 |
| Raphael Golb in the middle. Setting a Disturbing Precedent? Annie Ling, NYT, insert; Rina Castelnuovo, background |
General Introduction to
the DEAD SEA SCROLLS TRIAL
as Disturbing PRECEDENT
This case seems to have widespread implications, although it appears on the surface merely an obscure academic rivalry between two professors over Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls. With the quirk that a son protested by pulling a prank, and now is being over-harshly censured.
But perhaps this is actually a serious precedent-setting case:
Is ONLINE mockery a Civil case (lawsuit)-- or could it ever be a Felony punishable by sentence to a State penitentiary?
And in fact, last month The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (as well as the Assoc of New York State) filed a brief finding the judge's interpretation and instructions to Golb's jury "unconstitutionally" vague and inappropriate, and concluded that Golb's case should never have been in the Criminal courts in the first place. Read the brief.**
Raphael Golb was frustrated that for years people ignored his father's claim that academic rival Schiffman had plagiarized him (Golb senior). So Golb (son) played a prank, emailing a fake "confession" from "Schiffman," catching the readers' attention and directing them to a link which was actually Golb's own website.
His website gave a detailed demonstration of how he believed Schiffman plagiarized his father. You have to admit you can see why Golb thought emailing this "confession" would be humorous.
But perhaps this is actually a serious precedent-setting case:
Is ONLINE mockery a Civil case (lawsuit)-- or could it ever be a Felony punishable by sentence to a State penitentiary?
And in fact, last month The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (as well as the Assoc of New York State) filed a brief finding the judge's interpretation and instructions to Golb's jury "unconstitutionally" vague and inappropriate, and concluded that Golb's case should never have been in the Criminal courts in the first place. Read the brief.**
Raphael Golb was frustrated that for years people ignored his father's claim that academic rival Schiffman had plagiarized him (Golb senior). So Golb (son) played a prank, emailing a fake "confession" from "Schiffman," catching the readers' attention and directing them to a link which was actually Golb's own website.
His website gave a detailed demonstration of how he believed Schiffman plagiarized his father. You have to admit you can see why Golb thought emailing this "confession" would be humorous.
Obviously Golb's emails were for his accusations of plagiarism, not to make people think he was the real Schiffman actually confessing. Golb made sure to put his own "fingerprints" all over those emails.
It hinges on something you studied in high school literature: what is the definition of "parody." You want to criticize someone, so you "speak in" their name & voice- but reveal what you actually think of them. People believe at first that you're the actual person- then the full flavor of your satire takes them by surprise.
Some of our greatest thinkers have pulled this trick. A powerful tool of criticism that not only gets people's attention, it's also humorous and- most importantly- a way to criticize the powerful that's anonymous and safe.
When Raphael "confessed" for Schiffman, was that "parody"- or a full-on internet crime of impersonation?
It hinges on something you studied in high school literature: what is the definition of "parody." You want to criticize someone, so you "speak in" their name & voice- but reveal what you actually think of them. People believe at first that you're the actual person- then the full flavor of your satire takes them by surprise.
Some of our greatest thinkers have pulled this trick. A powerful tool of criticism that not only gets people's attention, it's also humorous and- most importantly- a way to criticize the powerful that's anonymous and safe.
Imprisoned for mocking someone online? Think about it... ONLINE is where the weak have an equal shot at the powerful, can criticize and mock them. People all over the world have discovered this wonderful power. First Amendment rights promise that if you criticize someone, the government protects you from their revenge.
The worst they can throw at you is a Civil lawsuit, not the Federal penitentiary, not revenge through law.
"Online" is the territory the US Feds are only now attempting to chart. We should have been more vigilant as to how they're planning to chart it. Everyone's so busy protesting their youtube videos being taken down- they should have been monitoring this case instead.
Hopefully there will never be a case in which a Felony does indeed become an option. But I say- this case may be just such a one. And not only that- think of all the speech-squelch countries looking at the USA and other free-speech countries, seeing how we do things.
In fact even Schiffman's Dean testified that NYU understood from the first day that it was just Raphael, and chose to ignore the whole thing. So where's the fire? Why didn't Schiffman simply SUE Golb for online Libel? Why did Schiffman instead call his aquaintance on the FBI (at least as I heard it), to press a Criminal case against the son of his academic rival, instead of a Civil one?
Imagine if this becomes a precedent for online criticism- somebody criticizes you , you can get the Feds to step in and execute vengeance for them. Imagine this scenario repeated other places, with other people. When it isn't about the Dead Sea Scrolls but about a corporation, a politician, an institution, corruption, etc. All because of some obscure Dead Sea Scrolls professor's vendetta on the son of a rival. People in power or with connections could wield permission from the Feds to imprison anyone who mocks them. Now THAT'S power, and the consequences could be a lot scarier than a prankster son in the pen.
Read the nearly 100 examples of other internet mockery through hoaxes and parodies, not one of which resulted in a criminal case. All people were either sued, excused, ignored- or in many cases actually even rewarded, for being so clever! You will find it quite entertaining:
Examples of Online parody, from the appendix of Golb's first Appeal brief, March 2011:
How do you go about turning a recognized prank ("mockery")- online- into a Felony? They decided to call this "Impersonation" even though it was intended to fool no one (and didn't), and no money, property, favors etc. was at stake. It was merely an accusation of plagiarism. So… easy enough! the judge simply re-defined it as anything from which the defendant receives a "BENEFIT" or the prosecution a "HARM."
This complex case had much more detail, but I'm focused only on the felony points. I am not involved in this case, have no legal training, and am no expert in any of these matters; what I know is from personal observation. I'm just a citizen giving my opinion.
**Amicus brief detailing their objections:
**Amicus brief detailing their objections:
case in NYT:
