Against Ban Harassment & Threats

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

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 discreet.

Signed,

Gil Student
(Simultaneously posted to other Jewish blogs)

(please sign your own name and post this to your blog if you agree)

About Gil Student

Rabbi Gil Student is the Publisher and Editor-in-Chief of TorahMusings.com, a leading website on Orthodox Jewish scholarly subjects, and the Book Editor of the Orthodox Union’s Jewish Action magazine. He writes a popular column on issues of Jewish law and thought featured in newspapers and magazines, including The Jewish Link, The Jewish Echo and The Vues. In the past, he has served as the President of the small Jewish publisher Yashar Books and as the Managing Editor of OU Press. Rabbi Student serves on the Executive Committee of the Rabbinical Council of America. He also serves on the Editorial Boards of Jewish Action magazine, the Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society and the Achieve Journal of Behavioral Health, Religion & Community, as well as the Board of OU Press. He has published five English books, the most recent titled Search Engine volume 2: Finding Meaning in Jewish Texts -- Jewish Leadership, and served as the American editor for Morasha Kehillat Yaakov: Essays in Honour of Chief Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks.

56 comments

  1. This continues your long standing method of insinuation against others without giving their names (or other basic details) – VIN, with no names, rabbis with no names, “an activist” with no name, “other bloggers” with no names “a posek” with no name, “multiple people” with no names and etc etc.

    You must give the details. Without names, dates and places, this
    whole effort must be dismissed as your private fantasy.

    Not proper, not practical, and definitely not halakhic by any stretch of the imagination. What you are doing here is way outside the bounds of what is permissible. I say to you bluntly – this is assur and you should stop this.

  2. Lawrence Kaplan

    Tzvee: What is the issur?

    Guil: I obviously hold no brief for this activist, but if what you are sing is correct, the main blame has to be placed at the feet of the rabbis who allowed thmselves to be manipulated by the activist and who signed the ban. The buck stops with them.

  3. A person contacted should not merely go to the police. They should contact the FBI.

    A threat/intimidation issued over email is potentially a federal crime. And if there is a group of people indeed engaging in illegal actions of intimidation it is potentially a violation of RICO. The wires (email) is under federal provenance as interstate commerce.

    18 USC 41.875 Interstate communications
    (c) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

    (d) Whoever, with intent to extort from any person, firm, association, or corporation, any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to injure the property or reputation of the addressee or of another or the reputation of a deceased person or any threat to accuse the addressee or any other person of a crime, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

    18 USC 1961
    “racketeering activity” means (A) any act or threat involving murder, kidnapping, gambling, arson, robbery, bribery, extortion, dealing in obscene matter, or dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act), which is chargeable under State law and punishable by imprisonment for more than one year;

    18 USC 1962
    (b) It shall be unlawful for any person through a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.

    (c) It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.

  4. Tzvee,

    What Issur? The one against snitching on bullies? The one against snitching on Chareidim who spit on women, throw them to the floor of the bus and start kicking them for not leaving their seats on a non-mehadrin bus? Please tell me which Issur and do not quote from anyone in the past 50 years (to insure that it might actually be a source.)

  5. Perhaps someone with a legal background can explain the difference between tortuous interference (which is what I assume makes the activists actions illegal) and freedom of speech as it applies here or elsewhere (ie Arab boycott of Israel).

  6. 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.

    Where 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 Gil, I would expect you have answer to these questions. Unless, of course, you signed it without knowing all the details.

    I’m glad this boycott is taking its intended bite, as this communique clearly demonstrates.

  7. Apparently Joseph is glad that those who expose the most vile child-molesters (the organiser of the ban on VIN admitted that this was a large factor behind it) are being boycotted. For the humans amongst us however, we must make sure that people like Gil receive all the support we can muster so they carry on fighting the good fight.

  8. “Tzvee” and “Joseph”

    Rabbi Gil Student, Rabbi Harry Maryles (http://haemtza.blogspot.com/2011/02/against-ban-harassment-threats.html), and Mr. Yerachmiel Lopin (http://frumfollies.wordpress.com/2011/02/15/bloggers-are-fighting-the-vos-iz-neias-vin-ban) have signed their names to the statement above. You choose to attack R. Student (and the others, I assume) from behind a pseudonym. Either post under your real name or be ignored.

