Elizabeth is both the largest city and the county seat of Union County, New Jersey, United States. As of the 2010 United States Census, the city had a total population of 124,969, retaining its ranking as New Jersey’s fourth largest city (by population). The population increased by 4,401 (3.7%) from the 120,568 counted in the 2000 Census, which had in turn increased by 10,566 (+9.6%) from the 110,002 counted in the 1990 Census.
In 2008, Elizabeth was named one of “America’s 50 Greenest Cities” by Popular Science magazine, the only city in New Jersey selected.
Elizabeth, originally called “Elizabethtown” and part of the Elizabethtown Tract, was founded in 1664 by English settlers. The town was not named for Queen Elizabeth I as many people may assume, but rather for Elizabeth, wife of Sir George Carteret, one of the two original Proprietors of the colony of New Jersey. She was the daughter of Philippe de Carteret II, 3rd Seigneur de Sark and Anne Dowse. The town served as the first capital of New Jersey. During the American Revolutionary War, Elizabethtown was continually attacked by British forces based on Manhattan and Staten Island, culminating in the Battle of Springfield which decisively defeated British attempts to gain New Jersey. After independence, George Washington embarked from Elizabethtown by boat to Manhattan for his 1789 inauguration. There are numerous memorials and monuments of the American Revolution in Elizabeth.
On March 13, 1855, the City of Elizabeth was created by an Act of the New Jersey Legislature, combining and replacing both Elizabeth Borough (which dated back to 1740) and Elizabeth Township (which had been formed in 1693), subject to the results of a referendum held on March 27, 1855. On March 19, 1857, the city became part of the newly created Union County. Portions of the city were taken to form Linden Township on March 4, 1861.
The first major industry, the Singer Sewing Machine Company came to Elizabeth and employed as many as 2,000 people. In 1895, it saw one of the first car companies, when Electric Carriage and Wagon Company was founded to manufacture the Electrobat, joined soon by another electric car builder, Andrew L. Riker. The Electric Boat Company got its start building submarines for the United States Navy in Elizabeth, New Jersey beginning with the launch of USS Holland (SS-1) in 1897. These pioneering naval craft [known as A-Class] were developed at Lewis Nixon’s Crescent Shipyard in Elizabeth between the years 18961903. Elizabeth grew in parallel to its sister city of Newark for many years, but has been more successful in retaining a middle class presence and was spared riots in the 1960s.
According to the United States Census Bureau, the city had a total area of 13.464 square miles (34.873km2), including 12.319 square miles (31.907km2) of land and 1.145 square miles (2.966km2) of water (8.51%).
Elizabeth is bordered to the southwest by Linden, to the west by Roselle and Roselle Park, to the northwest by Union and Hillside, to the north by Newark (in Essex County). To the east the city is across the Newark Bay from Bayonne in Hudson County and the Arthur Kill from Staten Island, New York.
Unincorporated communities, localities and place names located partially or completely within the township include Elizabethport and Great Island.
The borders of Elizabeth, Bayonne, and Staten Island meet at one point on Shooters Island, of which 7.5 acres (3.0ha) of the island is owned by Elizabeth, though the island is managed by the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation.
The city of Elizabeth has several distinct districts and neighborhoods.
Midtown also occasionally known as Uptown, is the main commercial district and a historic section as well. It includes the First Presbyterian Church and St. John’s Episcopal Church, and its St. John’s Episcopal Churchyard. The First Presbyterian Church was a battleground for the American Revolution. Located here are also the 1931 Art Deco Hersh Tower, the Thomas Jefferson Arts Academy, and the Ritz Theatre which has been operating since 1926. Midtown/Uptown includes the area once known as “Brittanville” which contained many English type gardens.
Bayway is located in the southern part of the City and borders the City of Linden. From US 1&9 and Allen Street, between the Elizabeth River and the Arthur Kill, it has maintained a strong Polish community for years. Developed at the turn of the 20th century, many of the area residents once worked at the refinery which straddles both Elizabeth and Linden. There are unique ethnic restaurants, bars, and stores along Bayway Avenue, and a variety of houses of worship. Housing styles are older and well maintained. There are many affordable two to four-family housing units, and multiple apartment complexes. The western terminus of the Goethals Bridge, which spans the Arthur Kill to Staten Island can be found here. A small section of the neighborhood was isolated with both the completion of the Goethals Bridge in 1928 and the construction of the New Jersey Turnpike in the 1950s. This section known as “Relocated Bayway” will soon be a memory and piece of history as many of the residents have been relocated themselves to make way for the expansion of the Goethals Bridge.
Downtown / E-Port (a.k.a. The Port and Elizabethport) is the oldest neighborhood in Elizabeth and perhaps the most diverse place in the City. It is a collection of old world Elizabeth, new America, and a mix of colonial-style houses and apartment buildings that stretch east of 7th Street to its shores. The name derived from its dependency of businesses catering to sea going ventures. It was a thriving center of business between approximately the 1660s through the middle of the 20th Century. This area has had a great deal of improvement in the last fifteen years. Many homes have been refurbished or replaced with new, more ornate constructions. Housing projects that stood for years along First Street were demolished and replaced with attractive apartment complexes for those with low to moderate incomes. New townhomes on the waterfront have been developed, and new two-family homes are currently under construction. The area formally had three subdividing neighborhoods called Buckeye, New Mexico and Diamondville. It is the former home of the Singer Manufacturing Company, makers of Singer sewing machines.
The Elizabeth Marina, which in the past was filled with trash and debris along its walkway, was also beautified and many celebrations are held year round, from a Hispanic festival in the late spring to the lighting of a Christmas tree in the winter. Living conditions in this area continue to improve year after year. Historically, there was a Slavic community here, centered by a church (Sts. Peter and Paul Byzantine) and a Lithuanian (Sts. Peter and Paul, R.C.) and Polish (St. Adalbert) Roman Catholic Church still stands in the neighborhood. St. Patrick Church, originally Irish, dominates the ‘Port and was built in 1888.
Elmora is a middle/working-class neighborhood in the western part of Elizabeth. The main thoroughfare, Elmora Avenue, boasts some of the best restaurants, shops and boutiques. A few of the Citys most luxurious high-rise building complexes- affording views of the New York skyline – dot the edge of this neighborhood and are convenient to the Midtown NJ Transit Train Station. The neighborhood area forms a “V” from its approximate borders of the Central RR tracks to Rahway Av.
The northwestern part of Elmora is known as Elmora Hills. It is a strongly middle- to upper-middle-class neighborhood. Originally called Shearerville, the name Elmora came from the developers of the area, the El Mora Land Company. This area was annexed from Union, returning to Elizabeth in the early part of the 20th Century. This was done to increase the city’s tax base as major improvements to infrastructure were necessary at the time.
Frog Hollow is a small community of homes east of Atlantic Street, west of the Arthur Kill, and south of Elizabeth Avenue. Its name is derived from the excellent frog catching in its marshes as well as the excellent oyster and fishing of the past. The area expanded east and includes the area formally known as Helltown. Helltown included many of the docs, shipyards as well as several drydocks. The area developer was Edward N Kellogg who also laid out the neighborhood in Keighry Head. Frog Hollow contains older style, affordable homes, rentals and some quality restaurants in a working-class community. The statue honoring former Mayor Mack on Elizabeth Avenue is a landmark in the community. Frog Hollow is also convenient to the Veterans Memorial Waterfront Park.
The name is attributed to James Keighry of the Isle of Kerry, Ireland. He was a notable resident who owned a business facing the square formed at the junction of Jackson, Madison, Chestnut and Magnolia Avenues. The approximate borders of this neighborhood extended north from East Grand Street to Flora Street and from Walnut to Division Street. Developed by Edward N. Kellogg, many of the streets were named after family and friends. Keighry Head is located close to Midtown, containing affordable one and two-family homes, and apartment houses, convenient to the Midtown shopping district, and transportation.
The North End also known as “North Elizabeth” is mainly a diverse working-class neighborhood. The borders are approximately the Arch north to the city line between North Broad Street and US 1&9. Developed mostly in the 1920s for workers in the Dusenburg automobile plant (later Durant Auto, Burry Biscuits and Interbake Foods). Initially not having an ethnic composition, the area was heavily settled by the Irish and then Portuguese. The North End has easy access to New York and Newark via its own NJ Transit train station, Routes 1&9 and the NJ Turnpike. The neighborhood also has Crane Square, the Historic Nugents Tavern, and Kellogg Park and its proximity to Newark Airport. There is currently a plan in place to develop the former Interbake Foods facility into shopping and residential town houses and condominiums. This community contains many larger one and two-family homes that have been rebuilt over the past decade. North Elizabeth also features many well-kept apartment houses and condominium units on and around North Avenue that are home to professionals who work in New York or the area. The only Benedictine women’s community in New Jersey is located at Saint Walburga Monastery on North Broad Street.
Peterstown (also known as “The Burg”) is a middle/working-class neighborhood in the southeastern part of the city. Its borders run west of Atlantic St. to South Spring Street from 1st Avenue to the Elizabeth River. The name is derived from John Peters who owned most of the land with George Peters. They divided the land and developed in during the end of the 19th Century. The area of Peterstown was once predominantly occupied its earliest settlers who were German and during the 1920s was gentrified by newly immigrated Italians. Peterstown has clean, quiet streets and has many affordable housing opportunities with a village feel. The area contains the historic Union Square, home to produce stands, meat markets, fresh fish and poultry stores. Peterstown is also home to the DeCavalcante crime family, one of the most infamous Mafia families in the United States.
The Point formally known as the Crossroads is centrally located and defined by New Point Road and Division Street. It is located close to Midtown and contains many new affordable two-family homes, apartment houses and is undergoing a transformation. The former Elizabeth General Hospital site is currently being demolished and awaiting a new development.
Home to St. Mary’s and the “Hilltoppers” this area once was lined with mansions. The approximate borders were South Broad Street to Grier Avenue and Pearl Street to what is now US 1&9. During its development in the 1860s it was the most fashionable area of the city to live. It is now a quiet middle class community experiencing a re-development with many new condominiums.
Developed by Edward J. Grassman, Westminster got its name from the Citys largest residential estates, of the Tudor style and was inhabited by many residents who traced their ancestry to England. This neighborhood borders Hillside with the Elizabeth River running its border creating a dramatic splash of greenery and rolling hills off of North Avenue, near Liberty Hall. Residents use this area for recreation, whether it is at the newly christened Phil Rizzuto Park area, or for bird watching or for sunbathing by the river. It is one of the more affluent areas of Elizabeth.
The climate in this area is characterized by hot, humid summers and cold winters. According to the Kppen Climate Classification system, Elizabeth has a humid subtropical climate, abbreviated “Cfa” on climate maps.
At the 2010 United States Census, there were 124,969 people, 41,596 households, and 29,325 families residing in the city. The population density was 10,144.1 per square mile (3,916.7/km2). There were 45,516 housing units at an average density of 3,694.7 per square mile (1,426.5/km2). The racial makeup of the city was 54.65% (68,292) White, 21.08% (26,343) Black or African American, 0.83% (1,036) Native American, 2.08% (2,604) Asian, 0.04% (52) Pacific Islander, 16.72% (20,901) from other races, and 4.59% (5,741) from two or more races. Hispanics or Latinos of any race were 59.50% (74,353) of the population. The city’s Hispanic population was the tenth-highest percentage among municipalities in New Jersey as of the 2010 Census.
There were 41,596 households, of which 37.0% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 39.2% were married couples living together, 22.0% had a female householder with no husband present, and 29.5% were non-families. 23.5% of all households were made up of individuals, and 7.2% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.94 and the average family size was 3.43.
In the city, 25.6% of the population were under the age of 18, 10.6% from 18 to 24, 31.3% from 25 to 44, 23.3% from 45 to 64, and 9.2% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 33.2 years. For every 100 females there were 98.6 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 96.8 males.
The Census Bureau’s 2006-2010 American Community Survey showed that (in 2010 inflation-adjusted dollars) median household income was $43,770 (with a margin of error of +/- $1,488) and the median family income was $46,891 (+/- $1,873). Males had a median income of $32,268 (+/- $1,205) versus $27,228 (+/- $1,427) for females. The per capita income for the borough was $19,196 (+/- $604). About 14.7% of families and 16.7% of the population were below the poverty line, including 23.5% of those under age 18 and 18.5% of those age 65 or over.
As of the 2000 United States Census there were 120,568 people, 40,482 households, and 28,175 families residing in the city. The population density was 9,865.5 inhabitants per square mile (3,809.5/km2). There were 42,838 housing units at an average density of 3,505.2 per square mile (1,353.5/km2). The racial makeup of the city was 55.78% White, 19.98% Black or African American, 0.48% Native American, 2.35% Asian, 0.05% Pacific Islander, 15.51% from other races, and 5.86% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 49.46% of the population.
The nation where the highest number of foreign-born inhabitants of Elizabeth were born was Colombia, which was the birthplace of 8,731 Elizabeth residents as of the 2000 Census. This exceeded the combined total of Mexico and Central America of 8,214. It also far exceeded the next highest single nation count of Cuba at 5,812. The largest number for a non-Spanish speaking country and third highest overall was immigrants from Portugal numbering 4,544. The next largest groups were Salvadoran immigrants numbering 4,043, Peruvians 3,591 and Dominican immigrants of whom there were 3,492.
There were 40,482 households out of which 36.6% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 42.9% were married couples living together, 19.1% had a female householder with no husband present, and 30.4% were non-families. 24.6% of all households were made up of individuals and 8.4% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.91 and the average family size was 3.45.
