But there is another aspect of the true/false question. Can one be the subject of slander, libel or invasion of privacy, if the public statement is a truthful one? The case of the gay teen shows courts will consider the impact of even a truthful statement and rule in favor of privacy. For example, if someone where to say, "So-and-so has HIV/AIDS" they may not be able to defend that on the basis of truth -- because invasion of privacy is involved.
Normally, yes - the truth is a 100% defense. But there is also the issue of who is leaking information and if it's a body (such as the police / courts) that have a duty of confidentiality then they cannot just go publicising people's secrets however true they may be without having to face some consequences. The issue then isn't slander or libel though, it's breach of confidentiality.
Regardless though, the WTS do not announce that [whoever] has done [whatever] ... just that [whoever] is no longer a Jehovahs Witness and if people link that with a local-needs talk about [whatever] a week later then that can't be helped and also can't be prosecuted.
"How" is indeed the question. Because we wish to avoid unintended consequences, in cases like this we let obvious harm and abuse of free speech to go forward unchecked. In the Janice Paul case, the court directly acknowledged the harm she had experienced.
Also, I've noticed a couple things as of late. On jw.org the defense of their shunning policy does not reference 1 Cor 5, nor "sins" like stealing and adultery. Rather a vague reference to the Bible's "moral code" is offered.
Yes, the thing to do is to highlight their policies through real-life accounts and experiences that demonstrate the reality of what they do, not the empty words they speak.
A pointless petition accomplishes nothing but possibly discredits the people criticising the WTS ... when you start making claims of "torture" then you damn well better have something to back it up with otherwise all other claims get swept into the trash along with it. If you are talking of numerous suicides then you should have probably numbers to back up the claims.
They don't, it's just a fluff piece to make themselves feel important and significant.
...OUTLAW