    Regarding boycotts: It is my understanding (I am not a lawyer) that while choosing not to buy something is legal, coercing others to participate in a boycott (secondary boycott) is often not. For example, it is illegal to for a US company to participate in the Arab boycott of Israel. Those who choose join in the boycott must file a report and have their foreign tax credit reduced. Failure to file the report if required may be punishable by fine, imprisonment, or both. See 26 USC 999 and IRS Form 5713.

  9. >Either post under your real name or be ignored.

    So the people behind VIN (and Matzav and YWN) post their names?

  10. To “Anonymous 02/16/2011 9:57am”:

    That is a problem I have with those websites. Even some of the bylines appear to be pseudonyms.

    BTW, why are you posting anonymously?

  11. Anonymous: The people behind VIN, Matzav and YWN do not post their own words. They post other people’s words (in a way that is probably illegal).

  12. When I spoke with the activist, he described two posts on VIN that he felt attacked Kedushas Yisrael. One was about frum women getting plastic surgery (probably this one: link) and another about airport pat downs. I leave it to readers to reach their own judgments about this but I find it a ludicrous objection.

  13. Joseph: Everything was carefully couched to prevent the activist from suing us. This blog is not a place to offer legal advice. Lawyers and police are better informed to determine what is and is not harassment.

    I spoke with the activist and he fully admitted to being on the “Vad Harabonim of Brooklyn” that is trying to enforce this ban, although without harassment. He has also been interviewed by the media but I take media reports with a grain of salt.

    Why didn’t I name him? There is no need to do so for our purposes, at least right now, and I don’t want to start paying lawyers or deal with hazmonos until I have to. But if I have to, I’m ready to do so.

  14. >Anonymous: The people behind VIN, Matzav and YWN do not post their own words. They post other people’s words (in a way that is probably illegal).

    The point is that anonymity is irrelevant. Were all your postings as “Simcha” worthy of being ignored? The question of anonymity in blogging has been decided, and the answer is that blogging is a medium in which both anonymity and “onymity” are acceptable.

  15. >BTW, why are you posting anonymously?

    To make my point. But who is “Dorron Katzin”? I have never heard of you, and what if your name was John Smith?

  16. >I spoke with the activist and he fully admitted to being on the “Vad Harabonim of Brooklyn” that is trying to enforce this ban, although without harassment. He has also been interviewed by the media but I take media reports with a grain of salt.

    Did he admit to it or did he claim that such a thing exists? If a Vad Harabonim of Brooklyn makes a noise, does it exist?

    I remember when I was a kid there was an organization called the Torah Defense League, which actually consisted of one man who distributed photocopied screeds against various personalities in our community. Why did the Torah Defense League exist? Because he had a letterhead printed up. Mr. Anonymous Vad guy didn’t even do that.

    Granted, Mr. TDL wasn’t sophisticated (or wicked) enough to ensnare, you know, Reb Moshe Feinstein and others into signing documents advancing his agenda, but the point is that phantom organizations which one man claims to exist are something of a joke. This guy “admits” to being “on” a “Vad” which either exists entirely inside his head, or might as well, since there is no other confirmation of its existence or that it has other members?

  17. I’ve never heard of the Vad Harabonim of Brooklyn and I questioned him whether it exists but he evaded. It’s possible that it exists within Williamsburg and I am investigating with multiple sources, but I doubt it. I also doubt the name he gave me is real.

  18. Gil,

    You answered sufficiently my point why you didn’t name the person, but that was a small point in my comment. You chose to ignore the more serious questions I raised.

  19. Such as what? Why VIN doesn’t sit down with rabbis on its own? I’m not sure it hasn’t, but that is irrelevant. I’m not defending VIN. I’m condemning harassment.

    One of the conditions this activist told me the rabbis have is that VIN cannot continue operating anonymously *even if it meets all other requirements*. I don’t find that to be a credible condition, especially when YWN and Matzav are run anonymously but even without that.

    But that is all beside the point. The issue here is harassing advertisers. The advertisers should know that they don’t have to be scared of these kinds of tactics, regardless of who uses them.

  20. To: “Anonymous on February 16, 2011 at 11:02 am”

    FOR IDENTIFICATION PURPOSES ONLY: I am the same Dorron Katzin who is a member of the Executive Committee of the Jewish Board of Advocates for Children and served as the moderator of the symposium which took place in Chicago on October 17, 2010.

