The National Jewish Democratic Council may have bit off more than it could chew with its allegations about Republican donor Sheldon Adelson. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has apologized for making similar charges that the casino mogul profited from prostitution in his Macau property in China. But the NJDC has yet to back off on its attack, and the result is that Adelson has filed a $60 million libel lawsuit against the group.
Optimistic Jewish Democrats may hope the group will be able to raise some money from liberals who hate the billionaire who has contributed record amounts to Republican candidates as well as many Jewish philanthropic causes. But the problem with the NJDC posing as a martyr being harassed by the deep-pocketed conservative is that their behavior has been indefensible. Disagree with Adelson’s stands on the issues and his taste in candidates if you like, but calling someone a pimp without a shred of proof is not the stuff of First Amendment poster children. Proving libel is difficult, but on the face of it, the NJDC is going to be hard-pressed to prove its mudslinging wasn’t knowingly false as well as malicious.
The NJDC put a brave face on the mess they talked themselves into with the following statement:
We will not be bullied into submission, and we will not be silenced by power. This is not Putin’s Russia, and in America, political speech regarding one of the most well-known public figures in our country is a fundamental right. One would think the person making greatest use of the Citizens United ruling would understand this. To be sure, referencing mainstream press accounts examining the conduct of a public figure and his business ventures—as we did—is wholly appropriate. Indeed, it is both an American and a Jewish obligation to ask hard questions of powerful individuals like Mr. Adelson, just as it is incumbent upon us to praise his wonderful philanthropic endeavors.
We know that we were well within our rights, and we will defend ourselves against this SLAPP suit as far and as long as necessary. We simply will not be bullied, and we will not be silenced.
They are right that political speech is protected, a point that the group — like other opponents of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling — often forgets. But there is a not so fine line between criticizing a public figure and spreading allegations that he is involved in prostitution. There was plenty of room for them to take shots at Adelson without using a palpably false smear. Even billionaires have a right to protect themselves against that sort of libel, and it will now be up to the NJDC to wise up and make an apology or face some serious economic consequences.
Even more to the point, the NJDC shouldn’t be dragging Judaism into this sordid fight they’ve started. Far from it being a specifically Jewish obligation to raise such issues, there is actually a specific religious prohibition against this sort of libel. Indeed, if there is anything that defines the concept of lashon hara or “evil tongue” — the provision in Jewish religious law against defamatory speech — it is calling a political opponent a pimp. For them to claim there was any such duty to smear him in this manner makes a mockery of Judaism.
Given the egregious nature of the NJDC’s offense, Adelson is well within his rights in pursuing a libel suit. Contrary to the NJDC’s whiny defense, this is not a SLAPP suit intended to silence legitimate or even outlandish political speech. Associating someone with prostitution is simply beyond the pale, even in the nasty world of politics.
That’s a lesson the group is about to learn to its sorrow. Though they may sound tough now, there’s little doubt they will soon be on their knees either begging Adelson to accept an apology or asking a court to let them off only because they didn’t know how false their wild accusations actually were.
Nice to find that not ALL Republicans are wimps. I guess just Boehner, Romney, Cantor, McConnell…
For your information, "loshon horah" is what you call evil words that are actually true. It is still not permissible to spread them. Lies are called "rechilut" and it is explicitly mentioned in the Torah- "lo telech rochil beamecho" do not become a lie-spreader amongst your people".
I agree that it is lashon hora only if it is true. But rechilus – tale bearing – means relating information likely to cause anger or ill will, such as "Do you know the disgusting things Ploni said about you to NBC News?" n nIf the NJDC's charges were true, they would be lashon hara — UNLESS the information was related for certain constructive purposes, and even then only if the speaker knows first hand that the information is true, does not exaggerate, and meets certain other strict conditions. n nIf the charges were false, they were Motzei Shem Ra (character assassination), an even more serious offense than lashon hara, and one for which there are no permitted exceptions.
true about motzi shem ra… whatever the heading , it was a despicable ad.