In the city the population was spread out with 26.3% under the age of 18, 10.8% from 18 to 24, 33.7% from 25 to 44, 19.3% from 45 to 64, and 10.0% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 33 years. For every 100 females there were 98.0 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 96.1 males.
The median income for a household in the city was $35,175, and the median income for a family was $38,370. Males had a median income of $30,757 versus $23,931 for females. The per capita income for the city was $15,114. About 15.6% of families and 17.8% of the population were below the poverty line, including 22.2% of those under age 18 and 17.2% of those age 65 or over.
Since World War II, Elizabeth has seen its transportation facilities grow; the Port Newark-Elizabeth Marine Terminal is one of the busiest ports in the world, as is Newark Liberty International Airport, parts of which are actually in Elizabeth. Elizabeth also features Little Jimmy’s Italian Ices (since 1932), the popular Jersey Gardens outlet mall, Loews Theater, and the Elizabeth Center, which generate millions of dollars in revenue. Companies based in Elizabeth include New England Motor Freight.
Together with Linden, Elizabeth is home to the Bayway Refinery, a Phillips 66 refining facility that supplies petroleum-based products to the New York/New Jersey area, producing approximately 230,000 barrels (37,000m3) per day.
Celadon, a mixed-use development containing 14 glass skyscrapers, offices, retail, a hotel, boardwalk and many other amenities is proposed to border the east side of the Jersey Gardens mall, directly on the Port Newark Bay. It is planned to break ground in the summer As of 2008[update] on the ferry, roads and parking, and will continue construction for at least twelve more years.
Portions of the city are covered by the Urban Enterprise Zone, which cuts the sales tax rate to 3% (half of the 7% charged statewide) and offers other incentives to businesses within the district. The Elizabeth UEZ has the highest business participation rate in the state, with approximately 1,000 businesses participating in and benefiting from the program. The UEZ has helped bring in more than $1.5 billion in new economic development to the City and has brought in over $50 million in sales tax revenue that has been reinvested in funding for additional police, streetscape and other infrastructure improvements.
The City of Elizabeth is governed within the Faulkner Act, formally known as the Optional Municipal Charter Law, under the Mayor-Council system of municipal government. The City government of Elizabeth is made up of a Mayor and a City Council. The Elizabeth City Council is made up of nine members, who are elected to serve four-year terms of office on a staggered basis with elections held in even years. The three Council members elected at-large and mayor come up for election together in leap years and two years later the six members who are elected from each of Elizabeth’s six wards are all up for election.
As of 2015[update], the city’s Mayor is Democrat Chris Bollwage, a lifelong resident of Elizabeth who is serving his fifth term as Mayor, serving a term of office that ends December 31, 2016. Council members are Council President William Gallman, Jr. (Fifth Ward; D, 2018), Carlos Cedeo (Fourth Ward; D, 2018), Frank Cuesta (at-large; D, 2016), Nelson Gonzalez (Second Ward; D, 2018), Manny Grova, Jr. (at-large; D, 2016), Kevin Kinier (Third Ward; D, 2018), Frank Mazza (Sixth Ward; D, 2018), Patricia Perkins-Auguste (at-large; D, 2016) and Carlos Torres (First Ward; D, 2018).
Elizabeth is located in the 8th Congressional District and is part of New Jersey’s 20th state legislative district. Prior to the 2010 Census, Elizabeth had been split between the 10th Congressional District and the 13th Congressional District, a change made by the New Jersey Redistricting Commission that took effect in January 2013, based on the results of the November 2012 general elections.
New Jersey’s Eighth Congressional District is represented by Albio Sires (D, West New York). New Jersey is represented in the United States Senate by Cory Booker (D, Newark, term ends 2021) and Bob Menendez (D, Paramus, 2019).
For the 20142015 session (Senate, General Assembly), the 20th Legislative District of the New Jersey Legislature is represented in the State Senate by Raymond Lesniak (D, Elizabeth) and in the General Assembly by Jamel Holley (D, Roselle) and Annette Quijano (D, Elizabeth). The Governor of New Jersey is Chris Christie (R, Mendham Township). The Lieutenant Governor of New Jersey is Kim Guadagno (R, Monmouth Beach).
Union County is governed by a Board of Chosen Freeholders, whose nine members are elected at-large to three-year terms of office on a staggered basis with three seats coming up for election each year, with an appointed County Manager overseeing the day-to-day operations of the county. At an annual reorganization meeting held in the beginning of January, the board selects a Chairman and Vice Chairman from among its members. As of 2014[update], Union County’s Freeholders are Chairman Christopher Hudak (D, Linden, term ends December 31, 2014), Vice Chairman Mohamed S. Jalloh (D, Roselle, 2015), Bruce Bergen (D, Springfield Township, 2015), Linda Carter (D, Plainfield, 2016), Angel G. Estrada (D, Elizabeth, 2014), Sergio Granados (D, Elizabeth, 2016) Bette Jane Kowalski (D, Cranford, 2016), Alexander Mirabella (D, Fanwood, 2015) and Vernell Wright (D, Union, 2014). Constitutional officers elected on a countywide basis are County Clerk Joanne Rajoppi (D, Union, 2015), Sheriff Ralph Froehlich (D, Union, 2016) and Surrogate James S. LaCorte (D, Springfield Township, 2014). The County Manager is Alfred Faella.
As of March 23, 2011, there were a total of 44,415 registered voters in Elizabeth, of which 24,988 (56.3% vs. 41.8% countywide) were registered as Democrats, 2,430 (5.5% vs. 15.3%) were registered as Republicans and 16,985 (38.2% vs. 42.9%) were registered as Unaffiliated. There were 12 voters registered to other parties. Among the city’s 2010 Census population, 35.5% (vs. 53.3% in Union County) were registered to vote, including 47.8% of those ages 18 and over (vs. 70.6% countywide).
In the 2012 presidential election, Democrat Barack Obama received 24,751 votes (80.8% vs. 66.0% countywide), ahead of Republican Mitt Romney with 5,213 votes (17.0% vs. 32.3%) and other candidates with 166 votes (0.5% vs. 0.8%), among the 30,640 ballots cast by the city’s 50,715 registered voters, for a turnout of 60.4% (vs. 68.8% in Union County). In the 2008 presidential election, Democrat Barack Obama received 23,524 votes (74.3% vs. 63.1% countywide), ahead of Republican John McCain with 7,559 votes (23.9% vs. 35.2%) and other candidates with 202 votes (0.6% vs. 0.9%), among the 31,677 ballots cast by the city’s 48,294 registered voters, for a turnout of 65.6% (vs. 74.7% in Union County). In the 2004 presidential election, Democrat John Kerry received 18,363 votes (67.2% vs. 58.3% countywide), ahead of Republican George W. Bush with 8,486 votes (31.0% vs. 40.3%) and other candidates with 144 votes (0.5% vs. 0.7%), among the 27,334 ballots cast by the city’s 45,882 registered voters, for a turnout of 59.6% (vs. 72.3% in the whole county).
In the 2013 gubernatorial election, Democrat Barbara Buono received 63.2% of the vote (7,804 cast), ahead of Republican Chris Christie with 35.5% (4,379 votes), and other candidates with 1.3% (163 votes), among the 13,592 ballots cast by the city’s 49,515 registered voters (1,246 ballots were spoiled), for a turnout of 27.5%. In the 2009 gubernatorial election, Democrat Jon Corzine received 10,258 ballots cast (66.8% vs. 50.6% countywide), ahead of Republican Chris Christie with 4,386 votes (28.6% vs. 41.7%), Independent Chris Daggett with 376 votes (2.4% vs. 5.9%) and other candidates with 131 votes (0.9% vs. 0.8%), among the 15,355 ballots cast by the city’s 46,219 registered voters, yielding a 33.2% turnout (vs. 46.5% in the county).
The Elizabeth Police Department was established in May 1858.
The Elizabeth Fire Department provides fire protection and emergency medical services to the city of Elizabeth, New Jersey. The Elizabeth Fire Department was established as a volunteer organization in 1837 when Engine Company # 1 was organized. In 1901, the volunteer department was no longer adequate and the department reorganized into a paid department on January 1, 1902.
Emergency Medical Services are provided by the Elizabeth Fire Department’s Division of Emergency Medical Services. This is a civilian Division of the Fire Department and handles approx 40,000 calls a year. The Division is made up of an EMS Chief, 5 Supervisors, 28 Full Time Emergency Medical Technicians, and approximately 12 Per Diem EMTs. The Division, at its maximum staffing, aims to operate four ambulances and a supervisor on days (7A-7P) and three ambulances and a supervisor on nights (7P-7A).
The city’s public schools are operated by Elizabeth Public Schools, serving students in pre-Kindergarten through twelfth grade. The district is one of 31 former Abbott districts statewide, which are now referred to as “SDA Districts” based on the requirement for the state to cover all costs for school building and renovation projects in these districts under the supervision of the New Jersey Schools Development Authority.
As of the 2011-12 school year, the district’s 34 schools had an enrollment of 23,386 students and 1,846.0 classroom teachers (on an FTE basis), for a studentteacher ratio of 12.67:1.
With 5,300 students, Elizabeth High School was the largest high school in the state of New Jersey and one of the largest in the United States, and underwent a split that created five new academies and a smaller Elizabeth High School under a transformation program that began in the 200910 school year. The school was the 294th-ranked public high school in New Jersey out of 322 schools statewide, in New Jersey Monthly magazine’s September 2010 cover story on the state’s “Top Public High Schools”, after being ranked 302nd in 2008 out of 316 schools. Before the 2008-09 school year, all of the district’s schools (except high schools) became K8 schools, replacing the middle schools and elementary schools. SchoolDigger.com ranked Elizabeth 449th of 558 districts evaluated in New Jersey.
These and other indicators reveal a seriously declining performance standard in the city’s schools. Data reported by the state Department of Education showed that a majority of students in a majority of the Elizabeth public schools failed basic skills tests.
In the 2008-09 school year, Victor Mravlag Elementary School No. 21 was recognized with the Blue Ribbon School Award of Excellence by the United States Department of Education, the highest award an American school can receive. For the 2006-07 school year, William F. Halloran Alternative School #22 was one of four schools in New Jersey recognized with the Blue Ribbon Award. William F. Halloran Alternative School #22 earned a second award when it was one of 11 in the state to be recognized in 2014 by the National Blue Ribbon Schools Program.
Elizabeth is also home to several private schools. The coeducational St. Mary of the Assumption High School, which was established 1930, and the all-girls Benedictine Academy, which is run by the Benedictine Sisters of Saint Walburga Monastery, both operate under the auspices of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Newark. The Newark Archdiocese also operates the K8 schools Our Lady of Guadalupe Academy and St. Genevieve School.
Following the closure of Saint Patrick High School by the Newark Archdiocese in June 2012 in the face of increasing costs and declining enrollment, administrators and parents affiliated with the defunct school opened an independent non-denominational school located on Morris Avenue in Elizabeth called “The Patrick School” in September 2012.
The Benedictine Preschool, operated by the Benedictine Sisters, is housed at Saint Walburga Monastery.
The Jewish Educational Center comprises the Yeshiva of Elizabeth (nursery through sixth grades), the Rav Teitz Mesivta Academy (boys, sixth through twelfth grades), and Bruriah High School (girls, seventh through twelfth grades).
Princeton University was founded in 1746 in Elizabeth as the College of New Jersey.
The Elizabeth Public Library, the free public library with a main library, originally a Carnegie library, and three branches has a collection of 342,305 volumes and annual circulation of about 191,000.
Elizabeth is a hub of several major roadways including the New Jersey Turnpike / Interstate 95, Interstate 278 (including the Goethals Bridge, which carries Interstate 278 over the Arthur Kill between Elizabeth and Howland Hook, Staten Island), U.S. Route 1/9, Route 27, Route 28, and Route 439. Elizabeth’s own street plan, in contrast to the more usual grid plan, is to a large degree circular, with circumferential and radial streets centered on the central railroad station.
As of May 2010[update], the city had a total of 153.78 miles (247.48km) of roadways, of which 123.75 miles (199.16km) were maintained by the municipality, 12.27 miles (19.75km) by Union County and 11.80 miles (18.99km) by the New Jersey Department of Transportation and 5.96 miles (9.59km) by the New Jersey Turnpike Authority.
Elizabeth was once home to several smaller bascule bridges. The South First Street Bridge over the Elizabeth River, originally built in 1908, was replaced by a fixed span. The South Front Street Bridge (also over the Elizabeth River), built in 1922, has been left in the open position since March 2011. A study is underway to determine if the bridge can be rehabilitated. The bridge is notable in that it is the only remaining movable road bridge in Union County, NJ (movable railroad bridges still exist).
Elizabeth is among the U.S. cities with the highest train ridership. It is serviced by New Jersey Transit on Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor Line. There are two stations in Elizabeth. Elizabeth station, also called Broad Street Elizabeth or Midtown Station, is the southern station in Midtown Elizabeth. The other train station in Elizabeth is North Elizabeth station.
New Jersey Transit is planning a segment of the Newark-Elizabeth Rail Link (NERL), designated as the Union County Light Rail (UCLR). The UCLR was planned to connect Midtown Station with Newark Liberty International Airport and have seven or eight other stations in between within Elizabeth city limits. A possible extension of this future line to Plainfield would link the city of Elizabeth with the Raritan Valley Line.
