Could the WTS be sued for slander for DF'ing?

by avishai 24 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Olin Moyles Ghost
    Olin Moyles Ghost

    Not in the USA, anyway. Simply announcing that 'XYZ is no longer one of JWs' is not slander. Truth is an absolute defense to a defamation claim (libel or slander). Since XYZ was DF'd or DA'd, then XYZ is no longer a member of the religious organization known as JWs. Thus, the statement is true and there is no slander.

    And to answer the question whether anyone has tried to sue the WTS for defamation--yes, they have. Olin Moyle won a libel lawsuit against the WTS for publishing defamatory things about him in the WT magazine.

    In the 1980s, a DA'd witness sued the WTS for defamation. The 9th circuit court of appeals shot her down. The case is Paul v. Watchtower. A copy of the opinion is available on Barbara Anderson's excellent Watchtowerdocuments.com website: http://www.watchtowerdocuments.com/downloads/1987%20Paul%20Decision%209th%20Circuit%20Court%20Appeals.pdf

    This case dealt with a DA'd person who was shunned by her former fellow Witnesses, so it's not exactly the same as the issue raised in this thread. But cases like this show that U.S. courts are unlikely to allow a plaintiff to succeed against a religious organization when the suit is based on religious practices--such as shunning and disfellowshiping.

  • DT
    DT

    It's an interesting question. Suppose there was a religious group that just called themselves "Christians". If they publicly announced that a former members was no longer a Christian, would that be slander? Many, especially non "Christian" Christians, would view it that way. They would also likely be offended by the claim that you must be a "Christian" to be a Christian. I think the "Christian" cult would be wise to change the wording of their announcement.

  • avishai
    avishai

    Thanks DT for defining it better than I could. OMG, If they said " Since XYZ was DF'd or DA'd, then XYZ is no longer a member of the religious organization known as JWs" And exactly that, you would have a point.

  • skeeter1
    skeeter1

    To be slander, it has to be untrue. They just announce that the person is "no longer a JW" and that is true. So, there is no slander.

  • skeeter1
    skeeter1

    To be slander, it has to be untrue. They just announce that the person is "no longer a JW" and that is true. So, there is no slander.

  • avishai
    avishai

    Once again, that only counts if you define "Jehovah's Witness" as someone who is a baptized member of the WTS. By definition, that phrase encompasses all christianity, and Judaism and Islam, for that matter.

  • leavingwt
    leavingwt

    The real question is not whether one can sue, but whether one can win.

    The ex-JW or the multimillion dollar corporation with a team of free lawyers?

  • avishai
    avishai

    Exactly. But, several did w/ the child abuse scandal, in the face of intimidation and dirty, dirty, unethical tricks by the WT and their legal staff.

  • passwordprotected
    passwordprotected

    Go for the 3 elders who signed the forms.

    Watch the WTS back away hurriedly.

    Set a precedent.

  • avishai
    avishai

    Yep. The society has been distancing themselves from local cong.s, legally speaking. They might just let the elders swing.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit