Banner
Keep opinions legal & they’ll be heard
ANT KATZ Online Editor
An irate user placed a comment marked “NOT FOR PUBLICATION” on this website today which, for the most part, contained a considerable amount of hate speech and racist slurs.
This writer, whose anonymity we shall respect, accuses Jewish Report Online thus: “Your sanctimonious attitude is symptomatic of the climate presently prevailing throughout Europe and Scandinavia regarding the Palestinians, Muslims and black migrants,” and goes on to say: “The problem with many Jews who lean to the left is that they exacerbate the hatred toward Israel.”
While insisting that there had been “no racial slurs nor hate speech” in a redacted opinion he had posted, the simple fact is that, under both SA and Israeli law, the remainder of his lengthy attack was unprintable for just those reasons.
We therefore re-publish, below, an article first published on March 29 this year called:Why we can’t always moderate timeously. as a guideline for users.
Comments are often removed or moderated due to the content being either:
- Illegal (hate-speech, slander, etc); and/or
- Islamophobia; and/or
- Unsavoury; and/or
- Jewish Report could not substantiate what was presented as “factual”.
It is interesting to note that all nine removed comments were posted by a single user. He is a regular contributor of letters to the print edition of Jewish Report and an almost daily visitor to the www.sajr.co.za website.
He has had comments edited previously and has even received both correspondence and online castigation for making comments that do not meet the Jewish Report’s criteria. Maybe he got out on the wrong side of the bed for two days running or has a particular axe to grind this week.
However, all comments on Jewish Report Online, and all letters that go into the print and/or online editions, are moderated before being published. This can be a time-consuming exercise, particularly when Jewish Report Online at times, dependent on the issues of the day, gets upwards of ten comments an hour posted.
While Jewish Report Online prides itself on being an open platform for users to comment or join in on conversations (in fact every content item on this website allows users to comment, either in their own name or anonymously), we do prescribe a strict set of rules.
For users to better understand, here’s a short guide:
Moderation falls under four main categories:
Legal issues…
Users are advised that all the normal rules of law apply to online and social media platforms equally.
So, for example, anything that could be deemed to be hate speech, slander, defamation of character, libel, etc, are not allowed. The general rule of thumb, here, is that if anyone feels they have been so denigrated, they have to sue the writer and the publisher.
Media law allows for a greater level of critique of public or elected persons, and organisations, than of the man in the street. So, for example, if one sees Joe Shmo lying naked in the gutter and drunk, that is his business and sharing it could cause trouble to the sharer.
If, however, one were to see their mayor (or, for that matter, the chairman of a Jewish organisation) in the same compromising position, one could legally publish a picture of them as it would be deemed to be in the public interest.
To better understand these applications, look at the LEGALS section of this website, and also specifically the COMMENT GUIDELINES which we follow.
Racism, Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, etc…
As a rule, laws both in SA (under the Constitution) and in Israel (in terms of the Basic Law) are quite specific in defining when anti-religious comments become hate-speech.
A simple rule-of-thumb example of this is as follows:
- If one categorises some specific individuals of a racial, religious or ethnic group to be x, y, or z – it may be okay to say it; but
- If one categorises all people of a racial, religious or ethnic group to be x, y, or z – it is absolutely racism.
For example the statement: “All Jews (or Muslims) are brutal savages” is as racist as can be.
On the other hand, to say “ISIS-members are brutal savages”, or “The Muslims who beat up teenage movie-goers last week are brutal savages” is not racist as one is defining a specific group as against an entire race.
Unsavoury…
This really is the only one of the four categories that is subjective and it is certainly hugely difficult to define exactly.
Jewish media worldwide is often criticised by devout users of allowing Loshen Hora in their coverage or user-posts. Yet it is difficult to draw a line which satisfies a “broad church” of readers and users who want real Jewish news coverage.
“Common decency” is an approach one has to use as an editor, and this does mean different things to different people.
A good guideline to use here, is to ask oneself when posting a comment: “How would I like this if the shoe was on the other foot?”
If you are going to say: “So-and-so, is a this or that”, first ask yourself if you would like “So-and-so” to say the same “this or that” about you?
So, for example, if Joe Shmo, hiding beneath a cloak of anonymity, posts a comment critical of another individual, it would not be allowed. But the same comment by a known individual may well be. If, for example, Wits VC Habib criticises SAUJS Chairman Natan Pollack, or vice versa, the comment would be considered fair game (as long as it doesn’t compromise another legal or ethical rule).
Factual
Jewish Report Online also applies harsher criteria for comments made anonymously than we do to those made by known individuals. Once again we refer users to our COMMENT GUIDELINES. These often relate to the veracity of things which may be stated in a user-post as “facts”.
Examples of this would be, say, if the Chief Rabbi or Rosh Beth Din comment on a religious aspect, SAJR Online could not be faulted for allowing the comment as a matter of “fact” on the basis that they should know.
If, however, a user-post of exactly the same nature is posted by someone simply signing themselves as “Rabbi”, “Orthodox Rabbi”, or even “Rabbi Joe Shmo” and does not provide a verifiable e-mail address, we could not publish their comment as a statement of fact.
Similarly, if SAJBD National Director Wendy Kahn posts a comment in which she takes someone to task for something they have said, we would not be remiss in publishing it.
If, however, it was a controversial issue and Joe Shmo posted the same comment, which SAJR staffers did not have knowledge was factual, we WOULD be remiss in publishing it.
Of course, the purpose of this platform is to provide a community forum for all opinions. With this in mind, we would encourage users to raise any concerns they may have with the rules we apply. Simply click here: online.editor@sajr.co.za and your comment will be considered with our editor-in-chief and a decision taken.
Non-negotiables…
Before you start sending heaps of e-mails, however, remember that there are certain criteria that are not open for discussion in terms of our mandate to service ALL of SA Jewry (and remembering that some 35 per cent of our users are overseas – mainly expat South Africans, USW organisations and Israeli government departments):
- SAJR Online serves all streams of Jewish South Africans;
- SAJR Online has an unashamedly pro-Israel outlook;
- SAJR Online supports all streams of Zionism, from the left to the right;
- SAJR Online is absolutely not a platform for Muslim-bashing; and
- SAJR Online will continue to nurture its fast-growing following among Christian Zionists and moderate Muslims – many of whom rely on this platform for honest and unbiased reporting.
Apart from those non-negotiables, users, please feel free to send in, or post below, any input you may like to have on the rules we apply to discussions.
Denis Solomons
May 18, 2015 at 11:24 am
‘I am sure that the legal fraternity will like the idea of keeping everything legal !
What is the definition of a lawyer ; someone who wanted to do medicine but couldn’t stand the sight of blood !
Shoftim ; the Judges !’
nat cheiman
May 18, 2015 at 2:03 pm
‘ANT, is Nkandla legal?’
ANT KATZ
May 19, 2015 at 4:43 am
‘Hi Nat.
I know you are being facetious but, to enlighten you, talking about Nkandla without making unfounded statements of fact (as against asking questions) is, of course, legal.
Talking about (or making informed accusations against) a person or select group of people is legal. So, for example, you could say \”Zuma must pay back Nkandla money as directed by the PP\” or \”The min of Police seems to be corruptly holding up the process by not ruling on what portion of the Nkandla funds Zuma must pay back.\”
What you can’t say, however, is that an entire population group, race, religion, culture, colour or creed is corrupt – because that is racism. And, depending what you say, it could also be hate-speech.
If you were to simply reverse every comment you post or letter you write to the editor, and ask yourself: \”How would I feel if this was said about all Jews?\” then we would not need to chop your letters and posts to shreds.
Remember, if we allow you to say anything illegal, we will be judged alongside you in court.
‘
nat
May 19, 2015 at 12:51 pm
‘I have got the message. Understand that sometimes I get (angry). ‘
Nick Pohl
May 24, 2015 at 12:50 pm
‘In my male Afrikaner community there is the saying that you don’t discuss three things around the braai, ever: politics, religion and each other’s wives. Hopefully the impression that I am getting from JR’s moderators doesn’t fall in the same parochial category.
What I find disturbing about your rationale is that you seem to be making use of the same pretext used by obscurantist authorities to justify their stifling of open discourse: generalization, which they use as an excuse to do just as they like, thank you very much.