New Jersey Transit provides bus service on the 111, 112, 113 and 115 routes to and from the Port Authority Bus Terminal in Midtown Manhattan, on the 24, 40, 48, 59 and 62 routes to Newark, New Jersey, with local service available on the 26, 52, 56, 57 and 58 routes.
The Colombian airline Avianca operates a private bus service from John F. Kennedy Airport to Union City and Elizabeth for passengers on Avianca flights departing from and arriving to JFK.
WJDM at 1530 on the AM dial is licensed to Elizabeth.
News 12 New Jersey offers weather and news channels with coverage of the city.
Residents of Elizabeth can tune into the Public-access television cable-TV channel at anytime to view public information such as the city bulletin board, live meetings, important health information and tips. This service is provided by Cablevision Local Programming. The service can be found on channel 18. The channel also has features such as Top 10 Ranked Television Shows, Educational Facts, Quote of The Day, Gas Price Statistics, and tips for keeping the city safe and clean.
People who were born in, residents of, or otherwise closely associated with Elizabeth include:
The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), formerly known as the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, is an international Jewish non-governmental organization based in the United States. Describing itself as “the nation’s premier civil rights/human relations agency,” the ADL states that it “fights anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry, defends democratic ideals and protects civil rights for all,” doing so through “information, education, legislation, and advocacy.”
Founded in October 1913 by The Independent Order of B’nai B’rith, a Jewish service organization in the United States, its original mission statement was “to stop, by appeals to reason and conscience and, if necessary, by appeals to law, the defamation of the Jewish people. Its ultimate purpose is to secure justice and fair treatment to all citizens alike and to put an end forever to unjust and unfair discrimination against and ridicule of any sect or body of citizens.” The ADL has 29 offices in the United States and three offices in other countries, with its headquarters located in New York City. Abraham Foxman had been the national director since 1987. In November 2014, it was announced that Jonathan Greenblatt would succeed Foxman as national director in July 2015. The national chair is Barry Curtiss-Lusher.
Founded in October 1913 by B’nai B’rith with Sigmund Livingston as its first leader, the ADL’s charter states,
“The immediate object of the League is to stop, by appeals to reason and conscience and, if necessary, by appeals to law, the defamation of the Jewish people. Its ultimate purpose is to secure justice and fair treatment to all citizens alike and to put an end forever to unjust and unfair discrimination against and ridicule of any sect or body of citizens.”
The Anti-Defamation League was founded by B’nai B’rith as a response to attacks on Jews; the Leo Frank affair was mentioned by Adolf Kraus when he announced the creation of the ADL.
The stated purpose of the ADL is to fight “anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry (in the United States) and abroad, combat international terrorism, probe the roots of hatred, advocate before the United States Congress, come to the aid of victims of bigotry, develop educational programs, and serve as a public resource for government, media, law enforcement, and the public, all towards the goal of countering and reducing hatred.”
Historically, the ADL has opposed groups and individuals it considered to be anti-Semitic and/or racist, including: Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan, Henry Ford, Father Charles Coughlin (leader of the Christian Front), the Christian Identity movement, the German-American Bund, neo-Nazis, the American militia movement and white power skinheads (although the ADL acknowledges that there are also non-racist skinheads). The ADL publishes reports on a variety of countries, regarding alleged incidents of anti-Jewish attacks and propaganda.
The ADL maintains that some forms of anti-Zionism and criticism of Israel cross the line into anti-Semitism. The Anti-Defamation League states:
“Criticism of particular Israeli actions or policies in and of itself does not constitute anti-Semitism. Certainly the sovereign State of Israel can be legitimately criticized just like any other country in the world. However, it is undeniable that there are those whose criticism of Israel or of ‘Zionism’ is used to mask anti-Semitism.”
The ADL gives out its Courage to Care Award to honor rescuers of Jews during the Holocaust era.
Since 2010 the ADL has published a list of the “ten leading organizations responsible for maligning Israel in the US,” which has included ANSWER, the International Solidarity Movement, and Jewish Voice for Peace for its call for BDS.
In October 2010, the ADL condemned remarks by Haham Ovadia Yosef that the sole purpose of non-Jews was to serve the Jews.
One of the ADL’s major focuses is religious freedom for people of all faiths. In the context of public schools, the ADL has taken the position that because creationism and intelligent design are religious beliefs, and the government is prohibited from endorsing the beliefs of any particular religion, they should not be taught in science classrooms: “The U.S. Constitution guarantees the rights of Americans to believe the religious theories of creation (as well as other theories) but it does not permit them to be taught in public school science classes.” Similarly, the ADL supports the legal precedent that it is unconstitutional for the government to post the Ten Commandments in courthouses, schools, and other public places: “True religious liberty means freedom from having the government impose the religion of the majority on all citizens.” The ADL has also condemned the public school Bible curriculum published by the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools, saying that it raises “serious constitutional problems” and “advocates the acceptance of one faith tradition’s interpretation of the Bible over another.” The ADL opposed Proposition 8 and supported the Matthew Shepard Act.
Stating that one of its goals is to defend not only Jews, but also “all citizens alike and to put an end forever to unjust and unfair discrimination against and ridicule of any sect or body of citizens,” the ADL has periodically made statements against misrepresentations of other faiths. For example, when the anti-Mormon film The God Makers was produced, Rhonda M. Abrams, Central Pacific (San Francisco) Regional Director for the ADL wrote a critical review, including the following statement:
Had a similar movie been made with either Judaism or Catholicism as its target, it would be immediately denounced for the scurrilous piece that it is. I sincerely hope that people of all faiths will similarly repudiate “The Godmakers” as defamatory and untrue, and recognize it for what it truly representsa challenge to the religious liberty of all.
The ADL keeps track of the activities of various extremist groups and movements. According to ADL Director Abe Foxman, “Our mission is to monitor and expose those who are anti-Jewish, racist, anti-democratic, and violence-prone, and we monitor them primarily by reading publications and attending public meetings . Because extremist organizations are highly secretive, sometimes ADL can learn of their activities only by using undercover sources [who] function in a manner directly analogous to investigative journalists. Some have performed great service to the American peoplefor example, by uncovering the existence of right-wing extremist paramilitary training campswith no recognition and at considerable personal risk.” A person apprehended in connection to the 2002 white supremacist terror plot had drawn a cartoon of himself blowing up the Boston offices of the ADL.
The ADL regularly releases reports on anti-Semitism and extremist activities on the far left and the far right. For instance, as part of its Law Enforcement Agency Resource Network (L.E.A.R.N.), the ADL has published information about the Militia Movement in America and a guide for law enforcement officials titled Officer Safety and Extremists. An archive of “The Militia Watchdog” research on U.S. right-wing extremism (including groups not specifically cited as anti-Semitic) from 1995 to 2000 is also available on the ADL website.
In the 1990s, some details of the ADL’s monitoring activities became public and controversial, including the fact that the ADL had gathered information about some non-extremist groups.
In October 2008 the ADL reportedly assisted the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) by providing, on request, information on Daniel Cowart and Paul Schlesselman and their associates and contacts, and on their ties to the Supreme White Alliance. Shortly thereafter the two men were arrested on charges of plotting to murder dozens of African Americans and plotting to assassinate US President-elect Barack Obama.
The ADL holds that it is important to remember the Holocaust, in order to prevent such an event from reoccurring. Along with sponsoring events and fighting Holocaust deniers and revisionists, the ADL has been active in urging action to stop modern-day ethnic cleansing and genocide in places such as Bosnia, Darfur, and Sudan.
The ADL spoke out against an advertising campaign by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) beginning in 2003 that equated meat-eating with the Holocaust. A press release from the ADL stated that “PETA’s effort to seek ‘approval’ for their ‘Holocaust on Your Plate’ campaign is outrageous, offensive and takes chutzpah to new heights. Rather than deepen our revulsion against what the Nazis did to the Jews, the project will undermine the struggle to understand the Holocaust and to find ways to make sure such catastrophes never happen again.” In May 2005 PETA apologized for its campaign, with PETA President Ingrid Newkirk stating that causing pain “was never our intention, and we are deeply sorry.”
The national ADL issued a “Statement on the Armenian Genocide” on August 21, 2007. The statement declared, “The consequences of those actions were indeed tantamount to genocide.” Activists felt that the statement was not a full, unequivocal acknowledgment of the Armenian genocide, because the use of the qualifier “tantamount” was seen as inappropriate, and the use of the word “consequences” was seen as an attempt to circumvent the international legal definition of genocide by avoiding any language that would imply intent, a crucial aspect of the 1948 UN Genocide Convention definition. The ADL convened its national meeting in New York City in early November 2007 at which time the issue of the Armenian Genocide was discussed. Upon conclusion, a one sentence press statement was issued that “The National Commission of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today, at its annual meeting, decided to take no further action on the issue of the Armenian genocide.”
The ADL supports the Jewish state and has vociferously opposed resolutions such as the 1975 United Nations resolution (revoked in 1991) which equated Zionism with racism, and attempts to revive that formulation at the 2001 U.N. World Conference Against Racism in Durban, South Africa.
The ADL honors individuals throughout the year for various reasons. On September 23, 2003, at its Tribute to Italy Dinner, the ADL awarded Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi the ADL’s distinguished statesman award, an honor “conferred on world leaders who exhibit a commitment to furthering the achievement of regional and world peace, and who possess a special commitment to promoting human and civil rights.” Berlusconi is also known for his staunch pro-Israel stance.
The ADL has spoken out against red-baiting and McCarthyism.
In 2006 the ADL condemned Senate Republicans in the United States for attempting to ban same-sex marriage with the Federal Marriage Amendment and praised its demise, calling it “discrimination.” That same year the ADL warned that the debate over illegal immigration was drawing neo-nazis and anti-Semites into the ranks of the Minutemen Project.
In 1974 ADL national leaders Arnold Forster and Benjamin R. Epstein published a book called The New Anti-Semitism (New York, 1974), arguing that a new kind of anti-Semitism is on the rise. In 1982, ADL national leader Nathan Perlmutter and his wife, Ruth Ann Perlmutter, released a book entitled The Real Anti-Semitism in America (New York, 1982). In 2003, ADL’s national director Abraham Foxman published Never Again? The Threat of the New Anti-Semitism (San Francisco, 2003), where on page 4 he states: “We currently face as great a threat to the safety and security of the Jewish people as the one we faced in the 1930sif not a greater one.”
In 2010, during a hearing for Florida House Bill 11 (Crimes Against Homeless Persons) which was to revise the list of offenses judged to be hate crimes in Florida by adding a person’s homeless status, the League lobbied against the bill, which subsequently passed in the House by a vote of 80 to 28 and was sent to the Senate, taking the position that adding more categories to the list would dilute the effectiveness of the law, which already includes race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, and age.
The ADL supports Comprehensive and DREAM Act legislation that would provide conditional permanent residency to certain illegal aliens of good moral character who graduate from U.S. high schools, arrived in the United States as minors, and lived in the country continuously for at least five years prior to the bill’s enactment.
ADL’s New England Regional Office has also established a faith-based initiative called “The Interfaith Youth Leadership Program,” better known as “Camp If,” or Camp Interfaith. Involving teenagers of the Christian, Jewish, and Islamic faiths, the camp brings the teens together for a week at camp where the teens bond and learn about each other’s cultures. The camp has emerged as a new attempt to foster good relations between younger members of the Abrahamic faiths.
ADL publications on condemning discrimination against Arabs, Muslims, Blacks and members of other minorities have often been used in synagogue adult education programs, and as part of Jewish-Christian and Jewish-Muslim inter-faith dialogue.
On June 18, 2004 the ADL issued a news release about the University of California Irvine (UCI) Muslim Students Union in which the student group had invited speakers to campus who made public declarations of support for Hamas, advocated suicide bombings and called for the destruction of Israel. For graduation, Muslim Students Union members chose to wear green (the traditional colour of Islam) graduation stoles bearing the Shahada, the Islamic declaration of faith. The ADL’s press release explained that the Shahada is a declaration of faith that has been closely identified with Palestinian terrorists, and said that suicide bombers connected to the Palestinian group Hamas wear green armbands and headbands inscribed with the Shahada as a symbol of their movement, and stated, “We are troubled that members of the (UCI) Muslim Students Union have chosen to display symbolism that is closely identified with Palestinian terrorist groups and that can be especially offensive to Jewish students.”
The ADL has publicly opposed anti-Islamic organizations like Stop Islamization of America and Stop Islamization of Europe and activists like David Yerushalmi, describing them as “anti-Muslim bigots.”
The ADL has worked to combat racism against all racial groups, including racism against blacks. In 1997, the National Center for Black-Jewish Relations of Dillard University, a historically black university in New Orleans awarded the director of the ADL, Abraham H. Foxman, with the first Annual Martin Luther King, Jr. Donald R. Mintz Freedom and Justice Award.
In 2004, the ADL became the lead partner in the Peace and Diversity Academy, a new New York City public high school with predominantly black and Hispanic students.
In celebration of Black History Month, the ADL created and distributed lesson plans to middle and high school teachers about Shirley Chisholm, the first black woman elected to the US Congress, and an important civil rights leader.
The ADL has also publicly charged certain African Americans with anti-Semitism:
Since the 1930s the ADL has been gathering information and publishing reports on anti-Semitism, racism and prejudice, and on anti-Jewish, anti-Israel, racist, anti-democratic, violent, and extremist individuals and groups. As a result, the organization amassed what it once called a “famous storehouse of accurate, detailed, unassailable information on extremist individuals and organizations.” Over the decades the ADL has assembled thousands of files.
One of its sources for the 1980s and 1990s was Roy Bullock, an intelligence gatherer for the South African apartheid regime, a private collector of information. He amassed files on 10,000-12,000 individuals and 600 organizations and provided them to the ADL as a secretly paid independent contractor for over 32 years. Bullock often wrote letters to various groups and forwarded copies of their replies to the ADL, clipped articles from newspapers and magazines, and maintained files on his computer. He also used less orthodox, and possibly illegal, methods such as combing through trash and tapping into White Aryan Resistance’s phone message system in order to find evidence of hate crimes. Some of the information he obtained and then passed on to the ADL came from confidential documents (including intelligence files on various Nazi groups and driver’s license records and other personal information on nearly 1,400 people) that were given to him by San Francisco police officer Tom Gerard.
On April 8, 1993, police seized Bullock’s computer and raided the ADL offices in San Francisco and Los Angeles, California. A search of Bullock’s computer revealed that he had compiled files on 9,876 individuals and more than 950 groups across the political spectrum. Many of Bullock’s files concerned groups that did not fit the mold of extremist groups, hate groups, and organizations hostile to Jews or Israel that the ADL would usually be interested in. Along with files on the Ku Klux Klan, White Aryan Resistance, Islamic Jihad and the Jewish Defense League were data on the NAACP, the African National Congress (ANC), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the United Auto Workers, the AIDS activist group ACT UP, Mother Jones magazine, the TASS Soviet/Russian news agency, Greenpeace, Jews for Jesus and the National Lawyers Guild; there were also files on politicians including Democratic U.S. Representative Nancy Pelosi, former Republican U.S. Representative Pete McCloskey, and activist Lyndon LaRouche. Bullock told investigators that many of those were his own private files, not information he was passing on to the ADL. An attorney for the ADL stated that “We knew nothing about the vast extent of the files. Those are not ADL’s files. That is all [Bullock’s] doing.” As for its own records, the ADL indicated that just because it had a file on a group, that did not mean that the ADL opposed the group. The San Francisco district attorney at the time accused the ADL of conducting a national “spy network,” but dropped all accusations a few months later, judging it to be a force for good. The ADL then offered the district attorney’s office a sum of $75,000 to fight bigotry, which was duly accepted.
In the weeks following the raids, twelve civil rights groups led by the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and the National Lawyers Guild, filed a lawsuit demanding that the ADL release its surveillance information and end its investigations, as well as ordering it to pay punitive damages. The plaintiffs’ attorney, former Representative McCloskey, claimed that the information the ADL gathered constituted an invasion of privacy. The ADL, while distancing itself from Bullock, countered that it is entitled like any researcher or journalist to research organizations and individuals. Richard Cohen, legal director of the Southern Poverty Law Center in Montgomery, Alabama, stated that like journalists, the ADL’s researchers “gather information however they can” and welcome disclosures from confidential sources, saying “they probably rely on their sources to draw the line” on how much can legally be divulged. Bullock admitted that he was overzealous, and that some of the ways in which he gathered information may have been illegal.
The lawsuit was settled out of court in 1999. The ADL agreed to pay $175,000 for the court costs of the groups, two of them Jewish, that sued it, promised that it would not seek information from sources it knew could not legally disclose such information, consented to remove sensitive information like criminal records or Social Security numbers from its files, and spent $25,000 in order to further relations between the Jewish, Arab and black communities. When the case was settled, Hussein Ibish, director of communications for the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), claimed that the ADL had gathered data “systematically in a program whose clear intent was to undermine civil rights and Arab-American organizations.” ADL national director Abraham Foxman called the ADC’s claims “absolutely untrue,” saying that “if it were true, they would have won their case” and noted that no court found the ADL guilty of any wrongdoing. The ADL released a statement saying that the settlement “explicitly recognizes ADL’s right to gather information in any lawful and constitutionally protected manner, which we have always done and will continue to do.”John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt argue that the organization, rather than defending Jews from bigotry, was targeting individuals critical of Israel or of U.S. support for Israel.
A case which has been compared to the Bullock case was that of James Mitchell Rosenberg, aka Jim Anderson. Rosenberg/Anderson was an undercover operative of the ADL who acted as an agent provocateur, posing as a racist right-wing paramilitary extremist. He appeared in this role as part of a TV documentary entitled Armies of the Right which premiered in 1981. Rosenberg was arrested that same year in New York for carrying an unregistered firearm in public view. In 1984, ADL fact-finding director Irwin Suall identified Rosenberg as an ADL operative in a court deposition.
In 2007, Abraham Foxman came under criticism for his stance on the Armenian Genocide. The ADL had previously described it as a “massacre” and an “atrocity,” but not as a “genocide.” Foxman had earlier opposed calls for the U.S. Government to recognise it as a “genocide.” “I don’t think congressional action will help reconcile the issue. The resolution takes a position; it comes to a judgment,” said Foxman in a statement issued to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. “The Turks and Armenians need to revisit their past. The Jewish community shouldn’t be the arbiter of that history, nor should the U.S. Congress, and “a Congressional resolution on such matters is a counterproductive diversion and will not foster reconciliation between Turks and Armenians and may put at risk the Turkish Jewish community and the important multilateral relationship between Turkey, Israel and the United States.”
In early August 2007, complaints about the Anti-Defamation League’s refusal to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide led to the Watertown, Massachusetts unanimous town council decision to end its participation in the ADL’s “No Place for Hate” campaign. (Watertown is known for its Armenian population.) Also in August 2007, an editorial in The Boston Globe criticized the ADL by saying that “as an organization concerned about human rights, it ought to acknowledge the genocide against the Armenian people during World War I, and criticize Turkish attempts to repress the memory of this historical reality.” Then on 17 August 2007, the ADL fired its regional New England director, Andrew H. Tarsy, for breaking ranks with the main organization and for saying that the ADL should recognize the genocide. In a 21 August 2007 press release, the ADL changed its position and acknowledged the genocide but maintained its opposition to congressional resolutions aimed at recognizing it. Foxman wrote, “the consequences of those actions,” by the Ottoman Empire against Armenians, “were indeed tantamount to genocide.” The Turkish government condemned the league’s statement. Andrew H. Tarsy was rehired by the league on 27 August, though he has since chosen to step down from his position.
The ADL was criticized by many in the Armenian community including The Armenian Weekly newspaper, in which writer Michael Mensoian stated:
The belated backtracking of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) in acknowledging the planned, systematic massacre of 1,500,000 Armenian men, women and children as “tantamount to genocide” is discouraging. Tantamount means something is equivalent. If it’s equivalent, why avoid using the term? For the ADL to justify its newly adopted statement because the word genocide did not exist at the time indicates a halfhearted attempt to placate Armenians while not offending Turkey. Historians use the term genocide simply because it is the proper term to describe the horrific events that the Ottoman Turkish government unleashed on the Armenian people.
After Foxman’s capitulation, the New England ADL pressed the organization’s national leadership to support a congressional resolution acknowledging the genocide. After hours of closed-door debate at the annual national meeting in New York, the proposal was ultimately withdrawn. The organization issued a statement saying it would “take no further action on the issue of the Armenian genocide.” The ADL had earlier received direct pressure from the Turkish Foreign ministry. Tarsy submitted his resignation on December 4.
Since August, some human rights commissions in other Massachusetts communities decided to follow Watertown’s lead and withdraw from the ADL’s No Place for Hate anti-discrimination program.
Linguist and activist Noam Chomsky has characterized the ADL as having lost entirely its focus on civil rights issues in order to become solely an advocate for Israeli policy; he holds that the ADL casts all left-wing opposition to Israeli interests as antisemitism.
In 2006, the ADL, in addition to the American Jewish Committee, was criticized by academic Tony Judt for allegedly pressuring the Polish Consulate-General in New York to cancel a scheduled appearance by Judt at Network 20/20, a non-profit organization that rents space from the consulate. In an interview with the New York Sun, Foxman claimed that the group “had nothing to do with the cancellation,” insisting that the ADL only called to ask if the event was being sponsored by the Polish government. Polish Consul General Krzysztof Kasprzyk suggested in an interview with The Washington Post that calls by the ADL and the American Jewish Committee were “exercising a delicate pressure.” In reference to the role of the ADL and the American Jewish Committee in organizing the cancellations, Judt told The Washington Post: “This is serious and frightening, and only in Americanot in Israelis this a problem. These are Jewish organizations that believe they should keep people who disagree with them on the Middle East away from anyone who might listen.” The ADL denied the charges. According to Foxman, “I think they made the right decision… He’s taken the position that Israel shouldn’t exist. That puts him on our radar.”
In 1994, the ADL became embroiled in a dispute between neighbors in Denver, Colorado. Upon the involvement of the ADL, the petty quarreling of next door neighbors, initially about garden plants and pets, quickly escalated into both civil and criminal court cases involving charges of anti-Semitism, and counter charges of defamation.
Candace and Mitchell Aronson, Jewish next door neighbors of William and Dorothy Quigley, used a Radio Shack police scanner to listen in on the cordless telephone conversations of Mr.& Mrs. Quigley. When the Aronsons heard the Quigleys discuss a campaign to drive them from the neighborhood with “Nazi scare tactics,” the Aronsons contacted the Denver office of the ADL. Upon the advice of the ADL, the Aronsons then recorded the Quigley’s private telephone conversations. The conversations included discussions of putting pictures of oven doors on the Aronsons’ home (a reference to the Holocaust), burning one of the Aronson children, and wishing that the Aronsons had been killed in a suicide bombing. (The Quigleys later indicated that these remarks were not anti-Semitic, and were only intended to be sick humor.) Neither the Aronsons nor the ADL were aware that Congress had amended federal wiretap law which made it illegal to record conversations from a cordless telephone, to transcribe the material and to use the transcriptions for any purpose.
Not knowing about the new federal law, the Aronsons used the tapes as the basis for a federal civil lawsuit against the Quigleys in December 1994. A day later, Saul Rosenthal, Regional Director of the ADL, appeared at a news conference with the Aronsons in which he described their encounter with the Quigleys as “a vicious anti-Semitic campaign”, based solely on conversations he and associates had with the Aronsons. Later that day, Mr. Rosenthal expanded on his remarks in an interview on a Denver radio talk show.
Two days later, Jefferson County prosecutors used the tapes as the basis for filing criminal charges against the Quigleys.
The Quigleys became the target of scorn and ridicule. They received threats, and were forced to hire security guards for their home. A package of dog feces was mailed to their house. When they attended church, their priest openly chastised them in his sermon. The family was forced to shop in other towns, to avoid being recognized. Mr. Quigley’s career with United Artists suffered serious damage.
Upon investigation, and after assistant district attorney Steven Jensen heard on the tapes the context of Mrs. Quigley’s remarks, all charges but one, a misdemeanor traffic violation against Mr. Quigley, were dropped. The district attorney issued two letters of apology to the Quigleys, saying he found no evidence that either had engaged in “anti-Semitic conduct or harassment.”
The Quigleys brought a lawsuit against the ADL, Rosenthal, the Aronsons, and two ADL volunteer attorneys. The two attorneys agreed to pay $350,000 to the Quigleys in settlement of their claims. The Quigley settlement with the Aronsons did not involve a cash payment. The Quigleys maintained their action against the ADL and Rosenthal, which was heard in federal court. A federal jury returned a verdict of $10 million in favor of the Quigleys. The ADL appealed.
According to an April 13, 2001 article in The Forward, upon hearing the appeal, a federal judge “lambasted the ADL for labeling a nasty neighborhood feud as an anti-Semitic event” and upheld most of Quigley’s $10 million lawsuit for defamation. According to a report in the Rocky Mountain News, with accrued interest, the judgment amounted to more than $12 million.
In 1974, ADL national leaders Arnold Forster and Benjamin R. Epstein published a book called The New Anti-Semitism (New York, 1974), arguing that a new kind of anti-Semitism is on the rise. In 1982, ADL national leader Nathan Perlmutter and his wife, Ruth Ann Perlmutter, released a book entitled The Real Anti-Semitism in America (New York, 1982). In 2003, ADL’s national director Abraham Foxman published Never Again? The Threat of the New Anti-Semitism (San Francisco, 2003), where on page 4 he states: “We currently face as great a threat to the safety and security of the Jewish people as the one we faced in the 1930sif not a greater one.”
In 2005, Norman G. Finkelstein published Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History which devotes Part 1 to “The Not-So-New ‘New Anti-Semitism’.” In a 2006 appearance on Amy Goodman’s Democracy Now!, Finkelstein denied there was any evidence for a rise of a new anti-Semitism in either Europe or North America. He continued, “Every time Israel comes under international pressure, as it did recently because of the war crimes committed in Lebanon, it steps up the claim of anti-Semitism, and all of Israel’s critics are anti-Semitic.” According to Finkelstein, the ADL and Foxman, its president, have advanced this “preposterous” deception.
ADL is an advocate for gun control legislation. The ADL supported the District of Columbia before the US Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller which argued that the city’s ban on the possession of handguns and any functional firearms, even for self-defense in the home is not prohibited by the Second Amendment. The League urged the Court to ensure that states retain the ability to keep guns out of the hands of “violent bigots.”
Gun rights group Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) has been highly critical of the Anti-Defamation League. In pamphlets such as “Why Does the ADL Support Nazi-Based Laws?” and “JPFO Facts vs. ADL Lies,” the JPFO has accused the ADL of undermining the welfare of the Jewish people by promoting gun control. In a 2007 handbill the JPFO accused ADL Director Abraham Foxman of knowingly supporting the “use of Nazi gun control laws in America.” Foxman has written about the JPFO: “Anti-Semitism has a long and painful history, and the linkage to gun control is a tactic by Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership to manipulate the fear of anti-Semitism toward their own end.”
