Halacha of Facebook - Politics

notshanarishona ↓

Tue, Jul 12 2016, 7:24 pm

Why not?
First , they are not Jewish.
Second, there are exceptions when someone is a public figure, where it is "accepted practice" to talk about them, especially because the info is already public knowledge.

TeachersNotebook

Tue, Jul 12 2016, 10:30 pm

notshanarishona wrote:

I have never heard of a halacha that says that if it's accepted to talk about someone, then it is muttar to talk lh about them. In fact, the only heter I've heard for lh is if it's l'toeles (and some political discourse is, and some isn't, I think) or possibly if they are a [gentile] (though that is not best practice either). Can you clarify your thought?

↑ ssue

Thu, Jul 14 2016, 10:33 am

Thank you for your responses. I wonder because it seems to me it should be required to speak out against the corruption going on today, especially during an election cycle when proper information is critical. But I hesitate to post negative (true) content as I don't want to appear judgemental or spread lh.

Clarissa

Thu, Jul 14 2016, 11:22 am

ssue wrote:

But I hesitate to post negative (true) content as I don't want to appear judgemental or spread lh.

I joined FB just for the fun of being judgmental and spreading lh. Bummer.

↑ notshanarishona

Thu, Jul 14 2016, 11:44 am

To clarify what I was thinking of, I looked up the halachos.
There are 2 heterim which can apply to politics. (1) that the info is well known and (2) it's publicly done.
And yes, halachos of lashon hara are different with a Jew or a non Jew.

[http://www.torahmusings.com/2012/04/lashon-ha-ra-and-political-campaigns/]

- nisparsem ha-davar (already publicized). Once negative information has already been widely disseminated, there may be room to allow further publicization since, more or less, “everyone knows it.”
The Chafetz Chaim (ibid., ch. 2 par. 3) discusses the leniency, according to the Rambam and some others, of repeating negative information that is stated in front of three people (be-apei telasa). The assumption is that the information is no longer private and will eventually become widely publicized.

the leniency of publicized information cannot always be used in the public arena. A candidate campaigning for election may freely discuss his opponent’s public actions but may not mention those committed in private, even if widely reported in the media.