[Piranha]

Jackson could never sue him successfully. In the first place, truth is a defense to libel. In the second, opinions (and most of what Boteach wrote was opinion) are protected under the First Amendment as it has been construed in our courts. In the third place, even if Boteach were found to have libelled Jackson, there are no provable damages, because Jackson's reputation already was in the toilet.

That doesn't make it right for Boteach to exploit his personal relationship with Jackson by breaching confidences for self-aggrandizement.

[VOA]

That doesn't make it right for Boteach to exploit his personal relationship with
Jackson by breaching confidences for self-aggrandizement.

In regular human relations, I'd agree on just about every occassion.

And depending on the specifics facts of the situation, Boteach should have cast
the experience in terms of a moral tale without ever using Jackson's name.

What follows is just speculation:
If Boteach was functioning as a cleric to Jackson when he gave the advice...Boteach should
have not breached confidentiality, real or implied.
Conversely, if Boteach was just a friend or professional acquaintance,
Boteach may have reasonably inferred that Jackson's conduct was either criminal...
or perceived as criminal and stopping was a practical move so that Jackson could
do good works AND not harm kids.

Maybe Boteach as a Rabbi has searched this out theologically and thinks he
has done the right thing.

My feeling is that he would have done better to follow the example of an itinerant
Jewish teacher and carpenter...and told a modern parable about a man who
thought that by doing enough good, he could justify the damage he did to himself and others.

I'm not saying what the right approach is...just considering the other angles.