On July 28, 2010 the ADL issued a statement in which it expressed opposition to the Park51 Community Center, which sponsors planned to build near the World Trade Center site in New York. The ADL stated, “The controversy which has emerged regarding the building of a Community Center at this location is counterproductive to the healing process. Therefore, under these unique circumstances, we believe the City of New York would be better served if an alternative location could be found.” The ADL denounced what it saw as bigoted attacks on the project. Foxman opined that some of those who oppose the mosque are “bigots,” and that the plan’s proponents may have every right to build the mosque at that location. Nevertheless, he said that building the mosque at that site would unnecessarily cause more pain for families of some victims of 9/11.
This opposition to the Community Center led to criticism of the statement from various parties, including one ADL board member, the American Jewish Committee, the Jewish Community Relations Council of New York, Rabbi Irwin Kula, columnists Jeffrey Goldberg and Peter Beinart, the Interfaith Alliance, and the Shalom Center. In an interview with the New York Times Abe Foxman published a statement in reaction to criticism. In protest of ADL’s stance, CNN host Fareed Zakaria returned the Hubert H. Humphrey First Amendment Freedoms Prize the ADL awarded him in 2005. ADL chair Robert G. Sugarman responded to a critical New York Times editorial writing, “we have publicly taken on those who criticized the mosque in ways that reflected anti-Muslim bigotry or used the controversy for that purpose” and stating that the ADL has combated Islamophobia.
Bet you didnt know that the mattress king sleeps here. Living on Hilton Head Island, Gary Fazio brings nearly 40 years of bedding industry know-how to the Lowcountry. Known among industry leaders as one of the most influential people in the bedding business, Fazio has spent his life learning how you can rest more peacefully.
Fazio is currently CEO of Simmons, based in Atlanta, after major stints at Sealy and Mattress Firm. Lucky for you, his son Adam Fazio owns the local Mattress Firm store in Bluffton and can pass on their collective knowledge to you as a benefit of living in the same town as the royal family of mattresses.
Adam instinctively knows he must pass on his wealth of knowledge to grow his empire. His employees are degreed professionals who work at Mattress Firm as a career, not just a job, he said. This level of expertise makes mattress buying an educational experience for the customers, not just an item to cross off their to-do list.
All of our managers go to Houston, Texas, where Mattress Firm and its Sleep School are headquartered. Under the guidance of Dr. Michael Breus, known as The Sleep Doctor, each employee learns what makes a mattress and what makes sleep restorative, Adam said. Even our delivery guys have degrees and mattress training. I am serious about this business, and everyone who represents my stores must be informed about the latest business trends and information.
Mattress Firm employees are sleep therapists: you tell them intimate details of your life in order to improve the quality of your sleep and life.
Sleep is the foundation of life. Without proper rest, we dont have the energy to live life at our best levels, Adam explained. When customers come into the store, we dont ask them what mattress they want to see. We ask them what their sleeping patterns are, if they have any physical issues, and how their sleep behaviors help or hinder the sleep of their partner, and then we show them the mattress which may best fit their needs.
Adam didnt start his career following the pillow imprints of his father. He owned a computer business and specialized in Web application and development for government agencies. He sold the company to a Washington, D.C.-based federal contractor and then moved to the Lowcountry to open his first Mattress Firm store. Just like the computer biz, Adam knows that technology and attention to details create industry leaders. He found the best location in Bluffton, as the store firmly faces Highway 278. Neil, a life-size astronaut is usually in front of the store. The caricature symbolizes the discovery of the Tempur-Pedic mattress while NASA was experimenting with materials to better cushion and support astronauts during lift-off.
While Gary continues to manage the industry on an international level, Adam is growing the family dynasty on a local level. Adam plans to expand his Hilton Head Island- Savannah franchise within the next six to nine months. The first expansion is to open a Super Center in front of Oglethorpe Mall in Savannah. The next opening is scheduled in Pooler, Georgia, on Pooler Parkway near the Savannah airport. Proud that Mattress Firm is the only specialized sleep store with sleep shops in all four time zones, Adam plans to own stores from south of Charleston to north of Jacksonville, Florida. And when you meet him, you may get the impression he lives, eats andwell, sleeps this mission.
Once I found the Bluffton location during Thanksgiving of 2007, I gutted the building and rebuilt it in four weeks, Adam said. I opened for business in 2008 when the economy was in recession and the bedding industry numbers had sunk to 2002 levels. However, I have a low-price guarantee, hired professional people, offer more than 500 models, display more than 60 of them and now our momentum is revving up by opening more stores in Georgia and South Carolina.
Adam attributes his success to customer service such as next-day service, shipping mattresses to peoples homes in other states, offering better warranties and knowing how a mattress can better a persons life. You cant sell a multi-thousand dollar Tempur-Pedic bed by putting a sign on it, he said. You have to know the science behind restful sleep. He wants the consumers needs, not whats in stock or what may be a quick sale, to dictate the bed. You keep the customers needs first and everyone wins, Adam said.
According to Adam, the forthcoming Savannah Super Center will have more mattresses on display than any other Mattress Firm store in the country. It will also feature a Tempur-Pedic Sleep Experience Center, a state-of-the-art, computerized sleep simulator that customers can experience as part of discovering what mattress best fits their needs.
Tempur-Pedic, known as the highest echelon of mattresses, has selected Adams new store to be one of the first in the United States to offer this sleep simulator. The Bluffton Mattress Firm store already has a proven track record since it is the only retailer in South Carolina to display all of Tempur-Pedic models.
Being the son of the mattress king, Adam has grown up listening to his fathers management philosophies. One of his dads strongest tenets is never to be satisfied and always to strive for the next goal. His dad said many times that success is not an accident.
In addition to his family taking note, Garys leadership has been recognized by national groups. In July 2011, the Anti-Defamation League honored Gary as one of the home furnishings executives who have created a corporate culture which benefited the lives of others and advanced the goals central to the mission of the Anti-Defamation League. (The civil rights and human relations agency, which fights all forms of bigotry, also honored renowned model and furniture designer Kathy Ireland.)
The last four years of being in the business has taught me a greater appreciation of what my dad created. I am proud of his vision and that he saw a gap between manufacturing and retail and has filled that gap to create a better experience for the customer, Adam said.
While his employees arent related by bloodline, Adam said they are a part of his plan and bond with him through shared experiences and goals. He calls his Bluffton store manager, Charles Taylor, son. Two other employees, Kimberly Morris and Rachelle Hobus are roommates. And Adams colleague from his computer days, Rob Moul, will assist in expanding the Mattress Firm franchise to other states.
Adam learned much from his dad and continues to pass it on. We are family here, he said.
For more information on your next mattress, call 843-837-FIRM!
We are deeply saddened by the death of Freddie Gray and extend our condolences to family, friends and community members. Freddie Grays death while in police custody is deeply troubling, and the Justice Department investigation currently underway is both important and timely. His death comes in the wake of the deaths of a number of other black civilians at the hands of police officers, but at this point it is not possible to know what role if any race played.
Law enforcements alleged mistreatment of Freddie Gray has understandably created anger in Baltimore. Residents certainly have the right to express their anger in the form of peaceful protests. The First Amendment, however, in no way sanctions violence, looting or other criminal activity. The attacks on police officers and others, looting of neighborhood stores and businesses and burning of housing intended for senior citizens in the aftermath of Mr. Grays funeral were outrageous and despicable. The perpetrators of these acts took advantage of the City of Baltimores efforts at restraint and respect for protest to commit theft, arson and assault. Tragically, they have devastated the very community where Mr. Gray lived.
We echo Mr. Grays familys call for all demonstrators to refrain from violence and destruction and to return to peaceful protests. We need to find ways as a society to address police misconduct, to address legitimate concerns and also to support police who are trying to do their job in difficult circumstances. Violence is never the answer.
Article 17 of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states
In Azerbaijan, the crime of defamation (Article 147) may result in a fine up to “500 times the amount of minimum salaries”, public work for up to 240 hours, correctional work for up to one year, or imprisonment of up to six months. Penalties are aggravated to up to three years of prison if the victim is falsely accused of having committed a crime “of grave or very grave nature” (Article 147.2). The crime of insult (Article 148) can lead to a fine of up to 1000 times the minimum wage, or to the same penalties of defamation for public work, correctional work or imprisonment. 
According to the OSCE report on defamation laws, “Azerbaijan intends to remove articles on defamation and insult from criminal legislation and preserve them in the Civil Code”.
Article 246 of the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China () criminalizes defamation.
Article 310 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of China () criminalizes defamation, held constitutional on 7 July 2000 by the Justices of the Constitutional Court, Judicial Yuan ().
According to the Constitution of India, the fundamental right to free speech (Article 19) is subject to “reasonable restrictions”. Accordingly, for the purpose of criminal defamation, “reasonable restrictions” are defined in Section 499 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. This section defines Defamation and provides valid exceptions when a statement is not considered to be Defamation. It says that Defamation takes place “by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, to make or publish any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation, of such person.” In India, a defamation case can be filed under either criminal law or civil law or Cyber Crime Law, together or in sequence.
The punishment for Defamation is a simple imprisonment for up to two years or with fine or with both.
In Korea true and false statements are punishable criminally and civilly with defamation; any words harming another can be considered illegal and may be punishable with fines and imprisonment up to seven years. Defamation is covered by several laws in Korea, civil law, traditional criminal law and modern internet criminal law-under the “Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Data Protection, etc.” (Internet and email related laws) 2005 CHAPTER IX Article 61 (Penal Provisions). Korean defamation varies significantly from Western laws and in general by country and by case. As image and “public face” are very important in East Asia, it is not difficult to sue for “loss of face” (defamation) in Korea. Even middle school students are active with cases.
As of June 2010, Korean courts were still hearing cases and individuals frequently fined a few thousand dollars for true facts. International “comity” procedure or “intent” appear not key in Korea.
In the former Soviet Union, defamatory insults “could only constitute a criminal offense, not a civil wrong”.
Defamation Act, 1859
Title thirteen of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines addresses Crimes Against Honor. Chapter one of that title addresses libel and slander. Libel is defined as “public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.” Slander is defined as oral defamation. Slander by deed is defined as “any act not included and punished in this title, which shall cast dishonor, discredit or contempt upon another person.” Penalties of fine or imprisonment are specified for these crimes and for the threat of libel. A notable characteristic of these crimes under Philippine law is the specification that they apply to imputations both real and imaginary.
In 2012, the Philippines enacted Republic Act 10175, titled The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. Essentially, this Act provides that libel is criminally punishable and describes it as: “Libel the unlawful or prohibited act as defined in Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, committed through a computer system or any other similar means which may be devised in the future.” Professor Harry Roque of the University of the Philippines has written that under this law, electronic libel is punished with imprisonment from 6 years and one day to up to 12 years. As of 30 September 2012[update], five petitions claiming the law to be unconstitutional had been filed with the Philippine Supreme Court, one by Senator Teofisto Guingona III. The petitions all claim that the law infringes on freedom of expression, due process, equal protection and privacy of communication.
“A person who, contrary to the truth, asserts or circulates as a fact that which injurious to the reputation or the credit of another or his earnings or prosperity in any other manner, shall compensate the other for any damage arising therefrom, even if he does not know of its untruth, provided he ought to know it.
A person who makes a communication the untruth of which is unknown to him, does not thereby render himself liable to make compensation, if he or the receiver of the communication has a rightful interest in it.
The Court, when given judgment as to the liability for wrongful act and the amount of compensation, shall not be bound by the provisions of the criminal law concerning liability to punishment or by the conviction or non-conviction of the wrongdoer for a criminal offence.”
“Section 326. Defamation
Whoever, imputes anything to the other person before a third person in a manner likely to impair the reputation of such other person or to expose such other person to be hated or scorned, is said to commit defamation, and shall be punished with imprisonment not exceeding one year or fined not exceeding twenty thousand Baht, or both. Section 327. Defamation to the Family
Whoever, imputing anything the deceased person before the third person, and that imputation to be likely to impair the reputation of the father, mother, spouse or child of the deceased or to expose that person hated or scammed to be said to commit defamation, and shall be punished as prescribed by Section 326.” 
According to the Criminal Code of Albania, defamation is a crime. Insulting (Article 119) can lead to a fine or up to six months of imprisonment (if in public, up to a year), while libel (Article 120) may result in a fine or up to a year of prison (up to 2 years when in public). In addition, defamation of authorities, public officials or foreign representatives (Articles 227, 239 to 241) are separate crimes with maximum penalties varying from 1 to 3 years of imprisonment.
In Austria, the crime of defamation is foreseen by Article 111 of the Criminal Code. Related criminal offenses include “slander and assault” (Article 115), that happens “if a person insults, mocks, mistreats or threatens will ill-treatment another one in public”, and yet “malicious falsehood” (Article 297), defined as a false accusation that exposes someone to the risk of prosecution.
