Louis Farrakhan, the 90-year-old leader of the Nation of Islam, has filed a $4.8 billion lawsuit against the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) in Manhattan Federal Court. He alleges that the ADL has falsely labeled him an antisemite, infringing upon his First Amendment rights.
Farrakhan’s lawsuit emphasizes that the use of terms like “anti-Semite” and “anti-Semitic” by the ADL has been a means to tarnish his reputation and hinder his constitutional rights. In his court filings, Farrakhan insists he has “never harmed a hair on the head of any Jewish person” and maintains he holds a deep respect for numerous individuals within the Jewish community. He cited his admiration for Jascha Heifetz, a renowned Jewish violinist, and recalled his Jewish violin teachers as “proof” that he’s not an antisemite.
Terming his long-standing animosity toward the ADL a “battle of Biblical proportions,” Farrakhan attached 787 pages of documents to support his claims.
Over the years, Farrakhan has made numerous blatantly antisemitic statements, such as referring to Jews as “termites,” condemning Judaism as a “gutter religion,” and attributing certain Hollywood behaviors to Jewish influence.
Farrakhan pinpointed the origin of his dispute with the ADL back to 1984 when he defended then-presidential candidate Jesse Jackson over accusations of using a derogatory term for Jews. Farrakhan believes that his support for Jackson led the ADL to label him as an “anti-Semite.”
“It is because of Minister Farrakhan’s unwavering defense of himself and Reverend Jackson that the ADL began plastering him with the false and injurious label of ‘anti- Semite,’” Farrakhan claims in his lawsuit.
In the lawsuit, Farrakhan further criticizes the ADL as “an unAmerican organization” that has allegedly intruded into U.S. governance to further its interests at the expense of American citizens’ constitutional rights.
The ADL, traditionally reserved on litigation matters, broke its silence on the issue. Its Director, Jonathan Greenblatt, told The Post, “Louis Farrakhan is an antisemite. One need look no further than his own words and statements to come away with the same conclusion,” dismissing the lawsuit as meritless.
(YWN World Headquarters – NYC)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
11 Responses
Democrat leader of the house, Hakeem Jeffries, has still not called out Rashida Tlaib or Ilhan Omer for their inflammatory rhetoric against the Jewish people. Hakeem’s silence is an indication that he agrees with the hatred they spew forth. Hakeem Jeffries is just as anti semitic, or perhaps even worse, than Cori Bush’s friends.
Unfortunately for him, his quotes are recorded all over the internet, among them “And Farrakhan, by God’s grace, has pulled the cover off of that Satanic Jew and I’m here to say your time is up, your world is through” and “A Jewish man said to me we say” never again will we be in an oven” bit the day cometh that shall burn as an oven”. I don’t think he will win…….
I don’t know why I can’t sue everyone
Homie don’t play dat
Stature of limitation? He is considered an antisemite for 40 years already and now he protests?!
What a maroon. Assuming he has lawyers who filed this lawsuit on his behalf, they should be sanctioned for filing a frivolous suit. And he should fire them and sue them for malpractice, for taking his money to file it. That is because even if he were not an antisemite calling him one would not be defamation. You could call Malcolm Hoenlein an antisemite, and he still couldn’t sue you for it. Likewise you cannot be sued for calling someone a racist.
That is because it whether someone is an antisemite or a racist is inherently a matter of opinion, and opinions are by definition not actionable no matter how obviously wrong they are. You can only be sued for false statements of fact; if you say that someone did something that makes them sound antisemitic, and they can prove they didn’t do that thing, then they can sue you. (If they’re a public figure they must also prove that you knew they didn’t do it, or at least that you had no reason to believe they did it.) But just for saying they’re a racist, that’s an opinion and everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
Let’s hope he carries through and takes it to court.
Let it be documented by court that he is indeed an antisemite, just like Deborah Lipstadt did for David Irving.
One last publicity scheme before he finally goes to Hell.
They should both somehow lose. They can both go in der erd.
Milhouse,
Although you are correct that only statements of fact can be defamatory. Statements of opinion are not. The line between fact and opinion is often blurry and can depend on the circumstances.
For example, saying that Kevin stole money from the collection basket on two occasions is a statement of fact. Saying that Kevin is a “thief” is an opinion, though courts and juries may interpret it differently depending on how they feel a reasonable person might take it.
As such, the line between fact and opinion is not as clear cut as you state it, and a court may call an “opinion” stated about someone, a fact.
I am certainly not an attorney nor familiar enough with the particulars of the claim, to give a professional opinion.
Are you?
Rebbetzin, I am not an attorney but I am very familiar with first amendment law. The line is clear cut. Calling someone a racist or an antisemite is not actionable.
Calling someone a thief could be actionable, not because of the name itself, which is merely an opinion, but because it is uncommon to call someone a thief without having specific incidents in mind, so by calling him a thief without saying why you are implying that you have unstated evidence that he stole something. He can sue for that unstated factual allegation, not for the name itself. If, however, you say why you think he’s a thief, and that reason does not involve a false factual allegation, then you are in the clear. For instance, “I know he’s a thief because he looks like one”, or “because he’s a Jew and all Jews are thieves”, or “because I had a dream that he stole someone’s wallet”, or “because he stole my girlfriend from me”. In all those instances it’s not actionable, because there is no factual allegation stated or implied.