March 24, 2011 1:52 am at 1:52 am #595870
achosidParticipantMarch 24, 2011 1:56 am at 1:56 am #759792
kishke 4 shabbosMember
how did they know its not tznius w/o looking?March 24, 2011 2:00 am at 2:00 am #759793
they could get arrested for defacement of private property and i agree with kishke 4 shabbos, how would they know it’s not tzniyus if they are not supposed to look at it anywaysMarch 24, 2011 2:11 am at 2:11 am #759794
I think renting space on privately owned properties for signs is a money-making opportunity. People who own property in BP should know better than to allow any signs to go up. The people who rent the space can put up ads for the worst of the worst nauseating stuff, if there is no contract preventing that.March 24, 2011 2:18 am at 2:18 am #759795
how did they know its not tznius w/o looking?
That doesn’t exactly make sense. How are they supposed to know to not look without knowing it is not tznius without looking?March 24, 2011 2:21 am at 2:21 am #759796
Avraham Avinu looked at Sarah once, too, to see that she was beautiful. Perhaps they looked once and then to prevent themselves and others who may not have seen it from looking excessively,they felt that this drastic measure was justified.
As mentioned above, though, defacing H&M’s property is not correct, legal, or justified. The bochurim probably have not thought out their other means of non-violent opposition, such as contacting the company and asking them to change the ad themselves, or tacking a raincoat on the billboard, which could be removed without actually destroying the property.
BUT, this is not the first such billboard in that location that is not tzniusdik and it’s not the first one to be dealt with in this fashion. So why does the advertiser keep posting there? Who is the great genius in their market research division that tells them 16th Ave and 43rd (?44th?) street in ultra-religious Boro Park, is a great place to advertise trampwear? Ah, there is a public school across the street. Perhaps the advertiser’s money would be better spent sending flyers directly into the school or subsidizing some aspect of the curriculum, which could not be affected by these young, zealous guardians of our purity.
Let’s hope someone from H&M reads YWN! (Moderators, maybe if we help them clean (or dress) up their act, they’d even advertise here!)March 24, 2011 2:24 am at 2:24 am #759797
how did they not look? what a ridiculous question. that’s like saying if a person puts a bad statue in your front lawn you shouldnt remove it bc you shouldnt have looked. you want to put up prusta ads in BP get ready for the spraypaint. check out the warning they slapped on top of it. no one saw that.March 24, 2011 2:36 am at 2:36 am #759798
I agree with popa, and anyway bachurim have a taavah to look so I think what they did was perfectly fine and even commendable b/c it would stop others from lookingMarch 24, 2011 2:38 am at 2:38 am #759799
No one has the right to deface another person’s property. You do however have the right NOT to look and to boycott the store or the owner of the property in question. You also have the right to call either one with complaints. As far as covering it up, that is also an option, probably not legal but less problematic. Anyone has a right to advertise anywhere. AND for your information there are a lot of people even in Boro Park who do shop at H&M. So whether the ad was appropriate or not, the store was IN their targeted market and they do have a right to advertise there. Whether or not the owner of the spot should have reviewed the ad or should have the right of approval is another story altogether and maybe the community should take that up with them.
The Bochurim who took matters into their own hands should be punished and explained what they did wrong. The ad costs the advertiser a lot of money and THEY should be compensated.March 24, 2011 3:13 am at 3:13 am #759800
You can’t control what h&m puts up. You can try to stop it by calling the company but it is totally illegal to damage someone else’s property. There are seriously INSANE billboards where I live and none of the boys would even think of painting over them. Yes, I know where I live its different but it doesn’t give them an excuse. If they’re caught it can be really bad (perhaps a chillul hashem). They have to learn to control themselves and not look. It’s not going to stop with the insane world out there.March 24, 2011 3:20 am at 3:20 am #759801
The next time you’re driving on the highway, try not looking at the signs. You say they do business in BoroP with frum people? Really you mean like the ladies in the ads come dressed like that into the store? I don’t think so. So why are they advertising like that. It’s a spit in the face to their neighbors, but you say it’s ‘ad money’ oh heilegeh money! that you respect!March 24, 2011 3:32 am at 3:32 am #759802
Once you look at it and see that it isn’t tznius you look away and genooked shoin. I don’t think what they did would have been so bad if it was something else that was not pritzus but if it was pritzus, just imagine how long they spent looking at it while painting it.March 24, 2011 3:35 am at 3:35 am #759803
Perhaps one of you would contact your local rav and ask him what should’ve been done? Just so that we all know what to do in the future.March 24, 2011 3:38 am at 3:38 am #759804
Bravo for these bochorim.March 24, 2011 3:44 am at 3:44 am #759806
The ad costs the advertiser a lot of money and THEY should be compensated.