  21. >I’ve never heard of the Vad Harabonim of Brooklyn and I questioned him whether it exists but he evaded. It’s possible that it exists within Williamsburg and I am investigating with multiple sources, but I doubt it. I also doubt the name he gave me is real.

    Then why are ten blogs treating it as if it is real? Was any thought given as to whether or not this post-a-thon is in fact creating the organization by validating it?

    If it’s a matter of this one guy intimidating people, like business owners, then shouldn’t this post stress that its a fake organization? It seems like a lot of supposedly intimidated business owners might like to know that not only is this man a fraud but it is widely known, which is where you guys come in. Shouldn’t the first Google results for “Vad [Vaad] Harabonim of Brooklyn” indicate that it’s not a real rabbinic body but a hoax?

  22. >FOR IDENTIFICATION PURPOSES ONLY: I am the same Dorron Katzin who is a member of the Executive Committee of the Jewish Board of Advocates for Children and served as the moderator of the symposium which took place in Chicago on October 17, 2010.

    I Googled you. Granted, you have left a trace online; assuming you are him (which I do). But most people have random, drab names and aren’t members of Executive Committee. Are the opinions of these people irrelevant? Or do they somehow become more relevant because John Smith decides to post his name, which you can’t verify anyway, rather than to leave it out?

    I am sorry, but I have a serious problem with the idea that anonymity rather than content is reason to ignore in this medium.

  23. Anonymous: Then why are ten blogs treating it as if it is real? Was any thought given as to whether or not this post-a-thon is in fact creating the organization by validating it?

    Where does the post mention the organization or validate it in any way?

  24. Anonymous: If it’s a matter of this one guy intimidating people, like business owners, then shouldn’t this post stress that its a fake organization?

    It shouldn’t stress things it cannot prove.

    Shouldn’t the first Google results for “Vad [Vaad] Harabonim of Brooklyn” indicate that it’s not a real rabbinic body but a hoax?

    Not everything in the world is Google-able.

  25. >Not everything in the world is Google-able.

    Do you think the guy who owns Eichler’s, let’s say, isn’t going to google Vad Harabonim of Brooklyn after getting an offer he can’t refuse from it?

  26. They just call themselves (or he just calls himself) Vad Harabonim.

  27. Gil,

    You have not specified any specific so-called “intimidation” tactics by this guy. He is organizing a boycott against VIN by contacting their advertisers and letting the advertisers know what the Rabbonim shlit”a, who signed the Kol Koreh against VIN, wrote. This is completely legal under constitutional law in the United States.

    Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have done far more — i.e. having protests outside corporate offices of advertisers, organizing public boycotts against advertisers, etc. You could also describe Jackson/Sharpton’s boycott actions as “intimidating”, “harassment” and “threatening to publicly denounce people”. They never were, nor could they, be prosecuted under the First Amendment. Nor does the District Attorney have any time for such disputes between Jewish bloggers.

    As far as halacha, the Rabbonim who signed the Kol Koreh clearly stated that it is permissible (if not obligatory) to organize a boycott against VIN. You may disagree with the Rabbonim shlit”a on the halacha, but they intend to carry out the halacha as they’ve determined it.

  28. IF everything he is doing is legal then he has nothing to worry about.

  29. Okay, so if this post was to just let out some hot air and steam, since you disagree with him, so be it. We have a lot of that in the Jewish blogosphere.

  30. It was to let advertisers know they have rights IF they are begin harassed.

  31. “yerachmiel lopin” is a pseudonym per his own website

  32. To Anonymous on February 16, 2011 at 11:29 am:

    I am him. If Rabbi Student does not know my email address (which he can see even though you cannot), Rabbi Maryles and Mr. Lopin do.

    I think there is value in a person posting under their real name, even John Smith. I think it leads to people taking an enhanced level of responsibility for what they post.

    I recognize that there are circumstances in which people, including me, feel the need to post anonymously. I recognize that this may detract from the post; it is a balancing act. For me, this is not one of those times.

  33. The last word in the petition should be “discreet”, not “discrete”.

  34. Shades of Gray

    “When I spoke with the activist, he described two posts on VIN that he felt attacked Kedushas Yisrael. One was about frum women getting plastic surgery (probably this one: link) and another about airport pat downs”

    The Jewish Star article(linked below) mentioned the Weingraten case.

