Public Defamation = DF'd ???

by Lillith26 72 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  blondie

  While not a lawyer, I have spent 15 years of my life working in the court/legal system. I have seen first hand how difficult gathering witnesses and evidence really is; and how costly it is.

  I don't give a flying flip what jws think of me. If you believe in God, it is only his opinion that really matters. If you don't, the people who really know and care about you won't buy into that BS.

  Like I said elsewhere, finding an attorney that would take this on will be very difficult. Being an attorney is their livelihood and they have to have a reasonable expectation that they will be paid for their time and that winning is a strong likelihood.

  Count the cost and be realistic.
• 

  keyser soze

  not every country is governed by the USA Constitution...

  Maybe not, but the laws and governments aren't so radically different from our own. Religions have the right to decide who they want to retain as members, and who they don't. And people have the right to decide who they want to associate with and who they don't. The fact that they are influenced by outside sources, such as religious leaders, is immaterial when you're talking about adults. In other words, people have the inherent right to be assholes. This is consistent wherever you go in this world.
• 

  Olin Moyles Ghost

  Every few weeks, someone starts a topic about suing the WTS based on disfelowshiping. As others have stated, this has been tried and failed several times. For example Barbara and Joe Anderson tried several novel tort theories against the Society, but all were dismissed by the Tennessee Court of Appeals. (see http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/OPINIONS/Tca/PDF/071/WatchtowerOpn.pdf). Another case is Paul v. Watchtower, where the Federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the Society's right to engage in shunning (see http://openjurist.org/819/f2d/875/paul-v-watchtower-bible-and-tract-society-of-new-york-inc).

  As far as I know, the only person who successfully sued the WTS for libel/slander is Olin Moyle. He had a pretty good case because Rutherford publicly slandered him in front of the Bethel family, then authored two WT articles further defaming Moyle. If the Society prints a WT article defaming you, then you will have no problem finding a lawyer willing to take your case in exchange for a piece of the action (33 - 40%). Perhaps that's why the WTS has never mentioned Ray Franz in print since the 1980 Kingdom Service announcement that he was no longer a GB member...
• 

  keyser soze

  And please, someone explain to me how publicly announcing that someone is no longer a member of your religion is 'defamation' when a) it is the truth, and b) the decision of who is a member of the church is by right theirs to make.
• 

  jonathan dough

  Disfellowshipping in and of itself wouldn't most likely be actionable, they can boot out anyone they want for the most part, but the underlying facts that led up to it, for instance, that is what you want to focus on. Were you falsly accused of molesting a child or commiting adultry, and that lie made its way through the congregation and up the corporate ladder, and you in turn go out and try to kill yourself because of the false accusation or you suffer such humiliation and depression it drives you to the brink. Did you lose work because of it? Lose your wife? (No, I'm not talking about me so don't read anything into this). Did they sit in their cars hours on end spying on you? Did they pry into personal matters and spread that information throughout the congreation that somehow caused you damages? Did they lead you to believe your "confession" was protected by the laws of privilege but didn't keep that information confidential? Is there a wrongful death or infliction of emotional distress claim arising from a minor child's death who was murdered due to the inability to obtain a blood transfusion? Could a sibling sue? Were you emotionally harmed because the elders, or anyone in the congregation for that matter, drove a wedge between you and your spouse? Did they pry into your sexual proclivities with your spouse and that information got leaked out.

  I can go for hours like this. I read these stories of abuse on this board, there are some very damaged people here, and that is not normal. These people (WTS) likely intentionaly inflicted emotional distress.

  What makes it easier is that these people can't keep their mouths shut. They feed on the slander. Gathering information might not be as difficult as one might think. And, they keep large paper trails.

  http://www.144000.110mb.com/
• 

  jonathan dough

  For example Barbara and Joe Anderson tried several novel tort theories against the Society, but all were dismissed by the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

  That is just one circuit. States have different laws. You can't go by that.

  http://144000.110mb.com/144000/index.html#I
• 

  jonathan dough

  if the WTS could be held legally liable for its DFing practices someone would have done it by now.

  Weak.
• 

  jonathan dough

  First, they have to spread lies.

  Not necessarily. While the general rule is that truth is a defense, there are exceptions. For instance, hypothetically speaking, while it might be true that Undercover is a meth-addict and pedophile, even if he admits it, you can't put up a billboard on the highway stating that.
• 

  jonathan dough

  You also want to look at the manuals, those books that the elders etc. have, the ones that tell them what to do. You can hang them with that if it says do X and they do Y, or vice versa. Or the instructions violate rights in and of themselves.

  http://144000.110mb.com/144000/i-6.html#VII
• 

  keyser soze

  For instance, hypothetically speaking, while it might be true that Undercover is a meth-addict and pedophile, even if he admits it, you can't put up a billboard on the highway stating that.

  How exactly did we go from publicly announcing that someone is no longer a member of your religion to that? That's a pretty large leap in logic. Obviously, if you announce publicly that a person is a drug addict, or adulterer, or pedophile, or god-forbid an apostate, that could be grounds for a defamation suit, particularly if it isn't true.

  But JWs don't do this for that reason. They simply announce that the person is no longer a member of their religion. This in itself is not defamation. They are simply informing the other members of the cong that the person's status has changed. They can't be held liable if an individual witness concludes on their own that the person is a drug addict, adulterer, pedophile or apostate.