It's worse than either. It is a desecration of the Ninth Cmmandment itself: Thou shall not bear false witness! nThe restriction is against saying something you KNOW to be false, and the only way to prove it isn't is to go to a court and swear that you know it to be true
"Definition of Lashon Hara: Negative Comments, Whether True or False." n nLashon Hara is about negative comments, not whether comments are true or false. In this case, they were definitely false. All Jewish Democrats need to speak out against using this type of defamatory language during the presidential election. Either you believe in the Torah and Judaism or you don't.
I wonder why Adelson stopped at 50 mil in punitive damages – if I were him, I would have doubled it, and announced at the same time that I would not be accepting any private or public apologies, nor would I enter into arbitration …. but that I would seek redress SOLELY through the court system. n nAngry? Over the top? No, I don't think so. People in this country need to learn that making wild, unsubstantiated accusations, especially against someone with the financial ability to mount a serious counterattack, is a dumb move – ESPECIALLY if they can't prove it. If they have proof, then it should all come out in court. If not …. then suffer the consequences of making a foolish decision.
Sheldon Adelson's response is appropriate. The NJDC has it coming. n
I agree with Michaelmas12. n nand Adelson has a right to defend himself. n nand the NJDC stopped practicing Judaism a long time ago. The have been worshiping the false Idol of "Liberalism" for decades, and the "priests" of their religion changed their tenets to "Progressivism" (an off shoot of Leftism) with out many of their "congregants" knowledge. n nWhen you have a religion that is based on principles given by men, (instead of G-d), your morals are what ever this weeks pulpit sermon from the NYT opinion page happens to be.
Is the NJDC so desperate that they would engage in these shameful smears? How sad. I say this as a registered Democrat.
(a) so desperate that they would engage in these shameful smears? (b) How sad. (c) as a registered Democrat n n(a) Yes, they are. n(b) Yes, it is; and n(c) Yes, I was too, from 1972 until the 2000 elections.
It's a nuisance suit. It will be thrown out by the trial court, and won't be heard by appellate courts for years. n nBut what really interests me is that Commentary now cites lashon hara as a reason for opponents of its view to keep quiet, yet doesn't seem to consider the effect that abiding by this principle would have on its own continued attacks upon Jews with whom it disagrees, including the language it uses in this very article. n nI'd also be interested in any support it has from Torah legal scholars.
First, thanks for alerting me to the thumbs down feature. I am one of the people who gave your comment a thumbs down. You have misrepresented Commentary's purpose in citing lashon hara. Judginig you in the scale of merit, perhaps you simply read too quickly. Commentary has not cited lashon hara as a reason for opponents of its view to keep quiet, but rather as a reason not to make unsubstantiated charges of illegal or immoral conduct against people, even those with whom one disagrees politically. n nBy the way, as far as I know you have yet to say a critical word about the NJDC smears against Adelson, while being quick to cite halacha as a reason e.g. not to criticize Jewish leftists who apologize for condemning vicious anti-Semitten.
what do you mean " as far as I know you have yet to say a critical word about the NJDC smears against Adelson,"? you and I had a strident debate on that subject in another thread. How dare you lie about me in this manner?
If by "strident debate" you mean calling me names, questioning why I bother to post, suggesting that I seek therapy, and accusing me of cowardice and of having an unworthy personal vendetta against you,* then yes, I suppose we did. But if you mean that you said anything remotely disapproving of the NJDC smears, then you would be doing me a favor by calling it to my attention. n n*In fairness to you, I will note that some of these topics may have been in other threads going on at roughly the same time. It seems though that we are about to repeat the same process here. If that is the case, do me the favor of not replying. If it is not the case, do me the favor of telling me that you disapprove of the NJDC smear against Adelson, and doing so without engaging in name calling or in outrage (mock or otherwise) directed at me. n nIf you tell me that you have already unequivocally condemned the smears, I will take your word for it and will assume that I either missed your post to that effect or had forgotten it among all the static from our exchange on the previous threads. n nAnd by the way, the thumbs down (or at least the 1st one) on your reply to me is from me.
take my word for it, then, because I'm not going to take the time to find where I said it and you ignored it. And yes, I disapprove of any real smear that NJDC made against Adelson, just as they did in their retraction. n n I will point out again that 1) NJDC cited claims made by Jacobs in his lawsuit against Adelson 2) that NJDC did not aim its criticism at Adelson as much as they aimed it at a GOP that condemns the businesses from which Adelson profits; 3) the libel suit against NJDC is bound to fail at least until it gets to SCOTUS, and then will succeed only if the Court reversed 50 years of law in this area. The question will be whether a Judge on the District Court is ready to sanction him for bringing a spurious suit. n
And once again, I challenge you to meet me in open, public debate.
I wasn't sure whether to respond at all, or whether to respond by telling you to grow up or by observing that you have given me no particular reason to trust in your bona fides and having given me ample reason not to. So I will split the difference by doing 2 and 3 on this post and deciding whether to do #1 on the equally silly attacks that you will surely post in response. For now, I have work to do. You may toss your favors on the thorns.
to grow up because I challenge you to come out from behind your anonymity and dare to make the same comments to my face that you make from the shadows? You, sir, are a coward.
As opposed to your brave example. As well as your fine example of civility.
As opposed to your fine example of courage and civility? n nAnd what do you hope to gain by continuing to personalize our exchanges?
You are simply avoiding the issue. One who uses the condescending tone you do in all your comments cannot be at the same time offended when the object of your thinly veiled scorn refuses to play the effete game of diplomatic superciliousness and calls you on your behavior. I challenge you to meet me face to face, so I can see if you dare be so superior to a real life opponent. I doubt it, and with your main weapon lost I doubt you could ever win a debate on the facts. I tire of having to put up with your insulting syntax in order to get to the nub of your argument.
No, to grow up because you insist on personalizing the exchanges. And for thinking that I have an obligation to prove something to you. Or that anyone would be impressed by your claims of bravery. And for thinking that only you have a reason to keep your identity unknown on this blog. I could go on but what point would it serve?
excuses, excuses, excuses. I offered you the opportunity long ago to name a Rabbi I could contact without knowing your identity. You declined. Your syntax is condescending and supercilious, and you are intelligent enough to phrase your argument in a way that you can claim does not personalize your insulting attitude. And I am not asking anyone to be impressed by my claims of bravery, but just to see you for the coward that you are.
As if I had nothing better to do than to pick up and meet you in the DC area, or even 5 blocks from my home. And once I did meet you, there would be no assurance that you would respect my privacy. I need lectures from you neither on courage nor on civility, condescening or supecilious syntax, or insulting attitude.
the one thing I readily accept is that you don't need lectures from me on "condescening or supecilious syntax, or insulting attitude." If I thought those were meritorious skills, I'd be seeking instruction from you. n n You know what I think of you, and I can speculate what you think of me at no cost to you. G-d forbid that either of us needs the help of the other some day. Let me apologize now for whatever behavior a competent third party would rule offensive to you, since I doubt I will have another chance to be sure you see it before the Yom Tovim. n nI tire of this. Perhaps were you my only adversary here, I could more enjoyably continue the dualogue, but given the number of other less well thought out comments which are easier to answer, I think that the effort that is required to overcome your nauseating tone of self satisfaction (which, if truly not intended, is so offensive that you really should practice it in front of someone who doesn't know you yet but is worthy of your respect so they can listen and give you feedback) is just not cost effective on any level about which I have any knowledge. Quite simply, I perceive you as meanspirted enough to repulse me, and as the younger generations say "I don't have time for this shit". n nI don't expect you to take my advice, given the acrimony our interchanges have engendered. I would be truly sorry if I thought that a discussion of this would have been welcomed earlier by you had I not been so impatient as to refrain from mirroring you in my replies; but somehow, I doubt that would have been the case, nAgain, please mochel me.
I couldn't have said it better myself; my sentiments exactly, and I say that in all sincerity. n nAnd my guess is that any third parties have long since tired of our exchanges as well.