could be i don’t know l’halacha but the gemara says a case where a tanna ripped off a goyishe girls shirt b/c it was untznius (he thought she was jewish) (I don’t remember where the gemara is)March 24, 2011 3:46 am at 3:46 am #759807
I’m agreeing with joseph, then something MUST be wrong in what i’m thinking i’ll get back to everyone tomorrowMarch 24, 2011 4:37 am at 4:37 am #759808
jonas, they sell affordable children’s clothes and affordable coats, hats, shoes, and yes even skirts and tee shirts. Much more affordable than the stores in the neighborhood. They sell all kinds of things, you don’t have to buy things that are not tznius. So yes the women in the neighborhood do shop in the store. So if you don’t know what you are talking about maybe you shouldn’t be talking.March 24, 2011 4:38 am at 4:38 am #759809
I saw that sprayed up ad and was horrified at the Chutzpah. It is pure Geneiva and shouldve been handled better by talking to H&M.
It was weird to me though as to why H&M would want to advertise here, but that’s already their choice!March 24, 2011 5:19 am at 5:19 am #759813
If the ad displayed a far worse (yet technically legal) image and was put up on 13th Avenue across from Shomer Shabbos, and the advertiser refused to change it, would anyone still be opposed to it being removed by “other means” so your children shouldn’t have to see it daily?
(Mod – Hopefully this language will pass.)
fine, despite the obvious reference to Boro Park.March 24, 2011 5:43 am at 5:43 am #759814
Grandmaster, the issue would be with the owner of the space and NOT with the advertiser. They don’t know that they are marketing to a non-market. It is a waste of their money and they would be glad to know that they are wasting money by buying that space. Take it up with the owner of the space and take HIM to a din torah.March 24, 2011 7:13 am at 7:13 am #759815
I would like to tell a story of my own experience in this topic.
I used to pass a certain Jewish institution daily which had a Shiite school for a neighbor. It seems the Jewish institution had rented some space at the edge of its property to a billboard company. At first, the ads were decent. However, as time progressed, the ads became indecent. I called up the billboard company and spoke to the owner, a Conservative Jew. I explained how harmful the ads were to the viewing public and the additional Chilul Hashem that was being produced by the impression that the Jewish institution, a Yeshiva, was giving that such indecent exposure was okay. He didn’t understand my concerns and refused to change the ads. The Yeshiva couldn’t help me because the contract, unfortunately, did not contain any clauses about ad content.
So I called up the Shiite School. I spoke to the pricipal, Sheikh something-or-other, about the problem and asked him if it concerned him. (At the time, they were in the middle of building a mosque on their premises.) He commiserated with me that the billboard was in full view of his office window and pained him greatly. I advised him to call the billboard company and maybe he could succeed where I had failed.
The very next day, the ad was changed and never showed an indecnt poster again. After several weeks, I was curious, so I called up the Sheikh and asked him what he said to the billboard owner. He told me that after the owner refused to change the ad, he told the owner that if the billboard wasn’t changed within 24 hours, he, the Sheikh, would have it burned down. So, that produced results because the threat was believed. I thanked the Sheikh and shared with him the blessing that we, the Jews and the Shiites, could cooperate further in the future on similar interests. What I didn’t know at the time was that the Rosh Yeshiva, on his early morning walks, would meet the Sheikh daily on the street and have mutual discussions about morality and ethics.
