Slander

There's an old saying about speaking ill of others:

Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticize them, you’re a mile away and you have their shoes.

Back on June 17th I was accused of libel, although I did not learn about this until much later. A woman sent an e-mail two two other women that included the following paragraph:

[name1], Thaught you and [name2] might find this interesting. David VS is either accusing you or [name2] of sheep stealing this is from his public blog. DVS is also in the dark and as always get things wrong. This is slander at best.

The blog post in question contained these perhaps guilty two sentences.

Third, one member was secretly and actively planting division. She followed Ephraimite theology and convinced three other families to join her "camp" within the congregation.

I wondered if my accuser had a valid point. So I read about the legalities of libel and slander, since I knew little about them.

According to that information, my blog post had no libel, because of three valid defenses.

First, my statements were true and made in good faith. The woman I wrote about did act as I described.

Second, I can claim qualified privilege with no malicious intent. I was publishing news about an event that affected the community. There was public interest from many confused people (most notably the many folk who were used to joining the local Messianic Jewish congregation annually for a Pesach seder, and the many pastors with whom I work and pray).

Third, I was writing a reasonable, fair comment on a matter of public interest. I was among the leadership of an organization answering, as best and tactfully as I could, the questions that many people were already asking. It would be unfair to the community if none of Sar Shalom's leaders related what happened.

I did learn something from the exchange. In this case I did not write about the motives of the woman who planted division. But were I to ever write about someone's motives on a future occasion then I should definitely qualify such conjecture with "I think..." to make crystal clear what is my conjecture and opinion as opposed to factual assertion.

Note that my accuser has none of these valid defenses. I'm certainly not a lawyer, but it appears to me that she was engaging in libel when she sent that e-mail.

I'm writing this essay now for a few reasons.

First, I expect it is actually quite common for people unaware their own guilt and legal liability for defamation to criticize religious leaders who are actually innocent. It may be something my pastor friends who read this blog have hurt feelings about. The upcoming Days of Awe are an appropriate time to speak with people and clear the air.

Second, I think the sender of that e-mail still reads this blog and I want to urge her to refrain from such risky behavior. I want good for her family, and I would be saddened if I heard in the future that she faced trouble because she made a different false accusation of criminal activity to someone less forgiving.

Third, I should affirm that I have no hurt feelings and am quick to forgive. During these Days of Awe the sender of that e-mail is saved a phone call. :-) (However, my trust in the sender of that e-mail is now zero.)

Finally, I have no idea what "This is slander at best" might refer to and so the phrase seems funny to me. Let's brainstorm! What other crime could I have possibly been committing? Proclaiming a fatwā death sentence? Calling for a mob with pitchforks? Releasing the assassin hamsters of doom?