Today a Washington state judge ruled against a Stand With Us backed case that charged the Olympia Food Co-op with wrongful doing in their decision to de-shelve Israeli products as part of the global movement for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS). The judge fined the plaintiffs $160,000 for their attempt to stifle the co-op’s free speech. From the Center for Constitutional Rights:
July 12, 2012, Olympia, WA and New York, NY – Today, in a lawsuit brought against current and former members of the Olympia Food Co-op board of directors for their decision to boycott Israeli goods, a Washington State court ruled that plaintiffs are liable for the costs and fees of the suit and $160,000 in statutory damages. The court had previously determined the lawsuit was a SLAPP, Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation, and upheld the constitutionality of the anti-SLAPP law against plaintiffs’ challenge.
Said Maria LaHood, a senior staff attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights, ‘This ruling sends a strong message to those seeking to halt peaceful boycotts and other forms of free speech through burdensome and expensive litigation. We applaud the court for stopping this attempt to chill free speech in support of Palestinian human rights.’
The plaintiffs had purported to bring the SLAPP on behalf of the co-op itself, which has approximately 22,000 members. They argued that the co-op should have borne the costs, rather than the plaintiffs individually. The judge rejected this argument and awarded $10,000 for each defendant, plus attorneys’ fees.The lawsuit was filed last year by five co-op members. Plaintiffs sought the rescission of the boycott policy and monetary damages against the defendants, claiming they acted beyond the scope of their authority and breached their fiduciary duties. In his first decision, issued February 27, 2012, the judge ruled the lawsuit was an unlawful interference with free speech and related action on issues of public concern. The boycott is part of a global Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel for violations of international law and the denial of Palestinian human rights.
Said Bruce Johnson of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, who argued the motion, ‘This result is exactly what the anti-SLAPP statute was intended to produce. Early dismissal of this suit will avoid complicated, burdensome, and expensive litigation over the Co-op’s boycott decision. Reimbursement to SLAPP victims directly protects fundamental rights of advocacy.’
SLAPPs are lawsuits that target the constitutional rights of free speech, petition, and related action on issues of public concern. Although cases that qualify as SLAPPs are without legal merit, they can nonetheless effectively achieve their primary purpose: to chill public debate on targeted controversial issues. Defending against a SLAPP requires substantial money, time, and legal resources, and can divert attention away from the public issue and intimidate and silence outspoken critics. Washington State’s anti-SLAPP statute was enacted in 2010 to deter such lawsuits.
Said Jayne Kaszynski, spokesperson for the Olympia Food Co-op, ‘We are pleased that the judge’s ruling protects the Co-op from the financial burden of defending its Board and staff from this frivolous lawsuit. We look forward to putting this behind us and focusing all of our energy into providing healthy, local food to our community.
h/t Noah Sochet.
At last! Common Sense wins over Zionist manipulation.
Bravo!
A very welcome victory for boycott!
Also see today’s CounterPunch, “Boycotting Apartheid Israel”, at link to counterpunch.org
Boycott – Boycott – Boycott.
I love how blithely people here cite to fringe web sites to make their points.
Boycotting apartheid South Africa was once considered a fringe cause.
Like abolitionism once upon a time.
CounterPunch constantly publishes articles
by highly-credentialed experts who dissent from the cheap status quo boilerplate drivel gushing from the US mainstream media on issues all Americans should be concerned about.
I love how blithely people here cite to fringe web sites to make their points.
Of course you love it! You probably find it very refreshing reading, judging by the warmed-over Pam Gellar/Caroline Glick/JihadWatch/Elder of Ziyon/Bad Rachel cruft that you repost here all the time.
This pretty well confirms that the world is full of idiot lawyers. Guess we knew that.
Stand With Us should have hired this guy. He predicted this exact $160K outcome back in December.
Begin quote…………………………..
This raises another interesting legal question. When Avi Lipman sued the OFC folks, he named 16 individual defendants. Each one of those defendants is a party. Lipman could have made his point by suing just one Board member, but he preferred a scorched-earth approach. Perhaps what Avi didn’t anticipate was that the powerful Center for Constitutional Rights would jump in and help the OFC defendants. And let me tell you, they really jumped in. The first thing they did was to file a SLAPP-motion to shut down this law suit under Washington’s anti-SLAPP law. You can find this motion here.
It appears to me that if the OFC defendants prevail and the court determines that the DDT-5 suit is indeed a SLAPP suit pursuant to the Washington anti-SLAPP law, the DDT-5 plaintiffs will be required to pay each of the 16 OFC defendants $10,000. And the judge doesn’t have any discretion, for the law says the court “shall” award the $10,000 “to a moving party who prevails” in the SLAPP motion, and thanks to Avi’s shotgun approach we have 16 moving parties. Instead of suing just one OFC Board member and limiting any potential SLAPP penalty to $10,000, what Avi has done in suing 16 Board members is to expose the DDT-5 to an accumulative SLAPP penalty of $160,000. It would also appear that if SWU or Israel or any other third party is funding the DDT-5 lawsuit and if that lawsuit is found to be a SLAPP suit, then SWU or Israel or the other non-party who is backing the DDT-5 is violating the Washington anti-barratry law, which imposes it’s own monetary penalties. I’m sure Avi is a brilliant lawyer, but I might have done this differently.
