False allegations

[aygart]

So going forward, how can we assure that a corrupt BD, or a biased BD can't announce allegations independently?

And how can we avoid this?
As I said before

The first is to make a standard and keep to it. Not some vague or depends on who I decide to trust that minute

[VacationLover]

The first is to make a standard and keep to it. Not some vague or depends on who I decide to trust that minute

So maybe trust the BD in Tel Aviv? Obviously I'm kidding, but just like it is a given not to trust That BD, it shouldn't be a given to excitingly trust any BD who announced allegations.

I think we all agree that a good and easy reporting system and an honest and investigation system should be implemented. (Exact or Similar like the Mishpacha recommends)

[aygart]

So maybe trust the BD in Tel Aviv? Obviously I'm kidding, but just like it is a given not to trust That BD, it shouldn't be a given to excitingly trust any BD who announced allegations.

I think we all agree that a good and easy reporting system and an honest and investigation system should be implemented. (Exact or Similar like the Mishpacha recommends)

Don't tell me who not tell me who yes

[Yehuda57]

I think we all agree that a good and easy reporting system and an honest and investigation system should be implemented. (Exact or Similar like the Mishpacha recommends)

You keep saying this, but in the context of the article, Rabbi Lopiansky was explaining how difficult - neigh impossible - it would be to implement such a system. There's no good answer. "Go to the authorities" isn't a great answer either. it varies by location, but most don't have the best track record. Contrary to what you might think, the issue is not that they would over-zealously charge, but that allegations would get caught up for years in endless investigations, and abusers who should be removed from their positions might not be because the authorities don't have enough evidence. Even so, most rabonim still advise going to the authorities, as they are trained and equipped to deal with this, batei din, for the most part, are not.

The primary thing that needs to be done, as every expert has repeated again and again, is to believe. Validate and believe survivors. That's it. As community members, as individuals, we don't have to get involved in the systems of investigation. We have to make sure that both in our personal lives and in the "talk" in the community, survivors feel safe, trusted, believed, and validated. You are making every effort to do the exact opposite. Think how painful that is for a survivor to read.

[VacationLover]

The primary thing that needs to be done, as every expert has repeated again and again, is to believe. Validate and believe survivors. That's it

Gotcha.
However, I know more than 1 case where someone's life was ruined because people blindly believed.
And with nowadays social media, how can someone fight thousands of whatssapp etc messages? I'm not saying not to believe and doubt every accuser. Thus, the need for an honest investigation.

[VacationLover]

Don't tell me who not tell me who yes

Rav Silman is good - if he vouched personally for the allegations. From my understanding he only said not to read CW books while the investigation is ongoing.

And to be clear I know many stories of people and children who were unfortunately molested. I had a neighbor who my parents warned us to stay far from. I know that, and I'm not trying to minimize this issue.

Also, if it would be a random person, and this BD in Tzfas announced the allegations, fine. But for such a high profile case where it's more possible to have false claims, the investigation must go on. He could be very dangerous and must be stopped. But, the investigation has to be done my more than 1 person.

And yes, this is my opinion based on my logic and feelings.

I think my point of view is clear, and I said it many times in circles... therefore, I'll take a break for a while.

[aygart]

Rav Silman is good - if he vouched personally for the allegations.....

And yes, this is my opinion based on my logic and feelings.

Maybe there is a logic behind this but you have not expressed any of it. This has been entirely based on a feeling of one BD being more reputable than the other while someone else can feel the opposite. You threw out a baseless guess of a percentage of false and exaggerated accusations also with no logic behind it that you relayed.

There will be no objective way of creating a reputable BD that all will agree to. The issue of some preferring one BD over another is not a new thing. It happens all the time in monetary and marital disputes. There are rules defining how the BD is chosen and there is no reason not to use them here. If there is someone accused who has an issue with the BD chosen by the accusers then they can choose a different one based on those rules. What he cannot do is to refuse to go to any and if he does that then the BD will proceed without him.

[S209]

Gotcha.
However, I know more than 1 case where someone's life was ruined because people blindly believed.

You are personally familiar with multiple cases of people who were accused and believed but were subsequently vindicated completely? I find this very difficult to believe.

The case I’m familiar with, although the papers carried the alleged story and he was actually arrested initially the story was not mekubal among the frum community (although he was of course suspended from his post as a Rebbe until the case concluded). Even Zvi Gluck took his side.

[Yehuda57]

If there is someone accused who has an issue with the BD chosen by the accusers then they can choose a different one based on those rules. What he cannot do is to refuse to go to any and if he does that then the BD will proceed without him.

VL: "One BD isn't enough." and "Rav Silman is good."
CW: "Rav Sillman can meet me in heaven"

[Yehuda57]

But for such a high profile case where it's more possible to have false claims

Do you have any idea how certain Haaretz would have to be before going to print against someone with the clout and resources of CW? They were opening themselves up for a defamation suit for the ages. It would be the kind of case that could potentially bankrupt a newspaper. Please name a high-profile person who was vindicated after multiple claims.

[mendelk]

Do you have any idea how certain Haaretz would have to be before going to print against someone with the clout and resources of CW? They were opening themselves up for a defamation suit for the ages. It would be the kind of case that could potentially bankrupt a newspaper. Please name a high-profile person who was vindicated after multiple claims.

[randomjay]

The primary thing that needs to be done, as every expert has repeated again and again, is to believe. Validate and believe survivors. That's it. As community members, as individuals, we don't have to get involved in the systems of investigation. We have to make sure that both in our personal lives and in the "talk" in the community, survivors feel safe, trusted, believed, and validated. You are making every effort to do the exact opposite. Think how painful that is for a survivor to read.

Very great points. The only problem is that the vast majority of the community probably 99% of them will never in thier lifetime have or know any survivor to believe and validate. While everyone assumes and understands that unfortunately abuse is probably taking place, there’s no actual victim to validate. Unless you’re referring to validating Rabbis, journalists, or anonymous tweets, in which case I believe is a lost case since there will always be people questioning a particular story etc.

[YitzyS]

Do you have any idea how certain Haaretz would have to be before going to print against someone with the clout and resources of CW? They were opening themselves up for a defamation suit for the ages. It would be the kind of case that could potentially bankrupt a newspaper. Please name a high-profile person who was vindicated after multiple claims.

Not commenting on this case specifically, but at least in the US, it's very hard to win a defamation suit if the victim is a famous person. There are five criteria for winning a defamation suit, and one of them is that harm was intended. If the victim is famous, it's very easy to claim that the article was printed to bring revenue to the paper, and not explicitly intended to harm the victim.

[mendelk]

Not commenting on this case specifically, but at least in the US, it's very hard to win a defamation suit if the victim is a famous person. There are five criteria for winning a defamation suit, and one of them is that harm was intended. If the victim is famous, it's very easy to claim that the article was printed to bring revenue to the paper, and not explicitly intended to harm the victim.

That is not correct. A successful libel suit needs to prove “actual malice” by virtue of the fact that the publisher knew/should’ve known that the facts were false or acted with reckless disregard of the truth. There is no criteria requiring intention to harm.

[Yehuda57]

Not commenting on this case specifically, but at least in the US, it's very hard to win a defamation suit if the victim is a famous person. There are five criteria for winning a defamation suit, and one of them is that harm was intended. If the victim is famous, it's very easy to claim that the article was printed to bring revenue to the paper, and not explicitly intended to harm the victim.

Israel is considerably less strict than the US. And I don't believe you are 100% correct in this, even in the US, if the allegations weren't credible, desired revenue wouldn't be enough to override such malice.

[S209]

Not commenting on this case specifically, but at least in the US, it's very hard to win a defamation suit if the victim is a famous person. There are five criteria for winning a defamation suit, and one of them is that harm was intended. If the victim is famous, it's very easy to claim that the article was printed to bring revenue to the paper, and not explicitly intended to harm the victim.

Source? I was under the impression that harm needed to be reasonably expected to occur, not specifically intended.

Also, the matter doesn’t need to be shown to be false, only negligent (the bar of which is probably not too high in a widely circulated paper).

[YitzyS]

That is not correct. A successful libel suit needs to prove “actual malice” by virtue of the fact that the publisher knew/should’ve known that the facts were false or acted with reckless disregard of the truth. There is no criteria requiring intention to harm.

Source? I was under the impression that harm needed to be reasonably expected to occur, not specifically intended.

I may be mistaken. Here is one source for what I'm trying to say, but I may be understanding this wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_figure#:~:text=In%20the%20context,an%20ordinary%20person.

[S209]

I may be mistaken. Here is one source for what I'm trying to say, but I may be understanding this wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_figure#:~:text=In%20the%20context,an%20ordinary%20person.

That does not appear to say what you wrote.

[aygart]

I may be mistaken. Here is one source for what I'm trying to say, but I may be understanding this wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_figure#:~:text=In%20the%20context,an%20ordinary%20person.

In the context of defamation actions (libel and slander) as well as invasion of privacy, a public figure cannot succeed in a lawsuit on incorrect harmful statements in the United States unless there is proof that the writer or publisher acted with actual malice by knowing the falsity or by reckless disregard for the truth.[2] The legal burden of proof in defamation actions is thus higher in the case of a public figure than in the case of an ordinary person.

[YitzyS]

That does not appear to say what you wrote.

You are right. So it doesn't have to be intentional, but publishers can still often get away with it when the subject is famous.