by frankiespeakin 22 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
I think it is comming in the future. The evidence is piling up on the Internet, assembly talks, letters to body of elders, and an increasing number of those being harmed by the cruel treatment and lies of the Watchtower Corporation that are clearly a form of malice.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/malice
1. A desire to harm others or to see others suffer; extreme ill will or spite. 2. Law The intent, without just cause or reason, to commit a wrongful act that will result in harm to another
https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/defamation
Generally, defamation is a false and unprivileged statement of fact that is harmful to someone's reputation, and published "with fault," meaning as a result of negligence or malice. State laws often define defamation in specific ways. Libel is a written defamation; slander is a spoken defamation.
The elements that must be proved to establish defamation are:
Yes. Truth is an absolute defense to a defamation claim. But keep in mind that the truth may be difficult and expensive to prove.
No—but merely labeling a statement as your "opinion" does not make it so. Courts look at whether a reasonable reader or listener could understand the statement as asserting a statement of verifiable fact. (A verifiable fact is one capable of being proven true or false.) This is determined in light of the context of the statement. A few courts have said that statements made in the context of an Internet bulletin board or chat room are highly likely to be opinions or hyperbole, but they do look at the remark in context to see if it's likely to be seen as a true, even if controversial, opinion ("I really hate George Lucas' new movie") rather than an assertion of fact dressed up as an opinion ("It's my opinion that Trinity is the hacker who broke into the IRS database").
A statement of verifiable fact is a statement that conveys a provably false factual assertion, such as someone has committed murder or has cheated on his spouse. To illustrate this point, consider the following excerpt from a court (Vogel v. Felice) considering the alleged defamatory statement that plaintiffs were the top-ranking 'Dumb Asses' on defendant's list of "Top Ten Dumb Asses":
A statement that the plaintiff is a "Dumb Ass," even first among "Dumb Asses," communicates no factual proposition susceptible of proof or refutation. It is true that "dumb" by itself can convey the relatively concrete meaning "lacking in intelligence." Even so, depending on context, it may convey a lack less of objectively assayable mental function than of such imponderable and debatable virtues as judgment or wisdom. Here defendant did not use "dumb" in isolation, but as part of the idiomatic phrase, "dumb ass." When applied to a whole human being, the term "ass" is a general expression of contempt essentially devoid of factual content. Adding the word "dumb" merely converts "contemptible person" to "contemptible fool." Plaintiffs were justifiably insulted by this epithet, but they failed entirely to show how it could be found to convey a provable factual proposition. ... If the meaning conveyed cannot by its nature be proved false, it cannot support a libel claim.
This California case also rejected a claim that the defendant linked the plaintiffs' names to certain web addresses with objectionable addresses (i.e. www.satan.com), noting "merely linking a plaintiff's name to the word "satan" conveys nothing more than the author's opinion that there is something devilish or evil about the plaintiff."
Yes. A private figure claiming defamation—your neighbor, your roommate, the guy who walks his dog by your favorite coffee shop—only has to prove you acted negligently, which is to say that a "reasonable person" would not have published the defamatory statement.
A public figure must show "actual malice"—that you published with either knowledge of falsity or in reckless disregard for the truth. This is a difficult standard for a plaintiff to meet.
A public figure is someone who has actively sought, in a given matter of public interest, to influence the resolution of the matter. In addition to the obvious public figures—a government employee, a senator, a presidential candidate—someone may be a limited-purpose public figure. A limited-purpose public figure is one who (a) voluntarily participates in a discussion about a public controversy, and (b) has access to the media to get his or her own view across. One can also be an involuntary limited-purpose public figure—for example, an air traffic controller on duty at time of fatal crash was held to be an involuntary, limited-purpose public figure, due to his role in a major public occurrence.
Examples of public figures:
Corporations are not always public figures. They are judged by the same standards as individuals.
In some states, there are legal privileges protecting fair comments about public proceedings. For example, in California you have a right to make "a fair and true report in, or a communication to, a public journal, of (A) a judicial, (B) legislative, or (C) other public official proceeding, or (D) of anything said in the course thereof, or (E) of a verified charge or complaint made by any person to a public official, upon which complaint a warrant has been issued." This provision has been applied to posting on an online message board, Colt v. Freedom Communications, Inc., and would likely also be applied to blogs. The California privilege also extends to fair and true reports of public meetings, if the publication of the matter complained of was for the public benefit.