Under Apartheid, for example, the \”Immorality\” Act and other similarly obfuscatingly termed Acts were used to justify banning racial integration and even its discussion. They were backed up by extraordinarily obscurantist dominees who initially had an almost unassailable moral position in society.
In this case – and this is only my personal opinion – I think that any Jew worthy of the appellation should find it insulting in the extreme that you would even think about juxtaposing the obfuscatory term \”Islamophobia\” with \”anti-Semitism\”, let alone citing it as a criterion for proscribing comments.
\”Islamophobia\” in the first place is a vague definition about which there isn’t general consensus, not by a long shot, and it is used in the context of a current, worldwide onslaught by literally several dozens of absolutely and undeniably devout Muslim terror groups fanatically bent on destroying Israel, the Jewish community collectively and the West in toto. Your own attempt at elucidating the term falls far short and serves to underline its ambiguity.
Rather than vociferously rejecting these barbarians en masse across all Muslim communities around the world, the very same \”moderate\” Muslims you claim to be nurturing amongst your following have fallen into the habit of, by and large, keeping quiet about Islamist terror and using this cussed term as a mantra against any criticism of their widely differing creeds – which, by the way, don’t have at their disposal a central moral authority to guide and unite them. Their so-called moral \”moderation\” is merely political which, in the West at least, is anyway imposed by open secular societies.
Using this fuzzily convenient term in the same breath as anti-Semitism with its history of the Holocaust and many centuries of unthinkably murderous pogroms – also by Muslims – against Jewish communities internationally, should be unthinkable to JR, as an online and thus worldwide read newspaper claiming to represent the South African Jewish community in general.
I’m sure JR doesn’t look forward to being seen as a refuge for like minded, mutually back-slapping political and religious cronies weakly smiling at each other over tea and crumpets, rather than as a forum encouraging robust, even alarmingly robust, discussion of highly topical issues. ‘
Ant Katz, online editor
May 24, 2015 at 1:27 pm
‘Hi Nick.
I think you are over-thinking this. Our policy is quite contrary to your understanding – and if we are the cause of poor communication in the above, we sincerely regret that.
In simple terms, it is considered racist (and possibly hate-speech depending on the context) to say \”The only good Jew is a dead Jew\” or \”The only good Muslim (Arab/Black etc.) as a dead one.\” Are you suggesting we should be allowing people to say that? Or that it is the application of a political decision? It really isn’t. If you are a regular user, you will know that there are no political guidelines applied in our moderation – only legal and decency issues. And they apply equally to all users of all persuasions. We certainly don’t discourage discourse and debate. On the contrary, we we nurture and encourage it. As long as it is neither illegal nor indecent. We also have a policy of publishing anything that is critical of ourselves as individuals and as an organisation.
We never stifle criticism. even if we do sometimes need to remove expletives or racism.’
Nick Pohl
May 24, 2015 at 6:21 pm
‘Thanks Ant, I’ve not been in any doubt about your legal and decency criteria and if my criticism of JR’s use of the term \”Islamophobia\” as a criterion for moderating comments is overthinking it, then I gladly do so. In fact, JR’s qualifications of it underscores my point and your use of it per se places an unnecessary damper on discussions about Islam. It is confusing indeed, for it creates the impression that JR’s understanding of it goes beyond legal and decency prescripts.
So I repeat: JR is sorely mistaken by using the term \”Islamophobia\” in conjunction with \”anti-Semitism\”. It is outrageous, for there isn’t any basis for comparison and the difference between the two can’t be more profound. It is noticeable that your comments spell check doesn’t even recognize the term.
My question remains: why at all give preference to Islam by using this hugely controversial term as a criterion when moderating comments on it? Why not just use \”racism\” and \”hate speech\”, etc., as with comments on other religious communities?
Against the backdrop of a worldwide Islamist pogrom and war of terror, Islamophobia as a general attitude towards any Muslim would be entirely justifiable at any time and everywhere, for the simple reason that entire so-called \”moderate\” Muslim \”religious bodies\” have, as I’ve alluded to already, as a rule been tiptoeing around the issue of Islamic terror and can therefore justifiably be suspected and accused of tacitly condoning it.
