by AndersonsInfo 25 Replies latest watchtower scandals
Designs said:
A Catholic telling a JW to read their Bible and examine their teachings? lol That's almost to pathetic to comment on."
Maybe he should hold a sign accusing JWs of sheltering child molesters? ;)
Ahhh, the memories of 'Tacoma Aroma', a pungent (some call it fragrant. But not me!) aroma enjoyed during my days back at McChord AFB in the early 80s.
It would appear that people should have the legal right to protest as long as they are on public property such as side walks
surrounding the chosen venue. The front entrance to most assembly venues are on private property, owned by the owners of the venue itself.
Since the WTS. is in a legal contractual agreement to rent the venue, they would have the right to not want people protesting on the venue's property.
This is where the legality of someone protesting at a JW assembly has to be realized.
just saying
King Solomon:
Ouch! My ears hurt.
We actually visited the Tacoma Convention this year again...there was a small handful of people out there with signs. Maybe 4 or so. Very non threatning, boring message. You'd think they would google some pertanent JW news and use that. I think it might do a little more damage than "read the bible, not the watchtower"....that wont have any effect. Obviously JWs think they are avid bible students.
I used to be one of the protestors outside the Tacoma Dome. The fellow that did a lot of the organizing (at least in the late eighties/early nineties) was the pastor at mainstream church in Burien. I can't remember which one, and I can't find a reference to him on the net. I don't believe this story, the area in front of the Tacoma Dome is public sidewalk and as long as the protestors don't block access (which we were told to be very careful of) the city has no authority to tell people they can't be there. I can't think of where the JW's would go if they threatened to pack up and leave.
I think the protestors aren't there anymore because we all have better things to do.
To be "threatened" with arrest is a rather strange claim.
If a policeman approaches you they have to ask you to comply with a particular law ordinance.
If you refuse to comply with an actual city ordinance the policeman can then inform you that you are "under arrest".
At this point you as a citizen have the constitutional right to ask a question and receive an answer: "What crime am I charged with?"
If the policeman cannot or will not cite the Law you are violating you DO NOT have to comply with their order to submit to arrest.
In other words, somebody was bluffing.
Bobcat said:
Ouch! My ears hurt.
Sorry, that large-sized font randomly pops up for some reason when posting from my iOS device running Mercury (a browser). It looks good on the screen, but gets screwed up in translation when I hit 'send'.... (I'm on a lappie right now.)
Interesting in that it happened when I cut-and-pasted your comment: did you change anything from default settings for font size, font family, etc? I'll have to figure it out, because it means posting from a mobile is not reliable (and I cannot go back and fix it, as editing is locked after 30 minutes).
Jeff said:
I don't believe this story, the area in front of the Tacoma Dome is public sidewalk and as long as the protestors don't block access (which we were told to be very careful of) the city has no authority to tell people they can't be there.
The laws pertaining to protesters right to free speech may vary, depending on the State. The Police have an obligation to protect public safety by issuing permits; I suspect they didn't do that here.
Ironically, the Westboro Baptist Church is very cautious when staging their protests at soldier's funerals, etc. with their organizers sitting down with Police well before-hand to arrange details of where they can stand, etc. Protesting without a permit is illegal in many places, and protesters can be ordered to disband or else face arrest for unlawful assembly, creating a public disturbance, etc. Even if arrested, the DA rarely prosecutes; however, the Police DO eliminate the problem by arresting them.
There is the (in)famous SCOTUS case that says that free speech rights may exist on private property.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins
When entering say, a grocery store (on private property), you may see a sign which recognizes the ruling, by saying the business has no ability to prevent individuals from soliciting there, but doesn't endorse or sponsor the messages delivered. That's a result of Pruneyard (just saw a sign yesterday, in fact).
Barbara thanks for the Heads up, having grown up in the Tacoma area, I can wholeheartedly belive this comment
I mean WHO wants to spend a night in the jail, hoosgow, singsing, etc. JUST for picketing the JW's
that isn't aneough incentive for me, even if it was an idle threat -
the JW lobby is very strong and the people that feel they bring $$$ in will do what that takes to make it happen.
NOTHING surprises me anymore,
The laws pertaining to protesters right to free speech may vary, depending on the State. The Police have an obligation to protect public safety by issuing permits; I suspect they didn't do that here.
That may have been the case King Solomon, some States do require a protest permit prior to doing so.
If one is granted the protesters are usual instructed to remain on public property at all times though.
It would be hard to believe that a local government would refuse a very small protest such as handful of anti-JWS at a large event
such as a JW Assembly, as long as they stay on publicly owned land such as side walks.