Now, America also has enough Muslims. Why can the Jews not take advantage of their common sentiments and get them to do our dirty work?March 24, 2011 8:07 am at 8:07 am #759816
i am very proud of these Jews who acted as courageous soldiers of HashemMarch 24, 2011 8:25 am at 8:25 am #759817
truth be toldMember
Have the indecent exposure laws been changed, or they’re simply ignored?
I wonder what Charlie hall and the other defenders of the advertisers would say to an advertisement about Iran.
“Come move to our great country where women are ___ for not dressing properly, and children are ___ for disrespecting”
This nice ad will then be accompanied with a gallows and some other graphic imagery. How would you feel then?March 24, 2011 9:01 am at 9:01 am #759818
i am very proud of these Jews who acted as courageous soldiers of Hashem
Would you be equally proud if they were arrested, and their pictures (with yarmulkes on) were shown on the news and in the newspapers? Would you be proud to hear non-Jews saying “It’s the Jews causing trouble again”? Destruction of property is an issur d’oreita and it’s against the law. What do you think any of the gdolim would say?
America is not a shtetle.March 24, 2011 10:30 am at 10:30 am #759819
There are other (legal) ways to get the ad removed.
I’m wondering how “bad” the ad is. I’ve seen plenty of improperly dressed women in places like BP, so its not like this ad is the only offensive thing out there.March 24, 2011 10:44 am at 10:44 am #759820
Totally off topic but since when is there an H&M in BP??March 24, 2011 11:49 am at 11:49 am #759821
It is indeed a courageous act, as long as they had approval for it from a rav and didnt pasken themselves. Putting an indecent ad in any religious area anywhere in the world is highly provocative and senseless act.
With regard to the question of them not seeing the ad in the 1st place, the ???? says ??? ????? ???? ????? ????? ??????
A person first sees and then desires so the pasuk appears to be in the wrong order, it should have first mentioned ??????
and only then ????? . But the answer is that there’s a difference between the initial look/seeing which is accidental, and the subsequent gazing. What a person happens to see initially is not his fault. He must just ensure to look away immediately. The pasuk refers after that first look when the heart is urging him to look again. This is what is meant by ???? ????? ????? ??????. So nobody can question how the ad was noticed initially.March 24, 2011 12:04 pm at 12:04 pm #759822
aries: My point was if even after every entreaty and heartfelt plea the space owner and the advertiser still absolutely refuse to remove a salacious ad in the heart of a Jewish neighborhood with little children seeing it constantly (not to downplay the tragedy of Jewish adults seeing it too), who could oppose taking matters into our own hands?
Let us not allow society’s decadent values to desensitize us to the horror of having this trash in the midst of our neighborhoods.March 24, 2011 1:04 pm at 1:04 pm #759824
‘If the ad displayed a far worse (yet technically legal) image and was put up on 13th Avenue across from Shomer Shabbos, and the advertiser refused to change it, would anyone still be opposed to it being removed by “other means” so your children shouldn’t have to see it daily?’
Yes, I would oppose it. Vandalism is illegal. It is no different from some Christian fanatic torching a synagogue because he is offended from our denial of his messiah.March 24, 2011 1:23 pm at 1:23 pm #759826
mbachur: I find it hard to believe that Gemara without a source. Because now the Tanna ripped off the shirt of a woman (forget the obvious issues of negeah) because it was untznius. Did that rectify the situation or made it worse? I think we all can agree an undressed woman is more untznus than a partial dressed one. It is also amazing how Rashi NEVER looked at ANY women in his life. When he once saw a woman, by accident, he knew it must be for a reason, and hence Rashi was able to explain the cohen gadol’s apron. That was Rashi, so I must assume a Tanna was on a higher level than him.
This seems like a classic case of Mitzvah Bo Bavaryah.Even for those who feel what the Bochurim did was correct, in either case, the Bochurim were “Over An aAveaytrah” if G’Nayvu and have a chiyuv to pay the advertisers back. If not, than the whole act becomes an averyrah. If you want to show you are a chossid, then act like one,not an animal.
Can anyone please remind me of any case a Gadol approved destroying someone’s property? If yes, did the gadol endorse not paying for the damages?
The most appropriate response would be to boycott the company, but not create a chillil hashem because now they think Jews are a bunch of animals and uncivilized. Are they wrong in this case?March 24, 2011 1:34 pm at 1:34 pm #759828
True, defacing other’s property is criminally wrong. True, H&M is a popular store for many Jewish shoppers. True, they are therefore advertising to their market.
HOWEVER, the section of the market living in the area of this particular advertisement is not likely to buy, or to appreciate having to walk past with eyes averted, the particular styles being advertised.
An ad like this in a neighborhood like this is not a good fit. It doesn’t help the company’s image. It’s not designed to create new customers within the target area (other than the people who already dress like that). Why not showcase the more modest styles that they carry, which the frum crowd does buy?
A previous, similar ad there suffered the same fate. What was the reaction of the advertiser then? Maybe it wasn’t H&M, but shouldn’t that have made any advertiser wary? If they are going to spend their money in this neighborhood, spend it wisely. Let everybody benefit. The store will get new or continued customers, the frum shoppers have a different shopping venue, and the bochrim can concentrate on studying Torah instead of possibly landing themselves in court.March 24, 2011 1:56 pm at 1:56 pm #759829
Grandmaster, you are taking it too far since that didn’t happen. H&M does have a right to be notified that their ad was offensive in that community and that the owner of the space should have informed them of that. They could easily have put a children’s clothing ad, or a men’s clothing ad in that space and not a women’s ad that was offensive. It is not the fault of the advertiser and they should not be punished or demeaned. It is the fault of the space owner and they should be held accountable if the community is angered.
There is no point in playing what if. In order to do that you also have to play what if the bochurim are caught and H&M and the property owners want to press charges. Are they heros if they have to repay the thousands of dollars it cost to have the ad placed there for the month? Who is willing to step up to the plate and refund the advertiser the 10 – 30 thousand?March 24, 2011 2:34 pm at 2:34 pm #759830
Had the Bochrim been thinking clearly, they might have covered the ad without defacing it (such as using a large tarp and a staple gun), until the ad could be changed by the owner. As is, what they did probably needed to be done in some form, but one should try to stick to the law if at all possible.March 24, 2011 3:14 pm at 3:14 pm #759832
I don’t get it, these guys were acting like H&M did it on purpose to provoke their disgust and outrage!
What ever happened to communicating like a mentsch? If they’re so concerned with Tznius, they should have avoided looking at that thing, not make a project out of it.March 24, 2011 3:18 pm at 3:18 pm #759833
I agree with g_a_w?
Moshiach is coming ever so much closer.March 24, 2011 3:30 pm at 3:30 pm #759834
“H&M does have a right to be notified that their ad was offensive in that community and that the owner of the space should have informed them of that.”
Agreed. H&M is a huge multinational corporation with tens of thousands of employees. You can’t expect them to know the demographics of every block in New York City.
And it is currently being boycotted by the anti-Semites because they have opened stores in Israel! It deserves our support, not the destruction of its ads. The community should raise the money to pay them for the vandalism, and to buy them out of their contract for the billboard. (Actually, the bocherim themselves should pay, but they may not have the money.)March 24, 2011 3:33 pm at 3:33 pm #759835
Article about the boycott of H&M by the anti-Semites:March 24, 2011 3:34 pm at 3:34 pm #759836
Won’t comment on the actions of the bochurim, but I will say this:
If H and M pays for a billboard in BP, its because they know the BP market is one of theirs.
And from what I see (both in BP and Midtown), their market research is right on target.March 24, 2011 3:41 pm at 3:41 pm #759837
“If H and M pays for a billboard in BP, its because they know the BP market is one of theirs.”