A report is "fair and true" if it captures the substance, gist, or sting of the proceeding. The report need not track verbatim the underlying proceeding, but should not deviate so far as to produce a different effect on the reader.
http://www.attorneys-usa.com/intentional/defamation.html
Generally speaking:
Defamation is the issuance of a false statement about another person, which causes that person to suffer harm.
Slander involves the making of defamatory statements by a transitory (non-fixed) representation, usually an oral (spoken) representation.
Libel involves the making of defamatory statements in a fixed or medium, such as a magazine or newspaper.
The typical elements of a cause of action for defamation are:
Within the context of defamation law, a statement is considered to have been "published" when it is made to a third party, meaning somebody other than the plaintiff in the malpractice action. The reference to "publication" refers to this communication to a third party, regardless of the means of communication, and does not mean that the defamatory statement has to be in print.
Damages in defamation actions are typically to the reputation of the plaintiff. Depending upon the laws of the jurisdiction, a plaintiff may be able to sustain a defamation action on the basis of mental anguish, even in the absence of any other claim of harm or damage.
While actions for defamation arose from common law traditions, most jurisdictions have passed statutes which modify the common law definitions of defamation, libel and slander. These statutes may change the elements of the cause of action, limit the circumstances under which an action may be filed, or modify the available defenses to an action for defamation. Some statutes even require that the defendant be given the opportunity to apologize before the plaintiff can seek non-economic damages.
Most jurisdictions recognize "per se" defamation, in which the allegations made by the defendant are presumed to cause damage to the plaintiff. Normally in personal injury litigation, including actions for defamation, the plaintiff bears the burden of proof. Within the context of defamation, that means that the plaintiff must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant's statements were false, and that the defendant knew or reasonably should have known them to be false at the time the statements were made. Defamation per se provides a significant exception to that rule: Typically, where the statements made by the defendant constitute defamation per se, the defendant has the burden of proving that the allegations are true.
Typically, the following may consititute defamation per se:
Additionally, some states consider allegations that a married person was unfaithful to constitute defamation per se.
Defenses to a lawsuit alleging defamation include:
Truth: Truth is considered to be an "absolute defense" to a defamation action. If the statements made by the defendant are true, a defamation action cannot succeed.
Privilege: Sometimes the defendant will be legally shielded from a defamation action. For example, statements made by witnesses and lawyers in court, by judges from the bench, and by legislators on the floor of the legislature during legislative proceedings, are considered to be "privileged", and will not support a cause of action for defamation no matter how false, reckless or outrageous the statements may be.
Opinion: It is said that a person's mere opinion, as opposed to an allegation of fact, cannot give rise to an action for defamation. It is important to note, though, that a statement which superficially appears to be an opinion may nonetheless contain a sufficient factual element to support a defamation action. The content and context of the statement will typically be considered in determining if the statement is actionable. A statement by an employer to the effect of, "Joe Smith is a pathological liar" is far less likely to be regarded as a mere opinion than a statement by a casual acquaintance. A statement by Joe Smith's psychotherapist to that effect, while possibly also violating duties of confidentiality, appears to be a medical diagnosis and thus, if false, may also support an action for defamation. Some jurisdictions have eliminated the distinction between fact and opinion in defamation actions, and instead hold that any statement that suggests a factual basis can support a cause of action for defamation.
Fair Comment: Where a statement is found to be a "fair comment on a matter of public interest", the statement will not ordinarily support an action for defamation. For example, if the mayor of a town is involved in a corruption scandal, the expression of an opinion that you believe the allegations are credible is not likely to support a defamation action against you.
Innocent Dissemination: Where the defendant transmits a message without awareness of its content, the defendant may be able to raise the defense of innocent dissemination. For example, the post office cannot be held liable for delivering a letter which has defamatory content, as it is unaware of the content of the letters it delivers.
Consent: Although unusual, in some circumstances a defendant may attempt to argue that the plaintiff consented to the dissemination of the allegedly defamatory statement.
A defendant may also attempt to illustrate that the plaintiff had a poor reputation in the community, in order to diminish any claim for damages resulting from the defamatory statements.
In 1964, the U.S. Supreme Court decided a case entitled New York Times v Sullivan, and applied the First Amendment to hold that where a public figure attempts to bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove an additional element: That the statement was made with "actual malice". "Actual malice" means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth.