End quote……………………………
link to something-stinks.com
Now an even more interesting question arises. SWU will appeal this but they will offer to settle for something like $50K so the OFC folks don’t have to fight the appeal. If the OFC refuses the offer, does the SLAPP law allow them to get their lawyers’ fees for fighting the appeal? I would certainly hope so, or else the anti-SLAPP law is a wash.
The news release for the Center for Constitutional Rights only says the award included attorney fees. Doesn’t say how much. They were asking for $281K, which was hotly contested by the SWU suits.
This is a huge victory for BDS. Absolutely huge. And while appeal is certain, the court’s decision is air-tight.
Good to see the ‘chilling effect’ flow the other way for once.
May all Zionists have a long, cold winter. No global warming for them!
excellent news
I think it’s fair to say Zionists have completely lost the plot.
This is fantastic news.
Will encourage people not to lay down and roll over when they get attacked by the Israel fanatics.
I am sharing this news over cyberspace with the subject heading “Another victory for BDS”.
Sounds reasonable to me. People like the Olympia Co-op have the right to be anti-Semitic if they want to and suing them for it isn’t right.
@Fredblogs, you have the right to disagree with the decision to support Palestinian human rights, you do not have the right to libel others. But your comment was probably allowed just because it makes your side look really, really, foolish and totally desperate. I mean, we are really much further ahead in this campaign for human rights for the Palestinian people because of groups like Stand With Us that act so stupidly, and individuals like yourself that say the darndest things. Keep it up, every bit helps the cause of ending Israeli apartheid.
“Sounds reasonable to me.”
Me, too.
“People like the Olympia Co-op have the right to be anti-Semitic if they want to. . .” Check. I’m not sure antisemitism is a “right,” but I’m not one to split antisemitic semantic hairs with someone who’s mind is so obviously in the right place.
“. . .suing them for it isn’t right.”
Bingo! We’ve got a winner!
Your Abe Foxman Defamation by Innuendo Award will be arriving by a subpoena server any day.
“Sounds reasonable to me. People like the Olympia Co-op have the right to be anti-Semitic if they want to and suing them for it isn’t right.”
And you have the right to be a pederast if you want to, and suing you for it wouldn’t be right either.
Did I mention that I define anyone who likes kids as a ‘pederast’? There’s nothing offensive in my remark.
Fredfrog
“anti-semitic” bs.
Do they have a notice on their door saying they refuse to serve Jews?
Assuming not, do they refuse to stock local or other kosher goods?
If there is a substantial potential Jewish customer base, either of those would be anti-semitic, but not refusing to stock settlement, or even Israeli produce.
Correct, Fredblogs, and Zionists have the right to be banished to the racist fringes of American society like David Duke and his followers.
“Sounds reasonable to me. People like the Olympia Co-op have the right to be anti-Semitic if they want to and suing them for it isn’t right.”
There is so much sour grapes in Fredblog’s comment that if you poured a package of yeast on it, and waited a while, I think you’d get a gallon or more of whine.
There is no evidence that the people of the Co-op are anti-Semitic (actually, the term is a misnomer, as all people of the Levant region are Semites, not just the few Jewish Semites who live among the European non-Semitic immigrant Jews who populate the region today). Their actions are directed against Zionism, which is a completely separate entity of Judaism.
These good Jewish people know this, and they also know that according to their religious Books, Israel is an abomination that should not exist:
link to jewsagainstzionism.com
Awesome
Zionists are becoming more and more like Scientologists these days. A scary, defensive, litigious cult with no legs to stand on other than denial and viciousness.
What wars have the Scientologists dragged America into lately?
…Scientologists with nuclear weapons and a hammerlock on the US Congress.
This hopefull….the majority of the House opposed Ms Israel- first Slaughter’s proposed legistation.
WASHINGTON – Just hours after Congresswoman Louise Slaughter (NY-28) introduced legislation to prohibit the export of strategic and critical American minerals to Iran, the US State Department announced additional sanctions on Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile proliferation networks. Slaughter had introduced her legislation to ensure that Iran would be stopped from accessing strategically valuable American minerals that are extracted from American land.
“In an age when Iran is threatening the security of our ally Israel, and the stability of the Middle East, this Congress must ensure that not a single American resource goes to supporting the dangerous Iranian regime. My amendment would leave no doubt that the United States stands by our allies and that not an ounce of American minerals ends up in Iranian hands.”
Slaughter’s legislation stipulates that no company that is owned by Iran or China will be allowed to mine American minerals, and under no circumstances will American minerals be exported to either of these nations. (see full release here link to louise.house.gov and text of her remarks from the House Floor below link to louise.house.gov).
In announcing the additional sanctions against Iran, State Department officials indicate that deliberate efforts were made by Iran to use several energy companies as front companies to evade existing U.S. sanctions. To learn more about the new sanctions, go to: link to state.gov.