I would not assume that. Most humongous corporations contract out their marketing to advertising consultants who buy billboard space in large quantities through billboard companies, so H&M may well be two steps removed from the actual placement of this offensive ad.March 24, 2011 3:44 pm at 3:44 pm #759838
There is a large public school a block from where the sign was located. Perhaps the sign was targeted at the students, teachers, and visitors who pass by each day.March 24, 2011 3:46 pm at 3:46 pm #759839
Ok, so maybe its not H/M at the wheel, but my point still stands; the ad was placed in BP after long, hard deliberation.
We (BP) have no one to blame but ourselves.March 24, 2011 3:50 pm at 3:50 pm #759840
“Perhaps the sign was targeted at the students”
I (paritally) take back what I said.
Gittayid, your “melamed zechus” is something to behold.March 24, 2011 3:52 pm at 3:52 pm #759841
I think you got a point there.March 24, 2011 3:52 pm at 3:52 pm #759842
BP is part of NYC. It is not KJ or New Square (or Mea Shearim). Don’t claim “it should be expected”.
DHM: May he arrive soon.
BPT: Assuming you are not inferring Lashon Hara, what do you mean?March 24, 2011 3:53 pm at 3:53 pm #759843
H and M, like many stores of all kinds, use data provided by their own customers. Whether it is signing up for a mailing, a credit card or buying online, they may see a cluster of customers in this area. They may have been targeting the public scholl traffic as well (someone stated there is one in the vicinity). Perhaps they signed a contract that gets them 50 bus shelters evenly scattered through the boro. Whatever it is, why assume they are out to offend everyone?March 24, 2011 4:03 pm at 4:03 pm #759844
Avram in MDParticipant
H&M does have a right to be notified that their ad was offensive in that community and that the owner of the space should have informed them of that.
For all of the money that large companies spend on market research, I find it hard to believe that they would have been completely ignorant of the situation. Also, I would imagine that people calling or writing complaints would be more likely to send them to the company rather than the property owner, because the company’s name is on the ad.
Yes, I would oppose it. Vandalism is illegal. It is no different from some Christian fanatic torching a synagogue because he is offended from our denial of his messiah.
Please. I really don’t think that painting over a billboard and torching a synagogue are analogous. In fact, I find the juxtaposition objectionable, since it suggests that torching a synagogue is only vandalism, and not an act of terror and hatred, or even murder if someone were inside.
Also, would you oppose any form of civil disobedience, no matter what for, because it was illegal?
Had the Bochrim been thinking clearly, they might have covered the ad without defacing it (such as using a large tarp and a staple gun), until the ad could be changed by the owner.
I very much agree with this.March 24, 2011 4:11 pm at 4:11 pm #759845
If you paint over a billboard don’t you think people will go closer to take a look at what was covered up? Ignoring it, or covering it with a tarp, or calling the company asking them to exchange the ad with a children or men’s clothing ad would have served the community better.
What they did was draw more attention to it and give H&M more publicity.March 24, 2011 4:19 pm at 4:19 pm #759846
So no one would have a problem is an atheist spray painted over an add for a frum organization? It’s their belief that we are spreading lies.
Part of living in a wonderful country like the USA is that we are given freedoms. If we don’t respect the freedom of others, others will not care if our freedoms get restricted.March 24, 2011 4:28 pm at 4:28 pm #759847
aries2756: I think that’s what they intended to do – give H&M more publicity. They should actually be paid for their stunt.
Just toying with this thought. What if the display was of a graphic horrific murder scene, bodies etc. and all (think of and fill in details). Would one say “just look the other way.., call the owners.., or would one take immediate action?
Don’t mean to mix into the fray. Not my nature. As I wrote – just toying..March 24, 2011 4:38 pm at 4:38 pm #759848
So no one would have a problem is an atheist spray painted over an add for a frum organization? It’s their belief that we are spreading lies.
But frumkeit IS the truth. ð
I wouldn’t have an issue if the athiest really feels it is offending, and there was no damage done (ie. a tarp covering). It is a free country (maybe).
Also, S., sometimes it is worth breaking the law and then paying the consequences, if need be.
- The topic ‘Bochrim Spray-Paint Over Not Tzniyus Advertisement’ is closed to new replies.