Example: Ariel Sharon filed a lawsuit against Time Magazine over allegations relating to his conduct leading up to the massacres at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. Although the jury which decided the case concluded that the Time story included false allegations, they found that Time had not acted with "actual malice" and thus did not award any damages to Sharon.
It is not necessary to be a celebrity or political leader in order to be deemed a "public figure".
Limited Public Figure - A person may become a "limited public figure" by engaging in actions which generate publicity within a narrow area of interest. Example: A woman named Terry Rakolta was offended by the Fox Television show, Married With Children, and wrote letters to the show's advertisers to try to get them to stop their support for the show. Her actions attracted media attention, and as a result Ms. Rakolta became the target of jokes in a wide variety of settings. As these jokes remained within the confines of her public conduct, typically ridiculing her as prudish or censorious, the jokesters were protected by Ms. Rakolta's status as a "limited public figure".
Involuntary Public Figure - A person can become an "involuntary public figure" as the result of publicity, even though the person did not want or invite the public attention. For example, people accused of high profile crimes may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established, on the basis that the notoriety associated with the case and the accusations against them made them involuntary public figures.
If you are considering filing an action for defamation, you may wish to consider the following:
High Cost - Defamation actions tend to be costly to pursue. When brough against major media companies or publishers, or their employees, you should expect that the case will be capably defended by highly skilled defense attorneys.
Low Recovery - Defamation actions rarely result in sizeable awards of damages, and it is not unusual for the cost of pursuing a defamation action to exceed the ultimate recovery.
Publicity - The publicity associated with litigating a defamation claim can actually serve to expose a greater audience to the false allegations than they previously enjoyed. In the event that a newspaper or news show picks up the story of the defamation lawsuit, defamatory statements previously known to only a handful of people can suddenly become known by the entire community - sometimes the entire nation or world. Sometimes the media will do a poor job of subsequently covering the verdict, such that the public hears the defamatory allegations but doesn't learn that the plaintiff was successful in the lawsuit.
Difficulty of Proving Defamation - It is sometimes not possible for a plaintiff to establish all of the elements of a defamation action, even where the defendant's statements were entirely false. Most people who hear that a plaintiff lost a defamation action aren't interested in the nuance - they will instead assume that the loss means that the allegations which inspired the suit were true.
Post #12,896 suggesting this.
As I have posted before:
Religions have been screwing over billions of people physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually for milenniums. JWs hold no monopoly on this.
On the scale of "dangerous religions", JWs are actually pretty far from the extreme, compared to some other ones out there.
If you are referring to a class action suit in the US: The WTS would fight such an action vigorously, and most certainly take it as far as the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has definitely taken a hands-off approach toward virtually all "established religions". JWs go back 80+ years, arguably 130+ years. That's pretty well established.
You're welcome to try, but good luck finding an attorney to take your case.
No, we are not approacching it b/c except in rare casrs, there is nothing approaching defamation or anything else.You just can't copy somr web pages. No lawyer would exist if you could. There are competing issurs in law. Religion wins.
What the lawsuit should be about is the very real damages done by shunning .
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
Depression
Anxiety attacks
And as more and more people tape record their interactions with elders (Watchtower minions) a
positive outcome can become more likely .
Oh dear, here we go again.
No, we are not approaching anything of the sort. Religious groups, especially those registered as nonprofit organizations through the state, enjoy a status that individuals do not. They can decide who members are and who members are not. They can speak in general terms about a group of former members even calling them "mentally diseased" - provided they do not identify by name specific ex-members.
Please do not mistake noise on the internet with actual legal developments that stand more than a token chance of a cat's meaty breath in a court of law. Remember the terrible noise that accompanied Mr Steve Unthank's unweldy case against the Watchtower Society in Victoria? Remember all the fevered talk on the internet about how it had the greatest likelihood of bringing the organization to its knees? And the outcome? Noise doesn't equal correct predictions.
The Watchtower has a well-oiled set of ex-communication policies that have been through the slippery but tenacious hands of well-paid lawyers familiar with state laws.
As another poster said, the Watchtower's policies on disfellwoshipping are relatively tame compared with some of the stricter groups out there. Trying marrying someone of your choice in a traditional immigrant Hindu family or speaking out against your parents' Moslem faith. Then tell me about how you'll ever get legal satisfaction. Meanwhile, efforts to serve notice on the organization simply ratchet up its view that all opposition is the kind of persecution Christ said his followers would suffer.
No.
--sd-7
yawn. This topic never goes away
