WHY NO LIBEL THREAT? (page 2)

Kudra

Thanks for the explanation. Bummer that a factual article like that was taken down... Perhaps Trev could put another article up that says much of the same and MORE: now that the WT knows that the site won't buckle and remove ALL of Trev's stuff, they really can't do too much about it. You know, there's no libel, everything is factual, no copyright infringement etc.

Maybe even get a statement from Barbara Anderson (that's who found out about the database, right?) about the pedophile database...?

-K

parakeet

It's ironic that the Supreme Court cases the JWs won on the basis of free speech enabled the WTS to continue their close-minded teachings.

avengers

VM44

THAT IS THE ARTICLE OVER WHICH SOMEONE THREATENED A LIBEL SUIT?!!!

There is nothing actionable in it!

I say tell the complainer to "pound sand"!

--VM44

fullofdoubtnow

Maybe even get a statement from Barbara Anderson (that's who found out about the database, right?) about the pedophile database...?

Great idea, Kudra, thanks.

Trev is rewriting the article and putting it back up soon, and including references to the material. He was n't happy to take it down, and if the jws think they've won even a partial victory, they're wrong.

Kudra

Wow, I just read the 1991 original WT article on abuse- it is so well written! It doesn't even sound like a WTBTS article -none of those dub-catchphrases, sanctimonious speech etc. Who wrote it? I bet they caught hell for it...

I think that is the only informative well written article I've read from the WTS...

-K

Kudra

ah, and to Trev and fullofdoubtnow:

DON'T BACK DOWN ! AND GIVE 'EM HELL!!!!!

Ya'll just make me so darn pround to be an apostate ...sniff...

;)

Actually I really am VERY proud of all the stuff you pro-active types do.

:)

fullofdoubtnow

DON'T BACK DOWN ! AND GIVE 'EM HELL!!!!!

There's no chance of us backing down , Kudra. Any opportunity to discredit the wts will be taken, you can be assured of that!

Oroborus21

this is really for Trev/Linda i guess

Hi,

just wanted to clarify cause what some posters have said is confusing me. From what I have read of your posts, the complaints to the free webhosting company (beehive), were made by individuals (most such webhosts have an an abuse or reporting mechanism to report things to the admins that violate its own user policies) and NOT an official complaint from the WTBTS. Is that corrrect because it seems some posters in the thread are talking about the Society or the Corp and are failing to see that these were complaints from individuals.

So long as you stay within the boundaries of copyright law and defamation law you will be ok and you should let the Beehive admins know that you are acting within the law. That won't totally alleviate the problem, but you should also let them know that so long as they receive only private individual complaints there is nothing to be concerned about. Such individuals don't have standing to sue and there is no such thing as group defamation (in modern law).

- Eduardo

fullofdoubtnow

Hi Eduardo,

Several jws made informal complaints to the head of admin about the anti - jw content of the site, and were asked what, specifically, they found offensive. They specified the child abuse article, and threatened legal action if it stayed on the site, and suggested that the whole site be removed. The admin contacted us, and Trev removed the article, after which we were told that the site was fine now, and despite the jws request fot it to be removed, it would stay, the jws would be offerred the opportunity to build their own site, and any more complaints about ours would be ignored.

Trev made it clear on the homepage that the site is primarily aimed at ex jws, and any jw who looked through it shouldn't expect to find many favourable views expressed towards the wts, but they still chose to look at it. The site admin team pointed this out as well when the jws contacted them about the site still being there. They also said that they would inform us if the jws complained again, and we have not heard from them, so maybe the jws have realised that the removal of the child abuse article is all they are going to get, and backed off.

WHY NO LIBEL THREAT?

Share this