Lashon HaRa and Public Figures

I want to talk today about the laws of lashon hara, and specifically the question of freedom of the press, and whether certain people can be discussed because they are public figures.
In judaism, as in american law, we believe everybody should be free from attacks of lashon hara—of other speaking negatively about you.

OJ Simpson trial
In 1994, football star OJ simpson tried for murder of his wife, Nicole Brown Simpson
In college: sat around living\room with the rest of my dorm watching the police chase him & trial; hired a high profile lawyer who managed to get him acquitted
He was found guilty, but lost a lawsuit in civil court, and most people I know believe he was guilty
Millions of people watched the car chase and trial.
Made front page of LA Times for 300 days..
Fox now developing as a miniseries: “shogun”

It is part of our culture that we want to know what crazy things our celebrities and politicians are up to
And it makes for good entertainment.
But is it ethical?

I want to focus us today on lashon hara as it applies to public figures: politicians, celebrities, and similarly but on a smaller scale,

In Parsha/Summary
Tzara’at similar to leprosy (but curable, so not leprosy); white blisters on the skin
Punishment for lashon hara
Sacrifice they bring is seen as related to lashon hara: (14:4)
Birds—because they twittered like a bird
Cedar—which is tall symbolizes arrogance—whenever we speak lashon hara
Think we’re better than other person
Humble self—scarlet comes from worm; hyssop is small

Q: Can anybody define lashon hara?
Any negative statement—true or false—told about somebody
In their presence or not
Even if you think everyone already knows it
There are exceptions, such when it serves an important purpose,
But need to be very careful when deciding it falls under this exception
Make sure you know the facts
Make sure it’s the most private way to do it.

Issue of Public figures
We often think of public figures as exempt
Politicians, celebrities, synagogue presidents, rabbis
Because they are seen as public, tend to think of anything about them as public
Also: free press is the cornerstone of our open society—serves necessary function of keeping politicians relatively honest
Halacha: must be absolutely true, useful purpose (to prevent people from being harmed; exposing someone as wicked/hypocrite to prevent him from harming or corrupting others), and necessary
1. Truth: am I misjudging a situation? Did I see it myself?
I visited my friend who is a survivalist. Believes Obama is stockpiling weapons for a massive disarming and communist style military control of civilian population by Homeland Security.
He claims he is in a position to know information about this—I dunno, he’s either right or totally crazy
Too often we assume negative motives about people, instead of asking them their real motives


the classic example is from the torah:
Miriam notices Moses separated from wife, decides he did the wrong thing
She says to Aaron: Do you know what Moses did? He separated from his wife—he must think he’s some big shot! It’s not like we’re not prophets, but we manage to stay married.

Anytime we tell a story about someone else, even if we think we know all the facts, ask whether we really know the facts, or whether a more favorable interpretation is possible. If somebody did something that seems like maybe it was underhanded or selfish, maybe we don’t really understand their motives. Maybe we do, maybe we don’t, but the mitzvahdik thing to do is assume the best.

In this case, Miriam assumed Moses was acting out of a feeling of superiority, which was not the case; this is why the Torah in describing his response says he was very humble. She should have given the benefit of the doubt, and assumed he felt he needed to be available for God. We need to give our leaders the benefit of the doubt.

So the first question we need to ask is, am I absolutely sure I have the facts straight, and are there any other possible positive interpretations of the facts?
We have a tendency to assume public figures, especially, are dishonest or unscrupulous, or to question our leaders motives, rather than assuming they are humans doing the best they can.

How can Moses function as a leader, how can anyone function as a politician, a manager, a rabbi, lead any sort of positive energy, with people talking negatively about them behind their back?


2. Toelet: preventing people from harm.
Clinton Impeachment which was for (understandably) not telling prosecutors about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky-- begged the question— does the public really need to know about his private life? Would the public really be harmed if we did not know what improprieties he was up to?
Edwards case—different because he embezzled donors’ money to cover over the situation.
Criticizing president for turning up the a/c—what use is it complaining to someone else, instead of approaching the president himself?

One piece of Toelet is exposing wicked, hypocritical people.
Yoma 86b:
One should expose hypocrites to prevent the profanation of the [divine] Name, as it is said: Again, when a righteous man doth turn from righteousness. and commit iniquity, I will lay a
stumbling-block before him.(Ezek 3:20) [i.e. he will be a stumbling block for others]

This refers to a wicked person who pretends to be righteous; we need to expose him so people don’t imitate his ways, and think they are doing right when in fact they are not—that would be the desecration of the name.

In other words, when people act wickedly and are at risk of people following them and imitating them, they should be exposed publically. If a a public figure is a gossiper, or is cruel, or is otherwise setting a bad example, then we need to speak out publically against them.
Similarly, if I see that Hannah sees somebody acting in a cruel way, or a character on television acting in a cruel way, or speaking lashon hara themselves, I will openly tell her don’t imitate them, they do bad things.
You could argue that one piece is to cut people down to size, so people don’t associate with them too much, or idolize them. So you might argue that showing OJ Simpson to be a brute maybe can help kids focus on real heros, instead of football stars. But then we reach the limit of how much is necessary for that purpose, and how much is entertainment at someone’s expense.
The sources also say that the laws of lashon hara don’t apply to thoroughly wicked people, But the person in question needs to be thoroughly wicked, not just someone who succumbs to their impulses, which all of us do—even Jimmy Carter, if only in his heart. They need to be someone who intentionally, for no good reason, flaunts basic ethical norms.
Clinton case: clearly succumbed to weakness, can’t be labeled wicked.
Edwards situation—succumbed tp weakness, but embezzled as well, and lied to donors. Pretty bad! Still only makes him someone who succumbed to temptation, no worse than any of us—not wicked by halacha.
If we’re honest with ourselves, we’d admit the truth: for viewers it’s entertainment, and for journalists it’s a good way to boost ratings. One estimnate: $40 billion in lost productivity from people watching OJ Simpson case!

3. Necessary: only saying that which is necessary to accomplish goal

We are allowed to relate negative information if it is to prevent someone else from physical or financial harm, but it needs to be a real concern, and we can only relate the minimal amount of information required.
Clinton case: can you seriously argue it cast light on his ability to be the president, necessary to prevent public from harm?
Edwards case (covered his tracks using campaign money solicited from donors): could argue: necessary to prevent donors from financial harm
Example from our community: think I can criticize the synagogue president, because its important, it’s synagogue business
Let’s say, hypothetically, people were criticizing the synagogue president for turning the a/c too high
Did you know how high he turned the air conditioning?
You know his real agenda?
But really, those don’t any necessary purpose.
I can say to someone who’s going to visit our theoretical president,
“you should bring a coat, it may be cold.”
Otherwise, I should go straight to the person I am criticizing.
Miriam should have gone straight to Moses with her concerns; problem was that she went to Aaron instead of moses.

Serious closed-door discussions are sometimes necessary
I am allowed to have a confidante. If I need to consult with you as my confidante as to how to approach the president to ask him to turn down that darn air conditioning, okay
But if I’m just going to you to complain about someone, and then I go to someone else and someone else, it’s just plain old lashon hara.


4. excuse: everybody knows anyway.

Everyone knows about Clinton, or it’s in all the papers
Halachically, this is called “in front of 3”—be’apey tlata. If someone says something about himself in front of 3 people, it’s considered public information and can be repeated.
There is a dispute on this situation in halacha.
According to Maimonides, this means that if it was already said publically, and I repeat it casually but not to malign (because I assume everyone knows it), it’s okay, it’s not lashon hara. But even if it’s known publically, I can’t intentionally malign the person. Also, I can only repeat it if I heard it from the subject. In the case of the movie, if I watched the movie, repeating the information would still be lashon hara, because I didn’t hear it from the person herself.
The Chofetz Hayyim is even stricter. He says the exemption only applies to ambiguous information—information that can be taken positively or negatively, that someone says about themself. Since that person is saying it publically, it is clear the positive interpretation is intended.
So the fact that information is public does not in any way make it permissible to discuss it!
In Melvin v. Reid, a California Supreme court case stemming from the 1930s, Ms. Melvin was a former prostitute who had abandoned her ways and was living a respectable life in a different community. Years later, filmmakers publicized her life story in a movie entitled “The Red Kimono,” thereby ruining her new life and reputation. The appeals court agreed with Ms Melvin, based on the “right to pursue and obtain happiness” citing California’s Constitution, which “by its very nature includes the right to live free from the unwarranted attack of others upon one’s liberty, freedom and happiness.”
In that case, the court said that if the documentary had been based on public record, such as testimony from a trial, she would have had no basis for a lawsuit, because it was already public knowledge. Revealing publically known information, by American law, is fine.
From a Jewish perspective, however, even once the movie is out there, seeing it or discussing may still be lashon hara.
The poskim discuss the following case:
A Jew who lends to another Jew with interest who would certainly have found another Jew willing to borrow under similar terms. Does the borrower violate lifnei iveir for enabling the lender to charge interest or do we argue that the lender could in any case have violated the prohibition without this borrower’s participation.
Many poskim contend that although the lender would indeed have violated anyway, this is only because he would find someone else who also was willing to violate halacha. But if every borrower observed the halacha correctly, the lender would be unable to violate the prohibition. Therefore, whoever actually borrows the money violates livnei iveir
The Hofetz Hayyim applies this argument here: So even though the information is out there, and I am adding no harm, it’s still lashon hara. If everyone followed the laws of lashon hara, it wouldn’t be public knowledge. It’s only public knowledge because of people violating halacha, but I shouldn’t join in that group violating halacha. So even though everyone else is watching “the red kimono,” I shouldn’t be part of that.

In the Melvin case, she wouldn’t have been a public figure were it not for the film, so even once the film is public, repeating the information is still lashon hara.

In the case of Bill Clinton, this was not information he wanted revealed publically, it was extracted under duress, so discussing it was a clear violation of his privacy. But discussing the situation now, without specifics, but using it as an example of lashon hara, does serve a clearly beneficial purpose.


Conclusion
Arachin says: Regarding anyone who speaks lashon hara, God says: “He and I cannot coexist in the same world.” The verse says, “He who slanders his friend in secret … him I cannot bear” [Tehillim 101:5]. Do not read it as “him I cannot bear [pronounced uchal],” but rather “with him I cannot eat [pronounced ochel].” [Arachin 15b]
Rabbi Menachem Shlanger wrote: The meaning of this statement is that the world of the speaker of lashon hara is a contradiction to the world that God has created. To explain: It is axiomatic that the world is imperfect and has deficiencies. The way God guides events in the world is to lead it to its ultimate perfection. This applies to each individual as well. Each person has imperfections and deficiencies, but God, in His compassion sees the good within each person as his true essence, and assists him to reach his own personal perfection. With this perspective there is no place for categorizing someone as lacking because of his inadequacies, because he is, after all, on his way to perfection!… The habitual speaker of lashon hara emphasizes the negative aspects of others, and in so doing gives these weaknesses reality and permanence. By doing this, he removes himself from the world that God has created, a world that is completely directed for moving toward perfection.

May we all help move the world toward perfection by only seeing the best in others, and being careful not to speak or listen to any negative speech.