Whereas these sorts of accusations can’t be leveled against Judaism and the Jewish community overall, and anti-Semitism can’t be justified under any circumstance. That is the difference, and it should be respected. ‘
Ant Katz, online editor
May 25, 2015 at 11:27 am
‘Okay, Nick, I get what you are saying. I hear that you believe having a hatred of, or phobia about, Jews is not the same as having the same feelings towards other racial, ethnic, religious, cultural, nationalist, or geographic peoples. Please provide us with a suggestion which you would feel more comfortable with to describe the equivalent of \”anti-Semitism\” as it would apply to Islam and I will gladly submit it to our editorial board for consideration.
However, from the point of legality, you obviously do understand that the law in SA, Israel and America (being our three primary markets), in no way differentiates between Jews and non-Jews in defining what is hate-speech or racism.
I am guessing that you may be riled up about is that you feel we should apply different standards of moderation n terms of common decency towards Jews and Muslims, or to all gentiles. If this were the case, we would be guilty of racism for making such a distinction.
Please understand that we do NOT wish to stifle debate in any way on this platform or in our print edition. We encourage and nurture it. There is no argument for or against Judaism and Israel – or Islam and Christians – that we do not allow (with the single notable exception of allowing Jews for Jesus to solicit our users).
We are simply saying that users can make their positions known and debate freely without making illegal statements, being indecent or annoying other users by trolling on this website.
Users who wish to engage us privately and directly are welcome to email us directly at: online.editor@sajr.co.za
‘
Nick Pohl
May 25, 2015 at 6:46 pm
‘Hi Ant, just to confirm that naturally I wouldn’t dream of demanding that you apply different legal and decency standards to different religious and other communities when moderating comments.
However, when via your editorial policy JR forms and disseminates a generalized view of a community and its status internationally, you must be careful not to create wrong perceptions. The particular manner in which you use the term \”Islamophobia\”, as well as the very fact that you make use of it, is a case in point.
I’ve already made my standpoint clear about JR blithely using it in tandem with the term \”anti-Semitism\”. In response to your request for an alternative term: I’m afraid you’ll have to allow my overthinking it a bit more for JR’s benefit, for I’ve frankly been puzzled right from the start that you apparently aren’t fully aware of its implications.
It first of all is a cunning PC construct with endless political and moral ramifications. It was dreamt up to create the impression that the adherents of Islam are subjected to the same levels of discrimination as those historically suffered by Jews by and large; that everyone who dare to express their concerns about Islam are somehow on a politico-moral par with anti-Semites – and by extension, are sympathizers of the perpetrators of the Holocaust – and that they should feel ashamed of doing so; and that Zionists per definition are Islamophobes – whatever that means.
It is a favorite PC expletive of in particular the anti-Zionist lobby of Europe’s lefties who routinely employ it to dys and stigmatize anyone not agreeing with their discriminatory stance. It comes as natural as breathing to them to use it interchangeably with \”Zionism\”, almost as a synonym. And it is a handy cover-up for their crypto anti-Semitism, a \”polite hatred\” which as you of course would know, is rampant in these circles.
The operative adjectives here are \”political\” and \”PC\”, and I think this is where JR’s use of it is mistaken, for in doing so you are directly contradicting your stated policy of not using political guidelines, regardless of its legality in court, for its use in conjunction with \”anti-Semitism\” could be experienced as a discouragement by prospective commenters.
In fact, the use of it in certain ways could conceivably be construed as hate speech in itself, given its connotations of racism and especially anti-Semitism.
It moreover creates the impression of watered-down ethical standards because people would instinctively know that your using it is way off the mark – the term itself already equates their legitimate concerns about Islam with anti-Semitism in practice.
The question therefore presents itself as it were: why use it at all? And why must there be an Islamic equivalent for \”anti-Semitism\”? Why then not also for Christianity, Hinduism et al? My advice: dispense with it altogether. Actually, no: avoid it like the plague.
In this regard I would suggest that Zionism and Judaism occupy a unique position in that the Holocaust uniquely represents the most terrible beacon of immoral conduct in mankind’s history, and that to attempt finding an equivalent for \”anti-Semitism\” would therefore be an exercise in futility.
So, I wouldn’t require differentiated moderation standards from JR, but I most definitely would expect of you to be careful when assessing and comparing the ethical statuses of communities, and with the terms you employ when describing these in your comments guidelines.
Thanks so much for your time and a most stimulating conversation. ‘