    (I would post the actual court papers that VIN apparently posted, but I do not want Gil to get banned 🙂 )

    “Every day of the trial Vos Iz Neias brought down the newspapers, the exact testimony,” he said referring to the graphic nature of the case. “When you’re reading the goyish papers you know going into the site that that’s what they sell. But if you’re going to a heimish Shomer Shabbos website, it doesn’t belong there, it’s as simple as that.”

    http://www.thejewishstar.com/stories/The-truth-about-the-ban,2152

  35. Shades of Gray thank you for bring out the true problem of what kind of news vin is posting .
    To get the facts clear .vin sent a representative to meet with the raboinnim. first the rabonim told them we have no agenda here with the kol koreah , all want we want is ,that vin to stop posting and distributing loshon horah , devrei neif and stam smutz . they begged the rabonim to remove the ban .the rabonim told them very clearly, that if they want the rabonim to consider removing the ban than vin has disclose who they are and they need to have a rav , who should stand behind them ,because in the future if ever there is a problem there is someone to turn to. So far they declined. Nobody was ever harassed or threatened anybody, this is some kind of spin of vin or an advertiser who doesn’t want to adhere to the psak so started making a tumel.

  36. R Gil wrote in part:

    “When I spoke with the activist, he described two posts on VIN that he felt attacked Kedushas Yisrael. One was about frum women getting plastic surgery (probably this one: link) and another about airport pat downs. I leave it to readers to reach their own judgments about this but I find it a ludicrous objection”

    Once again, we see bans as part of a Charedi catechism being raised as a poor and utterly inadequate substitute for Halachic and Hashkafic discussions.

  37. Matzav is run by R Pinchas Lipshitz of the American Yated

  38. Shmuel: Wasn’t there a post on Matzav denying the connection?

  39. The allegation regarding Lipshitz is that he doesn’t directly control or own it (possibly so that he can deny it without lying), but people who are very close to him do, and that it is in effect the Yated’s online answer to YWN and VIN.

  40. Two wrongs don’t make one right.

    VIN is the most prominent English site.

  41. Fotheringay-Phipps

    I am not a big fan of this type of intimidation. But I’m also skeptical as to whether it’s illegal.

    All the guy’s saying is that rabbis have said no one should advertise on this blog for religious reasons, and if you continue doing so, I’m going to inform the public and the rabbis that you’re defying their words.

    I can’t imagine that this is illegal.

  42. Fotheringay-Phipps thanks for clarification ,you hit the issue on the head .I will go a step futher ,the e mail that the vad sent just sais we will inform the rabbis ,no mention about the public .
    as we see all this is just blown up .

  43. When I spoke with the activist, he described two posts on VIN that he felt attacked Kedushas Yisrael. One was about frum women getting plastic surgery (probably this one: link) and another about airport pat downs. I leave it to readers to reach their own judgments about this but I find it a ludicrous objection

    Seems to me like the pro VIN people made up this straw man.Anyone who read the actual Kol Koreh could see that this wan’t the issue it had with VIN.And this time around I don’t believe the standard old blog party line about wanting to meet the Rabbonim but being denied access.(In fact I usually don’t believe that line when it is said about Rabbonim who don’t have Gaboim, are easily accessible, and have their phone numbers listed in the phone book but I don’t want to get off topic.)

  44. VIN is a major disgrace

    “This ban singled out one website without addressing other websites”

    Vos Iz Neias is the only one that has the chutzpah to bill itself as “The Voice of The Orthodox Jewish Community” on its masthead.

    Additionally, it is quite large and is also visited by outsiders, as Assemblyman Hikind has mentioned on his radio program.

    Gil, you are a smart guy. Do you want such a poor site to represent Orthodox Judaism to the world? It is a site that has significant problems with the English language (I am not talking about comments, which is a separate discussion, though also true there, but the VIN posts themselves). The comments section at VIN is significantly worse than at its competing sites.

    I know that bans can make strange bedfellows, but its hard to believe that you would rush to defend such a site that so cheapens our image to the world. Do we want the world to see us as a bunch of rednecks that can’t even speak or write decent English?

    “newspapers in the same community regularly publish arguably libelous stories”

    Yiddish newspapers are not open to the world as the English VIN site is.

    “online discussion forums for the community are essentially unbounded by civility”

    Ditto. Blogs are a different matter than a news site like VIN.

