Public Defamation = DF'd ??? (page 5)

jonathan dough

Me: 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.

You: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.

you: 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.

As you can tell from what I wrote, I wasn't connecting the hypothetical with dissfellowshipping. That should have been clear. It pertains to whether truth is a defense in all instances of defamation. I also was quite clear in stating the improbability of a successful action based upon df'ing alone and that there are many other grounds one could pursue.

http://144000.110mb.com/144000/i-7.html#IX

sir82

This idea has come up at least monthly over the 8+ years this forum has been in existence. For the non-mathematically inclined, that's 100+ times someone has brought up this idea.

For at least the 101st time, here are the principal reasons why it wouldn't work:

1) Jehovah's Witnesses are a religion, like it or not. Courts are loath to interfere with "church justice".

2) The WTS would be quick to point out that shunning is a voluntary action, taken by individuals. They don't "force" anyone to shun anyone else. If you believe differently, how would you prove it to a court's standards?

3) The WTS has deep pockets and numerous lawyers who work virtually "for free", i.e., are in-house Bethel volunteers. One of their favorite legal tactics is delay, delay, delay, meanwhile the legal bills for the plaintiff continue to mount. Unless you have several $millions just lying around, you can't afford to take them on.

jonathan dough

One of their favorite legal tactics is delay, delay, delay, meanwhile the legal bills for the plaintiff continue to mount. Unless you have several $millions just lying around, you can't afford to take them on.

Nonsense. David beats Goliath all the time. If your case is strong enough and the right firm takes the case you won't have to put any money up front. There are many mangled poor people who walk away with million dollar judgments. Not to mention the attorneys' take.

undercover

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.

That's the point behind my scenerio of suing individual elders. The WTS didn't defame but it's entirely possible that an elder with a big mouth and haughty attitude might. Then, and only then, could you, possibly, maybe, big maybe, have an opportunity at a defamation lawsuit.

And if you sue John Smith for defmation, the Society is not liable and they will not step in with legal help for the defendant.

And again, all this is wishful thinking anyway. The odds are still against you and it is an expensive way to get some satisfaction or revenge.

keyser soze

As you can tell from what I wrote, I wasn't connecting the hypothetical with dissfellowshipping. That should have been clear.

Yes, I understood the context. I'm just not sure what it has to with the topic at hand, which is whether or not a public announcement that a person is no longer a JW qualifies as defamation. So far no one has come close to demonstrating this.

jonathan dough

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.

That's the point behind my scenerio of suing individual elders. The WTS didn't defame but it's entirely possible that an elder with a big mouth and haughty attitude might. Then, and only then, could you, possibly, maybe, big maybe, have an opportunity at a defamation lawsuit.

And if you sue John Smith for defmation, the Society is not liable and they will not step in with legal help for the defendant.

And again, all this is wishful thinking anyway. The odds are still against you and it is an expensive way to get some satisfaction or revenge.

If you went to law school, you need to go get a refund.

jonathan dough

One trick the JWs use to keep from being sued is for JW defenders to get on boards like this and make the argument that it is not possible, scaring off the complaint as it were. Don't fall for it, people.

http://144000.110mb.com/144000/i-5.html#VI

sir82

If your case is strong enough

See points 1 and 2.

jonathan dough

Yes, I understood the context. I'm just not sure what it has to with the topic at hand, which is whether or not a public announcement that a person is no longer a JW qualifies as defamation. So far no one has come close to demonstrating this.

The topic expanded as many topics do, to other claims for defamation and other causes of action in general. That's the nature the boards, and trying to constrict or shoe-horn the issues is just an attempt to divert, which is a common JW tactic.

http://144000.110mb.com/144000/i-7.html#VIII

undercover

If you went to law school, you need to go get a refund.

If you went to law school and you're so sure about it there hotshot, why don't you find someone to represent and go sue the Society...

Public Defamation = DF'd ???

Share this