I take it that you mean to mochel me. nJust as an aside, someone (who I am presuming from your expression of sincerity is not you) deemed that which you claim you couldn't have said better was worthy of a thumbs down. nI rest my case.
I am willing to mochel you when I receive a sincere request to do so. Not a backhanded instance of the same conduct that you have asked mechila for.
Of course my request was sincere, that is why I repeated it at the end of my critique. I also took your comment that mine were your "sentiments exactly" "in all sincerity reflected a desire to offer the same level of apology as had I. I suppose now I have to rethink my decision that it was not you who gave my comment a "thumbs down". It would of course be more consonant with your view of our lack of observers…. n n I don't believe it is necessary, but again I ask that you mochel me. On second thought, never mind. I will ask again after you have asked. I think that's only fair.
You are correct, my response was ambiguous. Let me clear that up. "I could not have said it better" was meant to refer to your remarks in that post, including "I don't have time for this", up to but not including the request for mechila in the final sentence. n nYou have said that my attempts (however clumsy) at tact, or cushioning are offensive to you. So I will say straight out that when someone asks me for mechila but precedes and follows the request with the same kind of remarks that he wants mechila for, I cannot view the request as sincere.
As you point out, the Yomim Tovim are approaching, and there is no assurance that we will see posts from each other before then. n nI do mochel you. In many ways (and notwithstanding what I posted a few minutes ago), I wish we could start over from our initial exchange. n nAnd I ask that you mochel me for any offense or distress that I have caused you.
"I couldn't have said it better myself; my sentiments exactly, and I say that in all sincerity." nAnd I say that in all sincerity. I of course, mochel you. Please believe that I wish you and yours at least as well as you wish me. Perhaps we both can be less pessimistic about the outcome should we ever need each other's help. n
and to those anonymous little "thumbs downers", if any of you think that your behavior is anything but adolescent at best, sadistic and psychopathic at worst, ask your rabbi or some competent mental health professional. Someday you are going to commit an evil act like this in a forum where you are not safe from identification, and suffer the consequences. On that day, and from that day forward, you will be unable to forget that I warned you. How do you intend to ask me to mochel you? This will remain as a stain on your soul.
Accepted in whole heartedly, and with thanks. Have a good Shabbos. Time for me to get out of here and get home.
Thank you. I will take you at your word that you previously condemned the smear, even if you are not willing to take me at my word that I did not deliberatey ignore your condemnation of the smear. And I will assume that you meant to say "the businesses from which Jacobs alleges Adelson profits", so as not to be spreading motzi shem ra yourself (unless of course you have some knowledge that Jacob's charges are true). I disagree with points (2) and (3) in your second paragraph, but that is neither here nor there.
The petition has been taken down, so I can only go from memory that it asked the GOP not to accept money from Adelson because of its source in businesses which the GOP condemns. It was a "smear" only in the way it characterized those businesses, and all the characterizations came from public record. If it turns out that Jacobs is lying in his court documents, then both he and NJDC will have a lot to answer before a higher court. If it turns out to be true, I'll be interested in seeing if Mr. Tobin admits his own error. Somehow I doubt it.
(I once again accidentally clicked thumbs up on your comment while meaning to click thumbs down.) n nIf it turns out to be true, Mr. Tobin will have no error to admit, as the statement would still be lashon hara as he points out. The NJDC demand did not meet the conditions for repeating derogatory information for a constructive purpose. n n
Correction – being technically inept, I accidentally clicked thumbs up on your comment, intending to click thumbs down.
It is indded a fine line between permissible attacks upon people and "loshon horah".however, I have yet to see anything that trasgresses these limits on this webiste- it is mostly opinion and in political discourse, this is always permissible. Do you have anything to show that Contentions actaully slanders people ?
if it is a Jewish obligation to ask hard questions of powerful individuals…….then where on earth are the hard questions that SHOULD be asked of Barack Obama by the NJDC? nThe silence is deafening…….
There is no Halacha or anything close to a "Jewish obligation to ask hard questions of powerful individuals"? See what happened to Nadav and Avihu?
I meant Dasan and Aviram
As I mentioned in a comment on a previous article, the President has managed to confuse everyone into believing that Citizens United is something just recently cooked up by the current nefarious Supreme Court. n nIn fact, if Adelson is making contributions as an individual, his right to spend unlimited amounts goes back to Buckley vs Valeo decided in 1976. It also goes back to a time when people could reach across the aisle to support civil liberties. The plaintiffs in the case were Buckley, the sole of conservative thinking and Eugene McCarthy, the darling of the left and a former Democratic candidate for the presidency.
[cont'd] II. The Seven Conditions n nBefore speaking Lashon Hara for a constructive purpose, the following seven conditions must be met: n nThe information spoken must be completely true and witnessed or verified by the speaker. nThe issue spoken must be an absolute deficiency (e.g. violation of a mitzva, unacceptable character or behavior), not merely a preference or sensitivity. (For example, if a store openly encourages shoppers to sample the new grape shipment, and someone takes a half-pound grapes rather than just a few, that would be considered absolutely unacceptable. However if he takes just a few extra it would be incorrect to consider him "greedy" or "a thief.") [cont'd]
[cont'd] nBefore going behind the subject's back he must first confront and rebuke the subject directly, in a kind and gentle way which is likely to have an influence. (If the subject will not listen to any rebuke, or if trying to rebuke him can make the Lashon Hara ineffective, refer to ch. 10 in Hilchot Lashon Hara and ch. 9 in Hilchot Rechilut for the Chafetz Chaim's treatment of the subject.) nThe information cannot be exaggerated or embellished, even if it's the only way to get the listener to heed the information. nThe intention of the speaker must be purely to help in the situation. If however, there are bad feelings and grudges between them then he is disqualified from engaging in Lashon Hara even if it is under the guise of 'constructive criticism.' nIf the constructive purpose intended by the speaker can be achieved in a way other than speaking Lashon Hara, the speaker should resort to that alternative method. n[cont'd]
[cont'd] Any damage that is caused to the subject as a result of the Lashon Hara should not exceed that which would ever be decreed by a Beit Din (Jewish court) if the case were to be reviewed there. This is difficult to evaluate, so that situations that impact the livelihood or other areas of the subject should be referred to a Beit Din. nWhen someone either speaks or requests Lashon Hara for constructive purposes, they should state the constructive purpose. Otherwise, the other party in the conversation will think they are speaking Lashon Hara without any halachic justification. n nLikewise do not include the subject's foes in any forum of "Constructive Lashon Hara". Not only would they be unlikely to have truly constructive intentions in handling the information, but they might also add false or exaggerated information to the conversation due to their strong feelings against the subject. [cont'd]
[cont'd] n nFinally, it is important to think about the recipient of the Lashon Hara. It is forbidden for the recioient to believe or accept the information as true; they can only suspect the information in order to take proper precautions or to bring the issue to a Beit Din for resolution. nAlso, it would be forbidden for the listener to carelessly circulate the Lashon Hara out of anger or disgust, since that would violate condition (1) & (5) above. When possible, the one reporting the Lashon Hara should preface his remarks with instructions reflecting these concerns; if the recipient would not heed such instructions then reporter should consult his Rabbinic authority before relating the Lashon Hara.
NJDC would have been well within their rights if they had focused their attack against Adelson on his political activities and had limited it to facts. When they strayed into making personal attacks against Adelson, alleging as true dubious charges of criminal activities, their rights to free speech breached their legal limits. Moreover, their claim to being the victims of a SLAPP suit is unsupportable and unfortunate. SLAPP suits are designed to silence legitimate criticism by citizen activists of actions directly related to the issues they are concerned with. Adelson's suit concerns unfounded — or poorly founded — allegations which are unrelated to anything within NJDC's areas of concern. In other words, slanderous smear campaigns are not the sort of public discourse which SLAPP suits seek to stifle. NJDC does a disservice to real victims of SLAPP suits by inappropriately wearing their mantle.