What Would the Chafetz Chaim Say?

I am confused about how to react to what is going on in the J press and J Blogosphere regarding allegations of sexual abuse against a prominent Rabbi.

The immediate source of my confusion is something I read this very morning in the English translation of Sefer Chofetz Chaim called "Chafetz Chaim: A Lesson A Day".

For the past couple of years, MHW has been (unsuccessfully) urging me to read the daily section of the book that includes a piece from the sefer Chafetz Chaim and a piece from the sefer Shmiras Halashon. MHW has been doing this for the past five years or so.

(Blogger's Note: Anyone who knows me and MHW will find this pretty amusing. In our 23 years together, I don't recall MHW ever saying anything even remotely negative about anyone. Let's just say the same cannot be said about me. So, of course, she is the one reading about lashon harah every day and I am the one avoiding the sefer).

Last week I was recruited to join a community effort on behalf of a friend who is battling Oso Hamachlah to do what MHW has been asking me to do for so long. This time, starting Rosh Chodesh Elul, I took up the challenge, and have been faithfully following the schedule.

Today's lesson (we are on our own schedule, not the schedule in the sefer) says the following:

A derogatory statement is considered loshon hora even when the information is common knowledge for, as stated above, to speak negatively of one’s fellow Jew is shameful in itself.

Negative information about Jews appearing in newspapers may not be repeated. Newspapers often publish articles based on hearsay and thus, one is not even permitted to believe such information if the newspaper is its only source. Even after one has verified the information, he may nevertheless not repeat it.

Luke links to an interesting summary by R. Yosef Abramowitz of Jewish sources for ethical journalism that would perhaps carve out from the prohibitions of the Chafetz Chaim the instant situation:

Based on the above and other citations, a while (sic; should be 'wide') body of law developed elevating the value of a reputation of an individual in society. It was prohibited to say, and later, print anything (often even true) which could damage the standing of the individual. The rationale was that if people were created in G-d's image, then they must be given respect. The exceptions, based on the Biblical phrase that "You shall not stand idly by the blood of your fellow" (Lev. 19:16), relate to warning the public in order to prevent more sins from being committed.

On the other hand, he writes:

In general, Jewish law commands giving everyone the benefit of the doubt ("You shall judge your fellow favorably," Lev. 19:15). Therefore, Jewish law would prohibit the widespread journalistic practice of printing the names of people arrested prior to a guilty verdict in court. However, a strong case could be made that if potentially dangerous people were let out on bail, that the community should be publicly notified.

I (and Hasidic Musician) have, in the past, taken a very strong position in this space against a certain Shiny Shoe singer who has been accused of the most heinous acts of sexual behavior with minors (and against the J music establishment that has protected, and continues to protect, him). Cookie has passionately disagreed with my actions, based largely on her reading of Chafetz Chaim and Shmiras Halashon.

Both Blog in Dm and I sought rabbinic guidance in that instance and were permitted to go forward, presumably on the basis of the pasuk:

"You shall not stand idly by the blood of your fellow".

(As an aside, our efforts were spectacularly ineffective since this singer, after hibernating for less than a year, is once again a shainer Yid, back in the concert and wedding scene and about to release a new CD).

So, my thinking goes as follows: In the Lanner case, it was only because of the revelation by Jewish Week that authorities took action. Publishing that article, then, seemed clearly to be a case of 'not standing idly by'. When Blog in Dm and I tried to get something going with the J Music predator, it, too, was a case of not standing idly by because no one else in authority was doing anything about it. Here, it seems, the RCA is undertaking an investigation (whether it is doing so only because they knew the issue was about to be exposed is another question). What category does publishing or blogging this fall into?

I don't know.