    Gil, this is not the same as the Slifkin case. VIN is a disgrace to the orthodox community. I urge you to reconsider your role here. Even if some smooth talking media people have talked you into it.

  45. MiMedinat HaYam

    to doron katzin:

    it is not illegal to participate in the arab boycott of israel.

    it is not illegal to tell someone else to participate (secondaty boycott — your term; by the way, that is not a secondary boycott)

    all one must do is declare to the commerce dept that you received a request (either in contract / bid terms, or otherwise) to comply. or to identify source as israel. or rather declare source not israel. and those reports are not publicly disclosed, if requested not to disclose.

    2. regarding rico — thats only if there is a pattern (two or more specific acts within ten years. not the same act several times. and it costs $800,000 to gather the evidence.)

    by the way, there is no damages in this case. (nominal damages are not prosecuted.)

    3. though i agree 100% with the tone of the post

  46. Boycotts are legal in the U.S. That includes contacting and urging clients and advertisers of the boycotted entity to participate in the boycott.

  47. It all depends what is done in terms of “contacting” and what sort of threats are used.

  48. Gil, That’s true. If the contact with the party is that we’re going to kill your family unless you participate in the boycott, that would be quite illegal.

    But if the contact is if you don’t participate in the boycott we’re going to extend the boycott to your company, publicly denounce your disregarding the call of the great sages, and if you are a producer of food products ask your certifying rabbi to remove his religious auspices certifying your product as kosher due to your failure to comply with the request of the great sages, it may not be pretty but it is legal.

  49. Are you suggesting that repeatedly contacting an organization is not harassment?

  50. Part of the complaint in your communique posted on the blogs is “With this ban, the activist is threatening the commercial viability of the VosIzNeias business.”

    Boycotts exactly attempt to do that. And, as indicated, boycotts are entirely legal. Including the resulting in the aforementioned consequence.

  51. Yes, that is legal. Whether it is mutar is another issue, depending on whether you think they are violating any issurim.

    Regardless, it is a serious issue. It is much more serious than if this blog were boycotted.

  52. Indeed, boycotts are legal. Certain kinds of harassment are not. We are dealing here with a someone with an unsavory reputation for harassment which might very well not be legal. He comes from a community with a history of intra-factional violence regularly captured on YouTube that extends to thugs invading synagogue services to beat people up, and mobs obstructing burials. Certain communications can be ominous and threatening even if a straight, narrow, literal reading makes them sound legal. The niggun matters; in this case I accept the complainant’s claim that nasty (and quite illegal consequencees) would follow.

    I would add what I said in my post http://wp.me/pFbfD-vR; the ultimate fault lies with the rabbonim who signed the ban. At best they were negligent in signing a ban without listening to both sides. Even worse, many of them signed on to repress reporting of corruption and sex abuse and to stifle open discussion of community issues.

  53. What VIN is and isn't

    VIN is a Heimishe Chassidishe site. At VIN the crass, crude, uncouth, and vulgar side of that grouping is on display for the world.

    It is amusing how they have gotten MO people to take such a strong and public role defending them. Quite a feat. Clever. I guess they realize that when they mention words like ban, censorship, and free speech, they can rally the MO to their side. But the MO’s should step back and say, hey, this is not our issue, let the heimishe fight their own battles. They should not let themselves be used in such a way.

    VIN should relabel itself the voice of the Heimishe Chassidishe community. That would be more accurate and appropriate. Voice of the Orthodox Jewish community as a whole? No way. That should be removed from their site.

  54. I visit VIN multiple times a day. It is NOT just for the heimishe world.

  55. Gil,

    “Yes, that is legal. Whether it is mutar is another issue, depending on whether you think they are violating any issurim.”

    Clearly the manifold of Gedolei Yisroel signatories to the Kol Koreh calling for the boycott publicly disagree with you and think not only is it mutar, it is absolutely necessary.

    Regardless, it is a serious issue.

    That’s why the Rabbonim issued the Kol Koreah against VIN and called for a boycott against it.

  56. What VIN is and isn't

    “I visit VIN multiple times a day. It is NOT just for the heimishe world.”

    But that is who it is run by and who a large proportion of visitors and commenters are. So that qualifies it as a Hemishe Chassidishe site.

Leave a Reply

Subscribe to our Weekly Newsletter


The latest weekly digest is also available by clicking here.

Subscribe to our Daily Newsletter

Archives

Categories

%d bloggers like this: