(This is being posted simultaneously on many Orthodox Jewish blogs)
A little over a month ago, a number of rabbis signed onto a ban that forbade advertising on or otherwise working with the website VosIzNeias. This ban singled out one website without addressing other websites or public forums like newspapers or magazines. The singling out of a solitary website raises many questions, particularly when newspapers in the same community regularly publish arguably libelous stories and online discussion forums for the community are essentially unbounded by civility. Additionally, VosIzNeias has publicly stated that it has already raised its standards and is willing to do even more with rabbinic guidance, provided the same guidelines are applied to its competitors.
Bans of this nature are generally brought into fruition by activists and this one is attributed to a specific activist who seems to have business and political interests in this ban. He ignored VosIzNeias’ request to meet with the rabbis in order to explore ways to satisfy their concerns. With this ban, the activist is threatening the commercial viability of the VosIzNeias business.
We have now received reports of continued harassment by this activist, who is threatening to publicly denounce people, companies and charitable organizations who continue to cooperate with the website. He has also reportedly threatened to remove the kosher certification of companies that fail to adhere to the ban. However, on being contacted, the activist behind the ban denied all knowledge of this harassment and attributed it to someone acting without authorization. We are, therefore, making no formal accusation as to who is conducting this campaign of harassment.
To the best of our understanding, this activity is illegal. One individual told us he reported that harassment to the police.
Harassing good people with threats is illegal and inexcusable. We call on rabbis and people of good faith to denounce this behavior, and we encourage victims to respond to this activist as follows:
If he calls or e-mails you or your organization, thank him for bringing the ban to your attention and say that you will decide how to proceed after consulting with your rabbi or other advisor. And because of rumors that there is harassment involved in this matter, you regret having to tell him that if he contacts you or anyone else in your organization again, you will have to report him to the police.
We have a copy of an e-mail forwarded to us by people involved, which includes a pseudonym and phone number, and we have been told of intimidating phone calls. Note that at this time we are withholding this activist's identity. If he continues harassing people, we will have to be less discrete.
Signed,
Ezzie Goldish of SerandEz and other bloggers
(please sign your own name and post this to your blog if you agree)
VosIzNeias has publicly stated that it has already raised its standards and is willing to do even more with rabbinic guidance, provided the same guidelines are applied to its competitors.
ReplyDeleteWhere have they said this? (And, precisely, what was their statement?)
Bans of this nature are generally brought into fruition by activists
Incorrect.
and this one is attributed to a specific activist who seems to have business and political interests in this ban.
What evidence, if any other than supposition, do you have that this individual organized this and it is therefore “attributed” to him? And why isn’t he being named, if you are so sure it is him?
He ignored VosIzNeias’ request to meet with the rabbis in order to explore ways to satisfy their concerns.
VIN doesn’t need this guy to “meet with the rabbis”. The rabbis are easily accessible by phone and in person. Nor is he the gabbai for the rabbis. This is a fig-leaf.
We have now received reports of continued harassment by this activist, who is threatening to publicly denounce people, companies and charitable organizations who continue to cooperate with the website. He has also reportedly threatened to remove the kosher certification of companies that fail to adhere to the ban. However, on being contacted, the activist behind the ban denied all knowledge of this harassment and attributed it to someone acting without authorization. We are, therefore, making no formal accusation as to who is conducting this campaign of harassment.
So why are you tying this “activist” to this campaign, as you admit you have no evidence he is responsible, other than unnamed “reports” that he has denied.
To the best of our understanding, this activity is illegal. One individual told us he reported that harassment to the police.
Consult a lawyer rather than spewing “the best of our understanding” of a legal issue. The last I checked there is a First Amendment in this country. Organizing a boycott is a protected activity. (Just ask Al Sharpton if he was ever prosecuted for threatening advertisers on Rush Limbaugh or when Jesse Jackson threatens advertisers in his attempts to shake down media companies to get them to hire more blacks.)
You signed this Ezzie, I would expect you have answer to these questions. Unless, of course, you signed it without knowing all the details. (Where have we heard such accusations before, hmm?)
I’m glad this boycott is taking its intended bite, as this communique clearly demonstrates.
Joseph - Fair questions; for the most part I believe they've been answered on other blogs where you posted, so I'll keep it brief.
ReplyDeleteIncorrect.
Disagreed; in fact, this particular ban was acknowledged by the activist as having been mostly coordinated by him, in a NYTimes piece on the subject.
What evidence, if any other than supposition, do you have that this individual organized this and it is therefore “attributed” to him? And why isn’t he being named, if you are so sure it is him?
So why are you tying this “activist” to this campaign, as you admit you have no evidence he is responsible, other than unnamed “reports” that he has denied.
He directly emailed a number of people. In addition, he called from a number that he listed elsewhere as his, which also has his caller ID, and claimed to be someone else. Whether to name him or not was a matter of debate, but suffice it to say that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that he is the one responsible.
Consult a lawyer rather than spewing “the best of our understanding” of a legal issue. The last I checked there is a First Amendment in this country. Organizing a boycott is a protected activity.
A lawyer was consulted, and the DA's office was notified as well. Boycotts may be legal, but false misrepresentation and other threats are not necessarily protected.
You signed this Ezzie, I would expect you have answer to these questions. Unless, of course, you signed it without knowing all the details. (Where have we heard such accusations before, hmm?)
I would not have signed were I not satisfied enough with the information I received, and raised this very point in the process. It is part of why the letter is more vague and less explicit - this is what everyone felt comfortable with based on the information provided to us.
I’m glad this boycott is taking its intended bite, as this communique clearly demonstrates.
Are you interested in truth or in a specific agenda? I am neither a defender not attacker of VIN, at least on these subjects, but do not like the consequences of what has occurred.
Ezzie, Thanks for the response. For the most part, most of the questions have not been answered elsewhere where I posted. I can understand the answer provided why he wasn't named, but the other serious questions I posed are mostly unanswered; and the ones that were responded to where weak responses (imho).
ReplyDeleteOkay, he claimed to have organized the kol koreh. a) how can you assume he is not taking credit for himself where none is due? and more importantly b) even if he organized it, the highly distinguished and numerous signatories have signed it -- and have not retracted -- therefore their very esteemed credit stands by the rabbinical call for a boycott against VIN.
A lawyer was consulted, and the DA's office was notified as well. Boycotts may be legal, but false misrepresentation and other threats are not necessarily protected.
Nothing specified in the post indicates any specific so-called alleged "threats". ("False misrepresentations" is generally not a criminal offense, but I haven't seen any specific allegations of that either enumerated in the post.)
The First Amendment protects boycotts. Just ask Jackson, Sharpton, et al when they have street protests against advertisers offices, and issue public boycotts against advertisers to pressure media groups. Jackson, Sharpton, and company too can be categorized as "threats" or "false misrepresentation" and no DA has or will prosecute their highly publicized efforts in the past. Nor does the DA does not have time for internal Jewish blogosphere disputes of free speech activities protected by law.
Are you interested in truth or in a specific agenda? I am neither a defender not attacker of VIN, at least on these subjects, but do not like the consequences of what has occurred.
I strongly believe the Gedolim (I bet you hate that term) who publicly signed the call for a boycott against VIN did absolutely the correct thing under secular law and Jewish law. And I do like the consequences of what has occurred, considering the extreme vitriol and uneducated untruths spewed by VIN over the years.
Respectfully yours
Okay, he claimed to have organized the kol koreh. a) how can you assume he is not taking credit for himself where none is due? and more importantly b) even if he organized it, the highly distinguished and numerous signatories have signed it -- and have not retracted -- therefore their very esteemed credit stands by the rabbinical call for a boycott against VIN.
ReplyDeleteI don't think (a) needs a response; there's no real incentive to take such a credit when none is due, he was rather open about it, people seem to be aware of his position, etc. I don't think you believe that he's taken credit falsely, either.
(b) is an interesting question, but as you'll notice, the letter does not comment on the ban itself. I even noted to a friend that one blogger's accidental mistype of the title implies that it might be about the ban, but it is not. This is about harassment post-ban.
Nothing specified in the post indicates any specific so-called alleged "threats". ("False misrepresentations" is generally not a criminal offense, but I haven't seen any specific allegations of that either enumerated in the post.)
Agreed, and perhaps these will be posted at a later date. This was left vague on purpose, with the understanding that this vague statement will not have the same impact.
I've agreed regarding boycotts, so there's no reason to repeat.
I strongly believe the Gedolim (I bet you hate that term) who publicly signed the call for a boycott against VIN did absolutely the correct thing under secular law and Jewish law.
I'm not sure why you believe I "hate that term". As stated above, this letter is not about the ban itself.
And I do like the consequences of what has occurred, considering the extreme vitriol and uneducated untruths spewed by VIN over the years.
This sounds like an "ends justify the means" statement, with which I would categorically disagree. I personally dislike all of the "Jewish news" sites due to what appears to be massive dishonesty - plagiarizing, ignoring copyrighting protections, and the like in particular. In addition, all of the comment sections on all the sites seem to be full of crazies in a variety of ways, and the way in which some sites edit those postings has seemingly little to do with basic guidelines and far more to do with agendas. Despite my feelings on this, I feel what is happening in this situation is wrong, and therefore signed on.
(b) is an interesting question, but as you'll notice, the letter does not comment on the ban itself. I even noted to a friend that one blogger's accidental mistype of the title implies that it might be about the ban, but it is not. This is about harassment post-ban.
ReplyDeleteIf I recall correctly, the Kol Koreh specifically says not to advertise on VIN. That is a call for a boycott.
The strongest point I am making though, is that there is nothing legally wrong about organizing a boycott against VIN, and calling and contacting all of VIN's advertisers to encourage them to boycott VIN -- in the name of Judaism, Yiddishkeit, the Torah, and the Gedolim who have called for the boycott.
P.S. I also strongly dislike ALL the "frum" news sites (and especially the comment section - but the "news" section almost as well) for many of the same reasons you gave -- and more.
Again, this letter simply is not about the boycott.
ReplyDeleteSo we agree then that a boycott against VIN -- including contacting all the advertisers -- is legal?
ReplyDeleteI am not commenting on the ban. It's not relevant to this discussion, IMO.
ReplyDelete