Editor’s Note: Attorney Neil Glazer worked with the EDNY to provide evidence and to bring witnesses forward that helped ensure that the odious criminal Keith Alan Raniere got exactly what he deserved – a conviction and a likely lifetime sentence.

If Glazer had not protected his clients as zealously as he did, in my opinion, it is not certain that the witnesses – Daniela, Jaye and Nicole – would have even testified. His ardent defense of his clients is to be praised not censured.

However, is he going too far in his plan to monitor comments on Frank Report for defamation?

That is a fair topic for debate.

Glazer, who represents many Nxivm victims, offered his legal view in a post on Frank Report entitled Nxivm Victims’ Attorney Neil Glazer Speaks Out on Defamatory Commenters.

In it, he made several points about what he thinks are appropriate versus defamatory comments about Nxivm victims and others involved in Nxivm. There have been quite a few comments in response to his article – both pro and con.

Here is another comment, which can be viewed as in opposition to Glazer’s post, and which relies heavily on Justice Hugo Black’s view of the First Amendment. It is precisely for that reason – the marvelous quotes of Black’s that I chose to make this a separate post. This should not be construed as my taking sides in this issue or in any way to diminish the important work Glazer has done in the takedown of Nxivm. In my opinion, Glazer is one of the “but-for” people in the case. But for him – and several others – Raniere would not have come to justice.

By Theodosia’s Eye

I have no problem with the actions or behavior of attorney Neil Glazer’s clients, Daniela, Nicole or Jaye. Those three women are victims of NXIVM and its top leaders pure and simple. I wish them much luck in their cases against the NXIVM leadership.

Take the NXIVM leadership to the cleaners!

But NXIVM itself is an organization unique in its hatred of free speech.

NXIVM is an organization unique in its ability and willingness to use the legal system to harass and intimidate people.

Indeed, NXIVM has used the court system to literally bankrupt its opponents.

Just ask Susan Dones, Rick Ross or Joe O’Hara.

Is Mr. Glazer trying to chill free speech?

The Freedom of Speech is the most Fundamental Right in the Bill of Rights.

Freedom of Speech is the First Right in the Bill of Rights.

I offer Mr. Glazer the words of Justice Hugo Black of the US Supreme Court.

“The First Amendment provides the only kind of security system that can preserve a free government – one that leaves the way wide open for people to favor, discuss, advocate, or incite causes and doctrines however obnoxious and antagonistic such views may be to the rest of us.”

Concurring opinion, Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 (1957).

*****

“The First Amendment’s language leaves no room for inference that abridgments of speech and press can be made just because they are slight. That Amendment provides, in simple words, that ‘Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.’ I read ‘no law . . . abridging’ to mean no law abridging.”

Concurring opinion, Smith v. California, 361 U.S. 147 (1959).

*****

“It is my belief that there are ‘absolutes’ in our Bill of Rights, and that they were put there on purpose by men who knew what the words meant and meant their prohibitions to be ‘absolutes.’”

James Madison Lecture at the New York University School of Law (February 17, 1960).

*****

“In the First Amendment, the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The Government’s power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government.”

Concurring in New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971).

*****

“An unconditional right to say what one pleases about public affairs is what I consider to be the minimum guarantee of the First Amendment.”

Concurring in New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971).

*****

Is anything more of a Public Affair than a Criminal Trial based on violations of US and State criminal statutes? In all matters of free speech, I stand with Justice Hugo Black.

Share this: Twitter

Facebook

Email

Print

LinkedIn

More

Reddit



Like this: Like Loading...



