The term ""disfellowshipped"".
I'll stand to be corrected. But I thought they stopped using term many,many years ago from the platform.
When they "removed" or defamed someone.
Around 2005.
August WT: DF'ing renamed "Removed." AKA: GB re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic
by WingCommander 46 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Jeffro
NotFormer:
The change in 2005 was probably to deflect a possible rise in defamation suits against elders and possibly the GB as heading up the whole defamatory machine.
Saying someone ‘has been disfellowshipped’ isn’t more defamatory than saying ‘no longer one of jehovah’s witnesses’, and both are food for the rumour mill. The change was more likely to obfuscate whether a person was disfellowshipped, decided to disassociate, or was told they had ‘disassociated by their actions’. If anything, it may be more defamatory if someone leaves because they know it’s not ‘the truth’ but people decide the person is a pedophile or something instead.
-
NotFormer
"Defamation essentially involves harm or injury to a person’s reputation.
"And reputation is a social concept: It refers to a person’s standing in some relevant audience, i.e., the group or community beyond the speaker and the person."
https://www.journaloffreespeechlaw.org/simons.pdf
On the above basis announcing a disfellowshipment could be considered defamatory. It is certainly going to harm a person's reputation within the JW circle.
Let's remember that the merest whiff of legal action will make the WT change policy.
https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/8367/disassociation-versus-disfellowshipping
Defamation is mentioned in the above thread. From that thread:
"A couple of years ago, I asked an elder I knew well about this and other matters that had "wording" changed. Such as, not announcing why a person had been df'd. At the time, I was still active and didn't even know of the term 'disassociation.'
"His response? "Because they kept being sued, that's why! Satan is after the Society in any way he can. It's just words - they have to protect themselves."
"So....it's ok to change "words" to stay out of court. Such as disfellowshipped to disassociated. "It's just words" - the locals know that no real change has taken place"
It seems that the 2005 change relates to the above mentioned lawsuits.
-
Jeffro
NotFormer:
On the above basis announcing a disfellowshipment could be considered defamatory. It is certainly going to harm a person's reputation within the JW circle.
Precisely the same type of speculation results from the announcement that a person is “no longer one of Jehovah’s witnesses”, but with less transparency.
-
NotFormer
The legal department probably felt that there was enough of a difference to make it harder to prove before a court. That doesn't mean that they are right. If "no longer one of us" could still have a defamatory effect, then perhaps it would be worth pursuing it in the courts. The plaintiff would probably need to have FU money; there's no guarantee of anything.
-
Jeffro
Indeed. It’s more about what they can more likely get away with rather than actually caring about defaming people.
-
Vidiot
Seems even political correctness can have its uses. 😏