever it is, is something different. But, as I said, I haven't read it so I don't know.
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-02-22/ty-article/.p...
> The Knesset advanced a slew of proposals through preliminary readings on Wednesday – most notably the bill to enshrine the judicial override clause, which would permit the Knesset to override Supreme Court decisions by a very slim majority of 61 votes in the 120-seat parliament, effectively revoking its power to strike down unconstitutional laws.
> The law, which passed a preliminary vote, also includes a provision requiring all 15 Supreme Court justices to unanimously support any move to strike down unconstitutional laws, a proposal which critics charge would dramatically reduce the High Court’s ability to check the legislature while also discouraging judges from issuing dissenting opinions. Even after the 15-member court unanimously strikes down a law, the bill allows the Knesset to override the move with a simple majority of 61 votes out of the 120-seat parliament.
As such, I suspect that it was just a bargaining move by Netanyahu to introduce something which clearly is going too far, with the full intent to drop it as soon as things get really going, to show he's reasonable and compromising. Maybe so, maybe he did intend to pass it if he can - in any case, I don't think that will happen anymore.
Even supposing that law passes, how would it make Israel any different from the UK or New Zealand, in both of which almost any decision of the Supreme Court can be overturned with mere ordinary legislation. [0]
I don’t understand this heated rhetoric claiming it is the “death of Israeli democracy”-to be consistent, people who claim that would also have to say that the UK and New Zealand are not democracies
[0] New Zealand requires a referendum for certain changes to election law, so there are limits to the ability of Parliament to overturn court decisions in that specific area
I'm not trying to be harsh but it's weird how frequently this (badly offtopic) subthread has been speculative, when there are plenty of Israeli newspapers wherein the reasons for the rift in Israel are discussed to the nth degree... in English... by people who know what they're talking about.
You are incorrectly assuming I haven’t read any of those articles, and then using that incorrect assumption to dismiss my argument without actually engaging with it
Like, so dumb that ideally you'd read my restatement above and have an epiphany about how dumb what you said was, and familiarize yourself with the facts. A guy can dream.
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
If you think my comparison between the constitutional situation of Israel and that of UK and New Zealand is wrong, by all means provide a detailed explanation of why - that would be “conversing curiously”. But simply calling my argument “really dumb” isn’t
If there is a criticism of the UK, New Zealand, and now (if this additional law were to pass) Israel, it would be that they're overly democratic. Though based on what I've read the current Israeli Supreme Court does go too far in the other direction since it has no written constitution to work from and is basically winging it.
At the risk of going off topic I do find it weird that the Americans who are terribly worried about the Israeli Supreme Court being made more accountable to the people are mostly the same Americans determined to do something similar to the American one (and the U.S. Senate).
That’s standard for the parliamentary system. Israel in that is fundamentally no different from the UK, Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Spain, Italy, Germany, Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Greece - actually most countries in Europe (where parliamentary systems are the rule and semi-presidential systems such as France or Russia are the exception)
> Reducing the power of the only independent branch in this case is highly questionable to say the least
The UK government has done it before, many times. Most recent example I am aware of is the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022, which stripped from the Courts the power to review the legality of prorogations or dissolutions of Parliament. In English law, this is called an “ouster clause”, and is nothing new - historically significant examples include the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act 1946, and the Foreign Compensation Act 1950. In the US, the same idea is called “jurisdiction-stripping”; a famous example is the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
I’m not sure this is something you can flag comments for, but I don’t think that type of argument, regardless of how eloquently stated, is appropriate for HN.
People who peddle the argument that the 1st amendment only protects you from government censorship as a basis to invalidate the vigorous defense of free speech ideals in society, are either disingenuous or wildly narrow sighted.
We are facing continued pressure from external stakeholders, including the White House and the press, to remove more Covid-19 vaccine discouraging content.
This is not "suggestion". This is government coercing private business.
You can say whatever you want but if it offends your employer, don't be surprised if they fire you.
Free speech doesn't mean that the others have to listen to you and agree with you, it means that you can say it and not have your freedom of movement restricted because of it. The exact opposite of what many dictators do.
There are no country on earth with "full" free speech because there are always limitations especially regarding threats to the safety of others.
First, private and public censorship are fundamentally different due to power balances. The government is enjoined from censorship except in very carefully defined circumstances. Private entities are allowed to censor except in carefully defined circumstances.
Conflating the two is the thing that shifts the Overton Window.
Perhaps how uncomfortable that is should be something we consider thoughtfully rather than something we point to and immediately try to discount.