Should Uninvited D to D Work of Jehovah's Witnesses be against the Law?

by frankiespeakin 53 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  frankiespeakin

  Caba,

  And, since JWs often ignore requests not to call back (except when it's done formally) I think some regulation of repeated visits by JWs could be feasible.

  In other words, they have the right to call once but they do not have the right to make repeated calls if the householder objects.

  That's correct. The first time let them slide, but repeated calls they should be fined if the house holder says not to call again. This would require that the JW keeps better records of who not to call on, and never call again not excluding a call to see if they still feel the same way about not calling.
• 

  JeffT

  We're getting our own place soon. I'm going to be a sign on the door that says "All uninvited visitors will be considered trespassers. Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again."

  Should get rid of them.
• 

  JT

  if all else fails then try this:

  "A chalk outline of a human body on the porch, and a few copies of "The Watchtower" scattered around"...
• 

  Beep,Beep

  So where does it stop?

  Who's next?

  Suppose your neighbor doesn't want the Girl Scouts coming around selling them cookies? Wouldn't such a law also put an end to this as well?

  During the recent elections canvassers were out and about drumming up support for various political candidates. What happens if someone objects to their coming around, make it illegal as well?

  I think the Supreme Court has already settled this issue on more than one occasion.
• 

  cabasilas

  I think there's a difference between occasional visitations by groups like the Girl Scouts and organized repeat visitations by JWs.

  Has the Supreme Court dealt with the issue of repeated visitations that could violate one's right to privacy? I don't think it has. The rights that the JWs won in those Supreme Court cases are not unlimited.

  If the Girl Scouts kept calling every 6 weeks on people despite being rebuffed every time they called there would be a public outrage. Just because the JWs have the right to preach their religion uninvited does give them an unlimited right to return every 6 weeks to the same people again and again if they've been told not to do so.
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  The girl scouts hardly ever go d2d, they wear uniforms, an adult should be nearby, and if they need to inform the local police or register at city hall, it can be a learning project for the troop. Candidates would not mind registering for the d2d work. Again, the law changes. People get a permit to do many things they used to do freely- burn leaves, build a cabin in the woods, own a dog, carry a weapon, sell d2d, peddle on the street, pitch a tent in the forest preserve. Safety would be the reason to regulate this activity. I am not a fan of big governmental control, it could just be a thing that requires some type of registration. The politicians who suggest it will be popular if they mention JW's, Mormons, and politicians being subject to the registration.

  But, as stated, the idea of DO NOT TRESPASS signs and putting yourselves on the DO NOT CALL LIST are good.
• 

  blondie

  It might be of interest to some that not only the WTS was interested in the outcome they sought.

  Nov 27 2001	Brief amicus curiae of Brennan Center for Justice filed.
  Nov 29 2001	Brief amicus curiae of Independent Baptist Churches of America filed.
  Nov 29 2001	Motion of Electronic Privacy Information Center, et al. for leave
  	to file a brief as amici curiae filed.
  Nov 29 2001	Brief amicus curiae of Center for Individual Freedom filed.
  Nov 29 2001	Brief amicus curiae of Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
  	filed.
  Nov 29 2001	Brief of petitioners Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York,
  	Inc., et al. filed.
  Nov 29 2001	Motion of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for leave to
  	file a brief as amicus curiae filed.
  Nov 29 2001	Brief amici curiae of RealCampaignReform.Org, Inc., et al. (TBP)
  	filed. Jan 8 2002 Brief amicus curiae of Ohio Municipal League filed. Jan 9 2002 Brief amici curiae of International Municipal Lawyers Association, et al. filed.

  Supreme Court Upholds Anonymity, Free Speech. The Supreme Court ruled today that an ordinance requiring door-to-door petitioners to obtain a permit and identify themselves upon demand violates the right of anonymity inherent in the First Amendment freedom of speech. In November 2001, EPIC, the ACLU, and 14 legal scholars filed an amicus curiae brief (PDF), arguing that the ordinance implicates privacy, as well as the First Amendment rights of anonymity, expression, and freedom of association. (June 17)

  http://www.epic.org/free_speech/watchtower.html

  All these groups know that it is not possible to restrict the rights of JWs in the US and then give those same rights to other groups. They know that there are people in the community who don't agree with their beliefs either and might want their practice of it restricted as well. As imperfect as the US government is, this would be discrimination. The ACLU and the LDS were extremely interested in this case. The transcript of the oral arguments are below. If anyone has more of what was filed in writing and said by the justices, please post it because I'm sure it would help all of us understand the legal system in the US.

  http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/00-1737.pdf
• 

  frankiespeakin

  Blondie,

  Just because the Supreme court decided this way doesn't mean they will always keep this inforce. Circumstances make bring other issues up that cause a reversal or further qualification of how and when this can be applied.

  Supreme Court Upholds Anonymity, Free Speech. The Supreme Court ruled today that an ordinance requiring door-to-door petitioners to obtain a permit and identify themselves upon demand violates the right of anonymity inherent in the First Amendment freedom of speech.

  For instance they could change on the non requirement to obtain a permit if the pedofile issue gets more publicity, and people demand a permit, and require a convicted pedofile notify the householder of his convictions if he goes door to door. Or something similar may be require for public safety.
• 

  blondie

  So what legal steps would you take then to get the law changed? Who is going to fund this legal enterprise? You? It takes a great deal of money. Who do you plan on getting to support this financially? Laws don't change because we wish them to. It takes money, time, money, time, endurance, patience, sometimes years. Talking about it on JWD will never get a law changed. People have to sacrifice their time, money, energies to do it.

  I have been working with a group in my state to strengthen the laws regarding clergy reporting of abuse to the secular authorities. We have made progress but there is still more work to do.

  So frankiespeaking, if you are more than talk, good for you. Go out there and get the law changed, but remember that you will not just be fighting the WTS but every group that feels that the law currently in place regarding freedom of religion is worth more to them than impeding the WTS in their d2d work.

  Blondie
• 

  cabasilas

  Thank you, Blondie, for posting the pdfs of the oral arguments. It was very interesting to read.

  How I remember back in the 60s and 70s how we were told to disregard "No Soliciting" signs ("We're not solicitors!") and yet the oral arguments refer to this as a possible remedy for householders who might not want visitations. I well remember when I was a JW disregarding people who said: "I've told you guys over and over I'm not interested!" It was only later (in the 70s as I recall) when they started to keep record of "Do Not Calls" and these had to be formal requests of an almost threatening nature before we recorded them.

  I really don't think the JW court victories on door to door issues mean they have the unlimited right to call again and again on people who tell them they are not interested and may even say "please stop bothering me," but because they fail to make it a threatening-sounding formal "Do Not Call" request are ignored.