In Belgium, crimes against honour are foreseen in Chapter V of the Belgian Penal Code, Articles 443 to 453-bis. Someone is guilty of calumny when law admits proof of the alleged fact and of defamation “when law does not admit this evidence” (Article 443). The penalty is 8 days to one year of imprisonment, plus a fine (Article 444). In addition, the crime of “calumnious denunciation” (Article 445) is punished with 15 days to six months in prison, plus a fine. In any of the crimes covered by Chapter V of the Penal Code, the minimum penalty may be doubled (Article 453-bis) when one of the motivations of the crime is hatred, contempt or hostility of a person due to his or her intended race, color of the skin, ancestry, national origin or ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, place of birth, age, patrimony, philosophical or religious belief, present or future health condition, disability, native language, political beliefs, physical or genetical characteristic, or social origin.”
In Bulgaria, defamation is formally a criminal offense, but the penalty of imprisonment has been abolished in 1999. Articles 146 (insult), 147 (criminal defamation) and 148 (public insult) of the Criminal Code prescribe a penalty of fine.
In Croatia, the crime of insult prescribes a penalty of up to three months in prison, or a fine of “up to 100 daily incomes” (Criminal Code, Article 199). If the crime is committed in public, penalties are aggravated to up to six months of imprisonment, or a fine of “up to 150 daily incomes” (Article 199-2). Moreover, the crime of defamation occurs when someone affirms or disseminates false facts about other person that can damage his reputation. The maximum penalty is one year in prison, or a fine of up to 150 daily incomes (Article 200-1). If the crime is committed in public, the prison term can reach one year (Article 200-2). On the other hand, according to Article 203, there is an exemption for the application of the aforementioned articles (insult and defamation) when the specific context is that of a scientific work, literary work, work of art, public information conducted by a politician or a government official, journalistic work, or the defense of a right or the protection of justifiable interests, in all cases provided that the conduct was not aimed at damaging someone’s reputation.
According to the Czech Criminal Code, Article 184, defamation is a crime. Penalties may reach a maximum prison term of one year (Article 184-1) or, if the crime is committed through the press, film, radio, TV, publicly accessible computer network, or by “similarly effective” methods, the offender may stay in prison for up to two years or be prohibited of exercising a specific activity. However, only the most severe cases will be subjets to criminal liability. The less severe cases can be solved by an action for apology, damages or injunctions.
In Denmark, libel is a crime, as defined by Article 267 of the Danish Criminal Code, with a penalty of up to six months in prison or a fine, with proceedings initiated by the victim. In addition, Article 266-b prescribes a maximum prison term of two years in the case of public defamation aimed at a group of persons because of their race, color, national or ethnic origin, religion or “sexual inclination”.
In Finland, defamation is a crime, according to the Criminal Code (Chapter 24, Section 9), with a penalty of imprisonment of up to six months or a fine. When the defamation occurs in public, the crime is “aggravated defamation” (Chapter 24, Section 10), with a maximum punishment of two years in prison or a fine. In addition, there’s also a crime called “dissemination of information violating personal privacy” (Chapter 24, Section 8), that deals with the public dissemination of information that can harm one’s private life. However, personalities involved in the fields of politics, business, public office or public position, “or in a comparable position”, are specifically not protected by this article.
In German law, there is no distinction between libel and slander. German defamation lawsuits are increasing. The relevant offences of Germany’s Criminal Code are 90 (Denigration of the President of State), 90a (Denigration of the State and its Symbols), 90b (Unconstitutional denigration of the Organs of the Constitution), 185 (“insult”), 186 (Defamation of character), 187 (Defamation with deliberate untruths), 188 (Political defamation with increased penalties for offending against paras 186 and 187), 189 (Denigration of a deceased person), 192 (“insult” with true statements). Other sections relevant to prosecution of these offences are 190 (Criminal conviction as proof of truth), 193 (No defamation in the pursuit of rightful interests), 194 (The Application for a criminal prosecution under these paragraphs), 199 (Mutual insult allowed to be left unpunished), and 200 (Method of proclamation). Paragraph 188 has been criticized[by whom?] for allowing certain public figures additional protection against criticism.
In Greece, the maximum prison term for defamation, libel or insult is five years, while the maximum fine is 15,000.
The crime of insult (Article 361, 1, of the Penal Code) may lead to up to one year of imprisonment and/or a fine, while unprovoked insult (Article 361-A, 1) is punished with at least three months in prison. In addition, defamation may result in up to two months in prison and/or a fine, while aggravated defamation can lead to at least 3 months of prison, plus a possible fine (Article 363) and deprivation of the offender’s civil rights. Finally, disparaging the memory of a deceased person is punished with imprisonment of up to 6 months (Penal Code, Article 365). 
Individuals are protected under the Defamation Act 2009 which came into force on the first of January 2010. This 2009 Act repeals the Defamation Act 1961, which had, together with the underlying principles of the common law of tort, governed Irish defamation law for almost half a century. The 2009 Act represents significant changes in Irish law, as many believe that it previously attached insufficient importance to the media’s freedom of expression and weighed too heavily in favour of the individual’s right to a good name. The Act has a one-year limitation period which can be extended to two years in exceptional circumstances.
In Italy, there are different crimes against honor. The crime of injury (Article 594 of the Penal Code) refers to offending one’s honor and is punished with up to six months in prison or up to 516 Euros in fine. If the offense refers to the attribution of a determined fact and is committed before many persons, penalties are doubled to up to a year in prison or up to 1032 Euros in fine. In addition, the crime of defamation (Article 595, Penal Code) refers to any other situation involving offending one’s reputation before many persons, and has a penalty of up to a year in prison or up to 1032 Euros in fine, doubled to up to two years in prison or a fine of 2065 Euros if the offense consists of the attribution of a determined fact. When the offense happens by the means of the press or by any other means of publicity, or in a public demonstration, the penalty is of imprisonment from six months to three years, or a fine of at least 516 Euros.
Finally, Article 31 of the Penal Code establishes that crimes committed with abuse of power or with abuse of a profession or art, or with the violation of a duty inherent to that profession or art, lead to the additional penalty of a temporary ban in the exercise of that profession or art.
In the Netherlands, defamation is mostly dealt with by lodging a civil complaint at the District Court. Article 167 of book 6 of the Civil Code holds: “When someone is liable towards another person under this Section because of an incorrect or, by its incompleteness, misleading publication of information of factual nature, the court may, upon a right of action (legal claim) of this other person, order the tortfeasor to publish a correction in a way to be set by court.” If the court grants an injunction, the defendant is usually ordered to delete the publication or to publish a rectification statement.
In Norway, defamation is a crime punished with imprisonment of up to 6 months or a fine (Penal Code, Chapter 23, 246). When the offense is likely to harm one’s “good name” and reputation, or exposes him to hatred, contempt or loss of confidence, the maximum prison term goes up to one year, and if the defamation happens in print, in broadcasting or through an especially aggravating circumstance, imprisonment may reach two years ( 247). When the offender acts “against his better judgment”, he is liable to a maximum prison term of three years ( 248). According to 251, defamation lawsuits must be initiated by the offended person, unless the defamatory act was directed to an indefinite group or a large number of persons, when it may also be prosecuted by public authorities.
Under the new Penal Code, decided upon by the Parliament in 2005, defamation will cease to exist as a crime. Rather, any person who believes he or she has been subject to defamation will have to press civil lawsuits. The Penal Code has not taken effect as of 2010, and there are no set date for this.
In Poland, defamation is a crime that consists of accusing someone of a conduct that may degrade him in public opinion or expose him “to the loss of confidence necessary for a given position, occupation or type of activity”. Penalties include fine, limitation of liberty and imprisonment for up to a year (Article 212.1 of the Criminal Code). The penalty is more severe when the offense happens through the media (Article 212.2). When the insult is public and aims at offending a group of people or an individual because of his or their nationality, ethnicity, race, religion or lack of religion, the maximum prison term is 3 years.
In Portugal, defamation crimes are: “defamation” (article 180 of the Penal Code; up to six months in prison, or a fine of up to 240 days), “injuries” (art. 181; up to 3 months in prison, or a fine up to 120 days), and “offense to the memory of a deceased person” (art. 185; up to 6 months in prison or a fine of up 240 days). Penalties are aggravated in cases with publicity (art. 183; up to two years in prison or at least 120 days of fine) and when the victim is an authority (art.184; all other penalties aggravated by an extra half). There is yet the extra penalty of “public knowledge of the court decision” (costs paid by the defamer) (art. 189 of Penal Code) and also the crime of “incitation of a crime” (article 297; up to 3 years in prison, or fine).
In Spain, the crime of calumny (Article 205 of the Penal Code) consists of offending one’s reputation knowing the falsity of the offense, or with a reckless contempt for truth. Penalties for cases with publicity are imprisonment from six months to two years or a fine of 12 to 24 months-fine, and for other cases only a fine of 6 to 12 months-fine (Article 206). Additionally, the crime of injury (Article 208 of the Penal Code) consists of hurting someone’s dignity, depreciating his reputation or injuring his self-esteem, and is only applicable if the offense, by its nature, effects and circumstances, is considered by the general public as strong. Injury has a penalty of fine from 3 to 7 months-fine, or from 6 to 14 months-fine when it’s strong and with publicity. According to Article 216, an additional penalty to calumny or injury may be imposed by the judge, determining the publication of the judicial decision (in a newspaper) at the expenses of the defamer.
In Sweden, the criminal offense of denigration (rekrnkning) is regulated in Chapter 5 of the Criminal Code. Article 1 regulates defamation (frtal) and consists of pointing out someone as a criminal or as “having a reprehensible way of living”, or of providing information about him “intended to cause exposure to the disrespect of others”. The penalty is a fine. It is generally not a requirement that the statements are untrue, it is enough if they statements are meant to be vilifying.
Article 2 regulates gross defamation (grovt frtal) and has a penalty of up to 2 years in prison or a fine. In judging if the crime is gross, the court should consider whether the information, because of its content or the scope of its dissemination, is calculated to produce “serious damage”. For example, if it can be established that the defendant knowingly conveyed untruths. Article 4 makes it a crime to defame a deceased person according to Article 1 or 2. Most obviously, the paragraph is meant to make it illegal to defame someones parents as a way to bypass the law.
Article 3 regulates other insulting behavior (frolmpning), not characterized under Article 1 or 2 and is punishable with a fine or, if it’s gross, with up to six months of prison or a fine. While an act of defamation involves a third person, it is not a requirement for insulting behavior.
Under exemptions in the Freedom of the Press Act, Chapter 7, both criminal and civil lawsuits may be brought to court under the laws on denigration.
In Switzerland, the crime of “calumny” is punished with a maximum term of three years in prison, or with a fine of at least 30 days-fine, according to Article 174-2 of the Swiss Criminal Code. There is calumny when the offender knows the falsity of his/her allegations and intentionally looks to ruin the reputation of one’s victim (see Articles 174-1 and 174-2).
On the other hand, “difamation” is punished only with a maximum fine of 180 days-fine (Article 173-1). When it comes to a deceased or absent person, there is a limitation to enforce the law up to 30 years (after the death).
Constitutionally under 18 and individuals without prior knowledge to laws or actions leading to deformation of a group or individual are protected until they are made aware. (Reference needed)
With the rise of the internet, and also intranets (closed computer networks), defamatory and calumnus statements may be communicated on webpages or internal memos, without reaching the attention of the courts. Such “closet defamy” may be used to conceal other criminal or negligent acts.
Modern libel and slander laws (as implemented in many but not all Commonwealth nations) in the United Kingdom, and in the Republic of Ireland are originally descended from English defamation law. The history of defamation law in England is somewhat obscure. Civil actions for damages seem to have been relatively frequent so far back as the reign of Edward I (12721307), though it is unknown whether any generally applicable criminal process was in use. The first fully reported case in which libel is affirmed generally to be punishable at common law was tried during the reign of James I. From that time, both the criminal and civil remedies have been in full operation.
English law allows actions for libel to be brought in the High Court for any published statements alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual or individuals (under English law companies are legal persons, and allowed to bring suit for defamation) in a manner that causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of them. Allowable defences are justification (the truth of the statement), fair comment (whether the statement was a view that a reasonable person could have held), absolute privilege (whether the statements were made in Parliament or in court, or whether they were fair reports of allegations in the public interest) and qualified privilege (where it is thought that the freedom of expression outweighs the protection of reputation, but not to the degree of granting absolute immunity). An offer of amends is a barrier to litigation. A defamatory statement is presumed to be false unless the defendant can prove its truth. Furthermore, to collect compensatory damages, a public official or public figure must prove actual malice (knowing falsity or reckless disregard for the truth). A private individual must only prove negligence (not using due care) to collect compensatory damages. To collect punitive damages, all individuals must prove actual malice.
Criminal libel was abolished on 12 January 2010 by section 73 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. There were only a few instances of the criminal libel law being applied. Notably, the Italian anarchist Errico Malatesta was convicted of criminal libel for denouncing the Italian state agent Ennio Belelli in 1912.
In Scots law, as in other jurisdictions that base themselves on the civil law tradition, there is no distinction between libel and slander, and all cases are simply defamation. The equivalent of the defence of justification is “veritas”.
In Argentina, the crimes of calumny and injury are foreseen in the chapter “Crimes Against Honor” (Articles 109 to 117-bis) of the Penal Code. Calumny is defined as “the false imputation to a determined person of a concrete crime that leads to a lawsuit” (Article 109). However, expressions referring to subjects of public interest or that are not assertive don’t constitute calumny. Penalty is a fine from 3,000 to 30,000 pesos. He who intentionally dishonor or discredit a determined person is punished with a penalty from 1,500 to 20,000 pesos (Article 110).
He who publishes or reproduces, by any means, calumnies and injuries made by others, will be punished as responsible himself for the calumnies and injuries whenever its content is not correctly attributed to the corresponding source. Exceptions are expressions referring to subjects of public interest or that are not assertive (see Article 113). When calumny or injury are committed through the press, a possible extra penalty is the publication of the judicial decision at the expenses of the guilty (Article 114). He who passes to someone else information about a person that is included in a personal database and that one knows to be false, is punished with six months to 3 years in prison. When there is harm to somebody, penalties are aggravated by an extra half (Article 117 bis, 2nd and 3rd).
In Brazil, defamation is a crime, which is prosecuted either as “defamation” (three months to a year in prison, plus fine; Article 139 of the Penal Code), “calumny” (six months to two years in prison, plus fine; Article 138 of the PC) and/or “injury” (one to six months in prison, or fine; Article 140), with aggravating penalties when the crime is practiced in public (Article 141, item III) or against a state employee because of his regular duties. Incitation to hatred and violence is also foreseen in the Penal Code (incitation to a crime, Article 286). Moreover, in situations like bullying or moral constraint, defamation acts are also covered by the crimes of “illegal constraint” (Article 146 of the Penal Code) and “arbitrary exercise of discretion” (Article 345 of PC), defined as breaking the law as a vigilante.
In Chile, the crimes of calumny and slanderous allegation (injurias) are covered by Articles 412 to 431 of the Penal Code. Calumny is defined as “the false imputation of a determined crime and that can lead to a public prosecution” (Article 412). If the calumny is written and with publicity, penalty is “lower imprisonment” in its medium degree plus a fine of 11 to 20 “vital wages” when it refers to a crime, or “lower imprisonment” in its minimum degree plus a fine of 6 to 10 “vital wages” when it refers to a misdemeanor (Article 413). If it’s not written or with publicity, penalty is “lower imprisonment” in its minimum degree plus a fine of 6 to 15 “vital wages” when it’s about a crime, or plus a fine of 6 to 10 “vital wages” when it’s about a misdemeanor (Article 414).
According to Article 25 of the Penal Code, “lower imprisonment” is defined as a prison term between 61 days and five years. According to Article 30, the penalty of “lower imprisonment” in its medium or minimum degrees carries with it also the suspension of the exercise of a public position during the prison term.
Article 416 defines injuria as “all expression said or action performed that dishonors, discredits or causes contempt”. Article 417 defines broadly “injurias graves” (grave slander), including the imputation of a crime or misdemeanor that cannot lead to public prosecution, and the imputation of a vice or lack of morality, which are capable of harming considerably the reputation, credit or interests of the offended person. “Grave slander” in written form or with publicity are punished with “lower imprisonment” in its minimum to medium degrees plus a fine of 11 to 20 “vital wages”. Calumny or slander of a deceased person (Article 424) can be prosecuted by the spouse, children, grandchildren, parents, grandparents, siblings and heirs of the offended person. Finally, according to Article 425, in the case of calumnies and slander published in foreign newspapers, are considered liable all those who from Chilean territory sent articles or gave orders for publication abroad, or contributed to the introduction of such newspapers in Chile with the intention of propagating the calumny and slander.
As is the case for most Commonwealth jurisdictions, Canada follows English law on defamation issues (although the law in the province of Quebec has roots in both the English and the French tradition). In common law, defamation covers any communication that tends to lower the esteem of the subject in the minds of ordinary members of the public. Probably true statements are not excluded, nor are political opinions. Intent is always presumed, and it is not necessary to prove that the defendant intended to defame. In Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto (1995), the Supreme Court of Canada rejected the actual malice test adopted in the US case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. Once a claim has been made, the defendant may avail themselves of a defense of justification (the truth), fair comment, responsible communication, or privilege. Publishers of defamatory comments may also use the defense of innocent dissemination where they had no knowledge of the nature of the statement, it was not brought to their attention, and they were not negligent. 
In Quebec, defamation was originally grounded in the law inherited from France. To establish civil liability for defamation, the plaintiff must establish, on a balance of probabilities, the existence of an injury (fault), a wrongful act (damage), and of a causal connection (link of causality) between the two. A person who has made defamatory remarks will not necessarily be civilly liable for them. The plaintiff must further demonstrate that the person who made the remarks committed a wrongful act. Defamation in Quebec is governed by a reasonableness standard, as opposed to strict liability; a defendant who made a false statement would not be held liable if it was reasonable to believe the statement was true.
Regarding defamation on the internet, in 2011 the Supreme Court of Canada held that a person who posts hyperlinks on a website which lead to another site with defamatory content is not publishing that defamatory material for the purposes of libel and defamation law.
In Canada, the so-called “blasphemous libel” is a crime punished with a maximum term of two years in prison, according to Article 296-1 of the Canadian Criminal Code, as well as the crime of “defamatory libel” (Article 298), which receives the same penalty (see Article 301). In the specific case of a “libel known to be false” (Article 300), the prison term increases to a maximum of five years. According to Article 298, a defamatory libel “is matter published, without lawful justification or excuse, that is likely to injure the reputation of any person by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or that is designed to insult the person of or concerning whom it is published”.
The criminal portion of the law has been rarely applied. In the most recent case, in 1994 Bradley Waugh and Ravin Gill were charged with criminal libel for publicly accusing six prison guards of the racially motivated murder of a black inmate.
According to an Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe official report on defamation laws issued in 2005, 57 persons in Canada were accused of defamation, libel and insult, among which 23 were convicted 9 to prison sentences, 19 to probation and one to a fine. The average period in prison was 270 days, and the maximum sentence was 1460 days of imprisonment.
The origins of US defamation law pre-date the American Revolution; one famous 1734 case involving John Peter Zenger sowed the seed for the later establishment of truth as an absolute defense against libel charges. The outcome of the case is one of jury nullification, and not a case where the defense acquitted itself as a matter of law. (Previous English defamation law had not provided the defense of truth.) Though the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was designed to protect freedom of the press, for most of the history of the United States, the Supreme Court neglected to use it to rule on libel cases. This left libel laws, based upon the traditional common law of defamation inherited from the English legal system, mixed across the states. The 1964 case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, however, dramatically altered the nature of libel law in the United States by elevating the fault element for public officials to actual malicethat is, public figures could win a libel suit only if they could demonstrate the publisher’s “knowledge that the information was false” or that the information was published “with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not”. Later Supreme Court cases dismissed the claim for libel and forbade libel claims for statements that are so ridiculous to be clearly not true, or that involve opinionated subjects such as one’s physical state of being.[clarification needed] Recent[when?] cases[which?] have addressed defamation law and the Internet.
Defamation law in the United States is much less plaintiff-friendly than its counterparts in European and the Commonwealth countries. In the United States, a comprehensive discussion of what is and is not libel or slander is difficult, because the definition differs between different states, and under federal law. Some states codify what constitutes slander and libel together into the same set of laws. Criminal libel is rare or nonexistent, depending on the state. Defenses to libel that can result in dismissal before trial include the statement being one of opinion rather than fact or being “fair comment and criticism”. Truth is always a defense.
However, American writers and publishers are protected[clarification needed] from foreign libel judgments not compliant with the US First Amendment, or libel tourism, by the SPEECH Act, which was passed by the 111th United States Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama in 2010. It is based on the New York State 2008 Libel Terrorism Protection Act (also known as “Rachels Law,” after Rachel Ehrenfeld who initiated the state and federal laws). Both the New York state law and the federal law were passed unanimously.
Most states recognize that some categories of statements are considered to be defamatory per se, such that people making a defamation claim for these statements do not need to prove that the statement was defamatory.
The record libel verdict in the United States was rendered in 1997 against Dow Jones in favor of MMAR Group Inc., awarding $222.7 million. However, the verdict was dismissed in 1999 amid allegations that MMAR failed to disclose audiotapes made by its employees.
The record verdict rendered in favour of an individual was the award of $35.5 million against the Russian newspaper Izvestia in favor of entrepreneur Alex Konanykhin, who also won a $3 million judgment against Kommersant, another Russian newspaper.
The four (4) categories of slander that are actionable per se are (i) accusing someone of a crime; (ii) alleging that someone has a foul or loathsome disease; (iii) adversely reflecting on a person’s fitness to conduct their business or trade; and (iv) imputing serious sexual misconduct. Here again, the plaintiff need only prove that someone had published the statement to any third party. No proof of special damages is required. In May 2012 an appeals court in New York, citing changes in public policy with regard to homosexuality, ruled that describing someone as gay is not defamation.
At the federal level, there are no criminal defamation or insult laws in the United States. However, on the state level, 19 states and 2 territories as of 2005 had criminal defamation laws on the books: Colorado (Colorado Revised Statutes, 18-13-105 – repealed in 2012), Florida (Florida Statutes, 836.01836.11), Georgia, (O.C.G.A. 16-11-40), Idaho (Idaho Code, 18-4801-18-4809), Kansas (Kansas Statute Annotated, 21-4004), Louisiana (Louisiana R.S., 14:47), Michigan (Michigan Compiled Laws, 750.370), Minnesota (Minnesota Statutes. 609.765), Montana (Montana Code Annotated, 13-35-234), Nevada (Nevada Revised Statutes 200.510200.560), New Hampshire (New Hampshire Revised Statute Annotated, 644:11), New Mexico (New Mexico Statute Annotated, 30-11-1), North Carolina (North Carolina General Statutes, 1447), North Dakota (North Dakota Century Code, 12.1-15-01), Oklahoma (Oklahoma Statutes, tit. 27 771781), Utah (Utah Code Annotated, 76-9-404), Virginia (Virginia Code Annotated, 18.2-417), Washington (Washington Revised Code, 9.58.010) (This appears to have been repealed: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/dispo.aspx?cite=9.58.010 ), Wisconsin (Wisconsin Statutes, 942.01), Puerto Rico (Puerto Rico Laws, tit. 33, 41014104) and Virgin Islands (Virgin Islands Code, Title 14, 1172).
Crimes of calumny, defamation and slanderous allegation (injurias) have been abolished in the Federal Penal Code as well as in 15 states. These crimes remain in the penal codes of 17 states, where penalty is, in average, from 1.1 years (for ones convicted for slanderous allegation) to 3.8 years in jail (for those convicted for calumny).
Australian law tends to follow English law on defamation issues, although there are differences introduced by statute and by the implied constitutional limitation on governmental powers to limit speech of a political nature established in Lange v Australian Broadcasting Association (1997). It is interesting to note that in Common Law, not all statements that are injurious to a person are necessarily defamatory. The statement must be about that particular person for it to be categorised as defamatory. 
Since the introduction of the uniform defamation laws in 2005 the distinction between slander and libel has been abolished.
A recent judgment of the High Court of Australia has significant consequences on interpretation of the law. On 10 December 2002, the High Court of Australia handed down its judgment in the Internet defamation dispute in the case of Gutnick v Dow Jones. The judgment established that Internet-published foreign publications that defamed an Australian in their Australian reputation could be held accountable under Australian libel law. The case gained worldwide attention and is often said, inaccurately, to be the first of its kind. A similar case that predates Gutnick v Dow Jones is Berezovsky v Forbes in England.
Slander has been occasionally used to justify (and with some success) physical reaction, however usually the punishment for assault is only slightly reduced when there is evidence of provocation.
Among the various common law jurisdictions, some Americans have presented a visceral and vocal reaction to the Gutnick decision. On the other hand, the decision mirrors similar decisions in many other jurisdictions such as England, Scotland, France, Canada and Italy.
Uniform legislation was passed in Australia in 2005 severely restricting the right of corporations to sue for defamation (see, e.g., Defamation Act 2005 (Vic), s 9). The only corporations excluded from the general ban are those not for profit or those with less than 10 employees and not affiliated with another company. Corporations may, however, still sue for the tort of injurious falsehood, where the burden of proof is greater than for mere defamation, because the plaintiff must show that the defamation was made with malice and resulted in economic loss.
The 2005 reforms also established across all Australian states the availability of truth as an unqualified defense; previously a number of states only allowed a defense of truth with the condition that a public benefit existed.
The Hebrew term lashon hara is the halakhic term for derogatory speech about another person.Lashon hara differs from defamation in that its focus is on the use of true speech for a wrongful purpose, rather than falsehood and harm arising. By contrast, hotzaat shem ra (“spreading a bad name”), also called hotzaat diba, consists of untrue remarks, and is best translated as “slander” or “defamation”. Hotzaat shem ra is worse, and consequently a graver sin, than lashon hara.
In Roman Catholic theology there are seen to be two sins, that of lying and that of impinging on a person’s right to a reputation. It is considered to be closed to detraction, the sin of revealing previously unknown faults or sins of another person to a third person.
Symbols are powerful communication tools. They convey considerable meaning in an immediately recognizable form, and the power they can have is tremendous. Consider the reverence or passion that the American flag, the Star of David, and the Christian cross evoke, and the impact of symbols is readily apparent.
Unfortunately, symbols can convey negative connotations as well as positive ones. Some symbols are meant to evoke feelings of hate or anger, or to spark fear and insecurity. Hate symbols, for instance, can be found scrawled on the outside walls of synagogues, churches and schools; tattooed on the bodies of white supremacists; or displayed on jewelry and clothing. Extremists use these symbols because it gives them a sense of power and belonging, as well as a quick way of identifying others who share their beliefs.
This database provides an overview of many of the symbols most frequently used by a variety of white supremacist groups and movements, as well as some other types of hate groups.
All the symbols depicted here must be evaluated in the context in which they appear. Few symbols ever represent just one idea or are used exclusively by one group. For example, the Confederate Flag is a symbol that is frequently used by white supremacists but which also has been used by people and groups that are not racist. Similarly, other symbols in this database may be significant to people who are not extreme or racist. The descriptions here point out significant multiple meanings but may not be able to relay every possible meaning of a particular symbol.
Racism is the belief that a particular race is superior or inferior to another, that a persons social and moral traits are predetermined by his or her inborn biological characteristics. Racial separatism is the belief, most of the time based on racism, that different races should remain segregated and apart from one another.
Racism has existed throughout human history. It may be defined as the hatred of one person by another — or the belief that another person is less than human — because of skin color, language, customs, place of birth or any factor that supposedly reveals the basic nature of that person. It has influenced wars, slavery, the formation of nations, and legal codes.
During the past 500-1000 years, racism on the part of Western powers toward non-Westerners has had a far more significant impact on history than any other form of racism (such as racism among Western groups or among Easterners, such as Asians, Africans, and others). The most notorious example of racism by the West has been slavery, particularly the enslavement of Africans in the New World (slavery itself dates back thousands of years). This enslavement was accomplished because of the racist belief that Black Africans were less fully human than white Europeans and their descendants.
This belief was not “automatic”: that is, Africans were not originally considered inferior. When Portuguese sailors first explored Africa in the 15th and 16th centuries, they came upon empires and cities as advanced as their own, and they considered Africans to be serious rivals. Over time, though, as African civilizations failed to match the technological advances of Europe, and the major European powers began to plunder the continent and forcibly remove its inhabitants to work as slave laborers in new colonies across the Atlantic, Africans came to be seen as a deficient “species,” as “savages.” To an important extent, this view was necessary to justify the slave trade at a time when Western culture had begun to promote individual rights and human equality. The willingness of some Africans to sell other Africans to European slave traders also led to claims of savagery, based on the false belief that the “dark people” were all kinsmen, all part of one society – as opposed to many different, sometimes warring nations.
One important feature of racism, especially toward Blacks and immigrant groups, is clear in attitudes regarding slaves and slavery. Jews are usually seen by anti-Semites as subhuman but also superhuman: devilishly cunning, skilled, and powerful. Blacks and others are seen by racists as merely subhuman, more like beasts than men. If the focus of anti-Semitism is evil, the focus of racism is inferiority — directed toward those who have sometimes been considered to lack even the ability to be evil (though in the 20th century, especially, victims of racism are often considered morally degraded).
In the second half of the 19th century, Darwinism, the decline of Christian belief, and growing immigration were all perceived by many white Westerners as a threat to their cultural control. European and, to a lesser degree, American scientists and philosophers devised a false racial “science” to “prove” the supremacy of non-Jewish whites. While the Nazi annihilation of Jews discredited most of these supposedly scientific efforts to elevate one race over another, small numbers of scientists and social scientists have continued throughout the 20th century to argue the inborn shortcomings of certain races, especially Blacks. At the same time, some public figures in the American Black community have championed the supremacy of their own race and the inferiority of whites – using nearly the identical language of white racists.
All of these arguments are based on a false understanding of race; in fact, contemporary scientists are not agreed on whether race is a valid way to classify people. What may seem to be significant “racial” differences to some people – skin color, hair, facial shape – are not of much scientific significance. In fact, genetic differences within a so-called race may be greater than those between races. One philosopher writes: “There are few genetic characteristics to be found in the population of England that are not found in similar proportions in Zaire or in China.those differences that most deeply affect us in our dealings with each other are not to any significant degree biologically determined.”
Claiming that they are an endangered species accounting for a mere 9% of the worlds population, white supremacists are reacting with anger to what they view as societal focus on creating white guilt and hatred against white people, white heritage and Christianity.
The hype spreading through their ranks warns of their cultural cleansing and ultimately white genocide. This rhetoric is not based on any new concepts, but there are some new irritants that are galvanizing white supremacists and revitalizing their notion that without action the white race is doomed to extinction.
The most recent irritant stems from the revelation that racist Dylann Storm Roof, the alleged murderer of nine black parishioners at a Charleston, South Carolina church, used the Confederate flag as a symbol ofhate.
White supremacists are incensed over the recent nationwide movement to rid public parks and buildings, license plates, and retail stores of Confederate flags after the Charleston shooting. One Klan group is planning a July rally to protest of the removal of the Confederate flag from South Carolinas Statehouse.
In addition to white supremacists mounting frustration over public disdain for the Confederate flag are the numerous petitions and efforts to rename dozens of parks, bridges and university buildings which are named after confederate soldiers and/or Klansmen.
The frustration over these attempts is not new. In 2013, approximately 75 white supremacists protested the renaming of three Memphis, Tennessee, parks previously named in honor of the Confederacy, its leader, and a Klan leader. This protest demonstrated unusual unity among white supremacists with three different Klan groups, a neo-Nazi group, and members of several racist skinhead groups in attendance.
Another issue disturbing white supremacists is their perception of the way the media covers crime. Extremists believe black on white crime is under-reported compared to white on black crime. This viewpoint was recently compounded following media reports regarding the killing of black men by white police officers, the black lives matter movement, and the subsequent civil unrest.
One noteworthy reaction by white supremacist to these media reports has been their support for law enforcement officers, which they have normally withheld. In 2014, at least three Klan members attended an Imperial, Missouri, rally in support of Darren Wilson, the police officer who fatally shot unarmed black robbery suspect Michael Brown in Ferguson.
More surprisingly, due to their long standing cultural disdain for police, a small group of racist skinheads recently demonstrated for a week in May 2015 in support of police in Olympia, Washington, after an officer shot two unarmed blackmen.
White supremacists are also mimicking the black lives matter slogan. Not only did white supremacist leaders of the neo-Nazi National Alliance and Traditionalist Youth Network interrupt a May 2015 black lives matter press conference in Cincinnati, but members of the Aryan Renaissance Society distributed white lives matter fliers in Rhode Island and Connecticut lastmonth.
Leo Frank taken from the Tower to the Coroner’s Inquest, Atlanta, Georgian, Monday, May 5, 1913, on the left is Chief of Detectives Lanford and on the right (image cut out) is Chief Beavers
The procedural machinations of the official Mary Phagan murder investigation wasted no time in efforts regarding uncovering the material circumstances of the crime.
The Coroner’s Inquest
Presided over by the Fulton County Coroner Paul V. Donehoo were a half-petite jury of prominent men from the community, who opened the coroner’s inquest investigation on Wednesday morning, April 30, 1913.
The coroner’s inquest began shortly after nine o’clock after the jury was sworn under oath. The empaneled tribunal in total consisted of seven men (1 + 6), the coroner and six inquest jurymen: (1.) H. Ashford, foreman, (2.) Glenn Dewberry, (3.) J. Hood, (4.) C. Langford, (5.) John Miller, (6.) C. Sheats, (7.) Judge of the Inquest Jury, The Fulton County Coroner, Paul Donehoo.
Within the two cross-examination sessions of Leo Frank, he was very specific that he did not use the second floor bathroom ALL DAY when he testified under oath at the coroner’s inquest — not that he didn’t remember — but that he DID NOT USE the bathroom on April 26, 1913. He appeared to be distancing himself (verbally and mentally) from the bathroom area of the second floor, which was located in the metal room. There were no other bathrooms on the second floor of the National Pencil Company, except in the metal room (Defendent’s Exhibit 61). This was thought of as a throw-away detail until it became a link in the case.
Caught in a Lie: The Perjury of Lemmie A. Quinn
A controversial new development occurred concerning Leo M. Frank’s murder timeline alibi about him never leaving his office on April 26, 1913, between noon and 12:45 p.m. Leo Frank said he had forgotten for the first week of the murder investigation to bring forward Lemmie A. Quinn, foreman of the metal room, a key witness at the coroner’s inquest and later at the Frank trial. He was criminally impeached during the appeals after the revelation that he was offering bribes to witnesses to change their stories. At the coroner’s inquest, Lemmie Quinn came forward to provide testimony that sounded contrived and did not pass the common sense test.
Quinn told the coroner’s inquest jury, he had went back to the pencil factory and specifically into Leo M. Frank’s office at 12:20 to 12:25 to talk about a baseball bet with Mr. Herbert George Schiff, but Schiff was not supposed to be at the factory at all that day because it was a state holiday and everyone was given the day off.
Herbert G. Schiff later prided himself at the Leo Frank trial for never missing a day of work in five years (BOE, Herbert Schiff, 1913) except once unintentionally during a disastrous flood. Leo Frank gave the false impression that Schiff missed work that day to support the Quinn appearance.
Several employees close to Leo Frank would later provide a cacophony of contradictory information about Schiff.
The young Herbert G. Schiff became the superintendent at the NPCo after Leo Frank.
If Lemmie Quinn was at the NPCo factory on Confederate Memorial Day, Saturday, April 26, 1913, at 12:20 p.m., asking Leo Frank, “Where is Herbert G. Schiff?” and intimating he had not come to work yet, the average person in 1913 was sarcastically asking why Herbert Schiff was NOT at work on a state holiday in the shuttered factory?
The coroner’s inquest jury saw right through it, and ostensibly the falsified testimony of Quinn was meant to shrink the plausible time Leo M. Frank would have to bludgeon, rape, and strangle Mary Phagan by fifteen minutes from formerly 12:02 p.m. to 12:35 p.m., to 12:02 p.m. to 12:19 p.m. However, the importance of Lemmie A. Quinn’s manufactured testimony was it added eyewitness testimony strength to Leo Frank’s alibi that he never left his office from at least noon to 12:35 p.m.
Lemmie Quinn’s perjury shrunk Leo M. Frank’s unaccounted time on that fateful Saturday, but it still left the time frame Mary Phagan arrived at Frank’s office wide open and unaccounted for.
Three Separate and Distinct Mary Phagan Arrival Times Would Later Become Four
According to Leo Frank:
1. Mary Phagan arrived in his second-floor business office at 12:03 p.m. on April 26, 1913–this information was given to detectives on Sunday, April 27, 1913, in Leo Frank’s office.
2. Mary Phagan arrived in his second-floor business office at “12:05 pm and 12:10 p.m., maybe 12:07 p.m.” according to Leo Frank in State’s Exhibit B, given to the police on Monday, April 28, 1913.
3. Mary Phagan arrived in his second-floor business office at 12:10 p.m. on April 26, 1913–Frank gave this information at the coroner’s inquest.
At the time of the coroner’s inquest, Leo Frank had provided three different times that Mary Phagan had arrived in his office.
Conclusion of the Coroner’s Inquest and Jury
Coroner Paul Donehoo and his inquest jury of six men empaneled, questioned over one hundred factory employees and dozens of other various associated people.
The coroner’s inquest combed through the factory to examine the layout and permutations of the murder.
The weeklong inquest and testimony provided under oath left strong suspicion directed upon Leo M. Frank when Thursday, May 8, 1913, the Mary Phagan Inquest drew to a close.
At 6:30 p.m., the jury went into executive session to hear the testimony of Dr. J. W. Hurt, county physician, on the what had happened to Mary Phagan shortly before her death and what was the likely cause. The doctor addressed the jury for twenty minutes.
Donehoo convened to hear the jury findings:
“We, the coroner’s jury, empaneled and sworn by Paul Donehoo, coroner of Fulton County, to inquire into the death of Mary Phagan, whose dead body now lies before us, after having heard the evidence of sworn witnesses, and the statement of Dr. J. W. Hurt, County Physician, find that the deceased came to her death from strangulation. We recommend that Leo M. Frank and Newt Lee be held under charges of murder for further investigation by the Fulton County grand jury.
Homer C. Ashford, Foreman Dr. J. W. Hurt, County Physician”
Coroner and Inquest Jury Verdict: The Coroner Approved the Unanimous Finding of the Inquest Jury
The coroner and his inquest jury of six men together voted unanimously 7 to 0 recommending Leo M. Frank be bound over for murder and investigated further by a grand jury of twenty-three men, which ironically included four Jews.
Coroner Paul Donehoo ordered that Leo Frank be bound over for murder and Newt Lee was to be held as a material witness.
Still yet to be uncovered was who wrote the murder notes that appeared to be written by a Negro in Ebonics.
Police Delivered the News to Leo Frank and Newt Lee
Deputy Plennie Minor delivered the unanimous verdict of the coroner’s inquest jury to Leo M. Frank, who was being held in the infamous Atlanta Police Tower. Frank was sitting perusing a local daily newspaper, Atlanta Constitution, May 8, 1913, at the time at the time of the message. When Deputy Plennie Minor approached Leo M. Frank and told him about the unanimous verdict of the inquest jury, which had ordered that Frank be held for murder and for a more thorough investigation by the grand jury.
Newt Lee slumped his head dejectedly when the bad news was delivered to him. However, Leo Frank insolently replied that it was no more than he had expected and continued crackling away and folding the big sheets of his newspaper.
In total, more than two hundred witnesses, factory workers, and affiliates had been subpoenaed providing sworn testimony at the Inquest.
What stood out the most from all the inquest testimony was that Leo Frank specified he never went to the bathroom that day, and he held onto that position for 3.5 months until he made a startling revelation during his trial on August 18, 1913.
Left Detective John R. Black, on the Right Pinkerton Detective Harry K. Scott, Center Bottom Newton “Newt” Lee
One can’t help but wonder if the grand jury transcript was also purged in an effort to expunge some interesting testimony that led to the unanimous indictment of Leo Frank by twenty-one jurors, including four Jews.
The ace up Dorsey’s sleeve for the grand jury investigation, Monteen Stover.