Shurat HaDin, Israel Law Center, characterizes itself as a non-governmental organization “at the forefront of fighting terrorism and safeguarding Jewish rights worldwide.”

On July 10, the organization filed a federal lawsuit on alleged behalf of the families of five Americans (one American tourist and four Israeli-American dual citizens) killed in attacks which the suit blames on Hamas, the Islamist organization governing Palestine’s Gaza Strip area. Facebook, the suit alleges, assists Hamas (in violation of the US Anti-Terrorism Act) in “recruiting, radicalizing, and instructing terrorists, raising funds, creating fear and carrying out attacks.”

The suit seeks to punish Facebook to the tune of $1 billion for failure to censor public communications of which the Israeli government disapproves. This should be troubling for two reasons.

First, the obvious: Federal law (47 USC § 230) protects sites like Facebook vis a vis content created by  their users: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” There’s a reason for that legal provision, and this lawsuit highlights that reason: Suing Facebook because Hamas operatives use social media is like suing AT&T because Hamas operatives talk on the telephone.

Second, the less obvious: As I previously mentioned, Shurat Hadin characterizes itself as a non-governmental organization. In reality, it seems to at the very least serve as a front for, and quite possibly to function as a de facto litigation arm of, the Israeli state.

A 2007 US embassy cable — revealed by whistleblower site Wikileaks — cites Shurat Hadin founder Nitsana Darshan Leitner as admitting that, at least at one time, the organization received evidence and took direction from the Israeli government, claiming that “[t]he National Security Council (NSC) legal office  saw the use of civil courts as a way to do things that they are not authorized to do.”

Shurat HaDin’s lawsuits against Facebook (this one and another, filed in 2015, which complains that Facebook’s tools for connecting people with similar interests as “[allow] Palestinian terrorists to incite violent attacks against Israeli citizens and Jews on its internet platform”) are, in a word, “lawfare”: Asymmetric warfare carried out through abuse of legal and judicial systems to accomplish military aims.

The US government has no business involving itself in the conflict between Israel and Hamas — nor should the  US courts allow Shurat HaDin to turn Facebook and other US firms into collateral damage in that conflict.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

• “Shurat HaDin versus Facebook: Vexatious Litigation as Warfare,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Antiwar.com, 07/11/16
• “Shurat HaDin versus Facebook: Vexatious Litigation as Warfare,” by Thomas L. Knapp, OpEdNews, 07/12/16

When I search for the phrase “here’s what we know,” Google returns 9.4 million results. A depressing proportion of those results are the headlines or ledes of news stories about then-current events. For example (I’m writing this on July 8, 2016), “Here’s What We Know About Confirmed Dallas Shooter Micah Xavier Johnson.”

Too often, “what we know” turns out to be “what someone told our reporter,” or “what we heard at a press conference,” or “what we read in a press release.” And “what we know” (again too) often turns out not to have  been true at all and to instead have just been “what we thought we knew at the time, and now what you will go on thinking because you don’t have time to keep up forever with our changing versions of every story.”

For example, I suspect that if I asked fifty random people on the street what kind of gun Omar Mateen used in his June 2016 attack on the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, a majority  who thought they knew would think they knew that the gun was an AR-15. After all, major newspapers “knew” that’s what it was for the better part of a day … until they found out it was actually a Sig Sauer MCX.

Or to reach a bit further back in history, in 1898 US newspapers told Americans with solemn assurance that the USS Maine had been destroyed in Havana Harbor by a mine. Many people still consider that confirmed fact, and it made a great excuse for the Spanish-American War. But to this day, we still don’t know what actually happened to the Maine.

The idea behind use of the phrase “here’s what we know” is to convey the message “here are some facts you can take to the bank.”  But lately I’ve begun reading it as “we are hubris, hear us roar.”

Socrates, the father of philosophy, is quoted by his disciple Plato thusly: “I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do.”

I’d love to see that motto inscribed over the entrance of every journalism school in America, as a caution against reporting rumor as fact, against treating speculation as evidence, and against putting being first ahead of getting it right.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

• “Note to Media: Less Maine, More Socrates, Please,” by Thomas L. Knapp, OpEdNews, 07/08/16
• “When responding to tragedies, less Maine, more Socrates,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Pawtucket, Rhode Island Times, 07/09/16
• “When responding to tragedies, less Maine, more Socrates,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Woonsocket, Rhode Island Call, 07/09/16
• “Note to Media: Less Maine, More Socrates, Please,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Ventura County, California Citizens Journal, 07/09/16
• “Note to media: Less Maine, more Socrates, please,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Sonoran News [Arizona], 07/20/16

In his July 5 press briefing, FBI director James Comey spoke 2,341 words explaining his decision not to recommend criminal charges over Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server to transmit, receive and store classified information during her tenure as US Secretary of State. He could have named that tune in four words:

“Because she’s Hillary Clinton.”

Comey left no doubt whatsoever that Clinton and her staff broke the law: “[T]here is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information. For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. … any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.”

“But that doesn’t matter, because she’s Hillary Clinton.”

18 U.S. Code § 1924 provides for a sentence of up to one year in prison for “Whoever, being an officer … of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location …”

“No biggie. After all, she’s Hillary Clinton.”

18 US Code § 793 provides for a sentence of up to ten years in prison for “Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of [classified information] … through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust …”

“But hey, you know, she’s Hillary Clinton.”

When she became Secretary of State, Clinton signed a Non-Disclosure Agreement laying out the penalties for mishandling classified information. She claims she doesn’t remember signing it.

“Unlike mere mortals, Madame Secretary Clinton mustn’t be held to commitments she doesn’t happen to remember making.”

“Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information,” said Comey, “our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”

“Because she’s Hillary Clinton.”

“To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences.”

“Unless she happens to be Hillary Clinton.”

“Silly proles … laws are for the little people.”

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

• “Hillary Clinton: More Equal Under the Law than Others,” by Thomas L. Knapp, OpEdNews, 07/07/16
• “Hillary Clinton: More Equal Under the Law Than Others,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Antiwar.com, 07/07/16
• “Hillary Clinton: More Equal Under the Law Than Others,” Ventura County, California Citizens Journal, 07/07/16
• “Hillary Clinton: More Equal Under the Law Than Others,” by Thomas L. Knapp, CounterPunch, 07/08/16
• “Hillary Clinton: More Equal Under the Law Than Others,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Key West: The Newspaper [Florida], 07/08/16
• “Hillary Clinton: More equal under the law than others,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Newberry, South Carolina Observer, 07/08/16
• “Hillary Clinton: More equal under the law than others,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Pahrump Valley, Nevada Times, 07/13/16
• “Hillary Clinton: More equal under the law than others,” Fayette, West Virginia Tribune, 07/21/16