Spare us
Talk about gratuitous- in the cover article of this week's Suburbanite, Howard Prosnitz goes out of his way to point out that "all three Orthodox Jews" voted against a resolution condemning illegal campaign tactics at a July 18th work session while "the council's three female members . . . voted to adopt the resolution." I wonder if future articles will supply the breakdown by height, eye color, and sexual preference.
posted by Teaneck Blog @ 8:03 PM
11 Comments:
The Resolution
The Teaneck Advisory Board on Community Relations strongly condemns many of the actions and events that took place prior to the 2006 Teaneck Council elections including, but not limited to:
(a) Mailing of "unsigned" letters, postcards and brochures which is not allowed by New Jersey law;
(b) Contributions that were not reported properly;
(c) Attack e-mails and letters which among other things spewed hate, divisiveness and character assassination. Candidates were verbally assaulted, not for their positions on particular issues, but by using innuendos and false accusations to spread misinformation which if repeated often enough was accepted as fact by many.
We as members of the Teaneck Advisory Board on Community Relations stand together and reject in the strongest terms the above mentioned deplorable acts. We urge the members of the Teaneck Council to join with us in the resolution.
he failed to mention that the two advisory board members, greenwald and sohn, WHO WANTED THE RESOLUTION, are also orthodox!
he failed to mention that the two advisory board members, greenwald and sohn, WHO WANTED THE RESOLUTION, are also orthodox!
Equally irrelevant, but the omission of the religious identification in that case may be telling
Frankly, although these anonymous mailed flyers may have been illegal according to NJ law, I rather suspect that the law itself is unconstitutional. In fact the U.S. Supreme court has ruled as such in 1995. See "McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission" 514 U.S. 334 (1995).
The whole investigation is a joke and a waste of taxpayers money since no prosecution could possibly succeed or be upheld on appeal. If they find out who sent the flyers it may give some emotional satisfaction to Loretta Weinberg and her friends at Teaneck New Beginnings to know who was behind it. You can read the 1995 supreme court decision if you like at http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-986.ZO.html - it seems pretty clear that while the pamphlets may have been lies and untruths, they were not illegal
because they were anonymous regardless of any NJ state law.
Fascinating, thank you.
It does appear that the majority of the communal disapproval is due to the "immorality" rather than the "illegality" of the activity. So even if the laws that have been violated are themselves unable to stand up to a constitutional challenge, community members may remain upset about the level of discourse during the campaign. Unfortunately, there is not much that can be done about this.
Whether the case in question applies to New Jersey election laws is up to the courts to decide. Until such time it is the obligation of our law enforcement officials to uphold the law. If nothing else, an investigation may resolve the question as to who the responsible parties are and what connection, if any, they had to the candidates. If the election laws don’t stand, libel laws may apply. Most Teaneck voters would like to see these questions answered. They are concerned with both questions of legality and morality.
Perhaps that’s why so many are concerned with the role the TeaneckShuls website played in this election. The website had a policy that read, “8) Political Endorsements - We currently do not allow specific endorsements of political candidates on teaneckshuls. ...” The phrase, “(except as a sponsor-of-the-week ad)” appears to have been added
to allow the website and it’s extensive email lists to be used as a campaign tool to support four of the winning candidates. This includes one of the sites moderators. While certainly not illegal, Teaneck voters would still like to know why this was allowed and who was responsible.
Perhaps that’s why so many are concerned with the role the TeaneckShuls website played in this election. The website had a policy that read, “8) Political Endorsements - We currently do not allow specific endorsements of political candidates on teaneckshuls. ...” The phrase, “(except as a sponsor-of-the-week ad)” appears to have been added to allow the website and it’s extensive email lists to be used as a campaign tool to support four of the winning candidates. This includes one of the sites moderators. While certainly not illegal, Teaneck voters would still like to know why this was allowed and who was responsible.
Admittedly, this is the first I have heard of this supposed controversy, so I don't know if many people are really up in arms about this or this is just an innuendo from an individual with a bone to pick. Either way, it is patently ridiculous. A private website can do whatever the heck it wants. This is America, and there is a First Amendment to our Constitution. Whoever objects to to postings on a website is free to ignore them . The website is free to violate its own principles at any time at the risk of its own credibility and readership.
innuendo: An indirect or subtle, usually derogatory implication in expression; an insinuation.
TomAbbott said...
While certainly not illegal, Teaneck voters would still like to know why this was allowed and who was responsible.
Which, pray tell, "Teaneck voters" are we talking about?
Mr. Abbott, My neighbor urged me via e-mail to vote for Michael Feit. Now that you clarified the issue for me, i.e., free speech applies only to those with whom you agree, I have relegated all non-liberal e-mail senders to the spam folder. Thank you for your insights. I certainly will not accept any e-mails from Orthodox Jews unless they are avowedly self-hating. Feel better?
another Anonymous idiot said...
"Mr. Abbott, My neighbor urged me via e-mail to vote for Michael Feit. Now that you clarified the issue for me, i.e., free speech applies only to those with whom you agree, I have relegated all non-liberal e-mail senders to the spam folder. Thank you for your insights. I certainly will not accept any e-mails from Orthodox Jews unless they are avowedly self-hating. Feel better?"
What did this have to do with what he said?
Post a Comment
<< Home