Jehovah’s Witness who posted criticisms on Reddit can remain anonymous, judge rules
by Tameria2001 110 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Simon
This case isn’t trying whether their has been a copyright breech. That will happen when ( and if, since I don’t believe it’s Watchtowers aim) Watchtower gets Darkspilvers I.D. from Reddit. Then they will pursue their copyright claim.
This case is about whether Reddit has to hand over Darkspilvers identity to Watchtower, and part of that case entails establishing Darkspilver’s right to anonymous speech.
Clearly, copyright infringement is a real thing that is recognized globally (most countries have signed up to the same treaties).
There is no law or right to anonymous speech and trying to use the claim that there is to escape the consequence of other laws is a real stretch IMO.
If the claim is that it should be allowed as it is criticism, then that is the claim to make when defending the copyright claim. But the copyright holder has the right to make the service provider tell them who they can make their claim against otherwise you would effectively be tearing up all copyright law. Does anyone think that is going to happen? If the only way to win a case would be to fundamentally change established laws and international treaties, it shouldn't be a surprise that the result is as it was.
The rest is just hot air and hand waving by "freedom" groups which they do as part of their fund-raising.
-
DesirousOfChange
I guess DS is fucked!
-
Simon
I guess DS is fucked
Why? You think the WTS is going to direct a local cong to disfellowship him? That would show clear control from HQ to congregational decisions and I don't think the WTS is that stupid because think of the consequences for all the other cases where being able to distance themselves is a way they avoid legal liability. That would evaporate. They are not going to do that for some minor 'win' about a post on reddit although it would be 'great' (in the bigger sense) if they did.
Maybe, and this might come as a shock to some, it's actually about copyright? ... in the same way that other incidents over the years, sites being shut down and take-down notices, have been.
-
Doubting Bro
There's no way DS isn't going to get disfellowshipped if his real identity is shared with the JW WT lawyers. Hopefully, he used means to cover his tracks so that no one knows his identity. Of course, that is the chance that those who provide leaked information take. There are ways that they can get the information to the local congregation. You can literally be disfellowshipped for anything the elders want. It's their rules, their club, they can do whatever they feel like to kick someone out.
-
Vidiot
Simon - "Maybe, and this might come as a shock to some, it's actually about copyright?"
Fair point.
Kinda hard not to suspect more vindictive reasons behind it, though.
Kinda hard to imagine how the info leaked could cause any real difficulty for the bOrg, after all...
...not to mention that they stated in the original lawsuit that a stop-motion video made with Lego (somehow) caused "irreperable damage".
-
Corney
Case update: The EFF filed motion for reconsideration, it's fully briefed, and the hearing is scheduled for August 1.
Case docket and documents: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/8509534/in-re-dmca-subpoena-to-reddit-inc/
I wonder if this case will eventually go to circuit court.
Interestingly, another motion to quash DMCA petition was fully briefed 11 months ago but no hearing has been scheduled.
-
nonjwspouse
Actually, Simon, I think they Are that stupid, or rather, arrogant. Only if the WT lawyers get it through thier thick heads , which I doubt they will, would the WT not pursue anyway possible to kick DS out of the "club". Maybe siting some other reason, but definitly he will be DFed in my opinion. The GB will make sure the pressure is on.
The lawyers couldn't get them to change or modify what consitutes a "witness" for the two witness rule in child pedophilia. You KNOW they are wanting them to do so due to the massive legal liability. Same with the blood rule. Shunning is a big liability.
"Why? You think the WTS is going to direct a local cong to disfellowship him? That would show clear control from HQ to congregational decisions and I don't think the WTS is that stupid because think of the consequences for all the other cases where being able to distance themselves is a way they avoid legal liability."
-
Diogenesister
Simon There is no law or right to anonymous speech...
Actually, there is. Provided it passes the Highfield test, it comes under the protection of the first Ammendment.
“What sorts of protection does the First Amendment provide when someone upset by this anonymous speech seeks to learn the identity of that anonymous speaker by means of civil discovery? [1] The First Amendment guarantees the right to speak anonymously.[2] First Amendment rights are not absolute, so when the right to speak anonymously conflicts with a plaintiff's right to a legal remedy, the court has to figure out how to reconcile the competing rights.[3] Courts have been grappling with this question for the past decade and a half, as anonymous speech has become prevalent on the internet.[4”
-
DesirousOfChange
Actually, Simon, I think they Are that stupid, or rather, arrogant. Only if the WT lawyers get it through thier thick heads , which I doubt they will, would the WT not pursue anyway possible to kick DS out of the "club". Maybe siting some other reason, but definitly he will be DFed in my opinion.
I would suspect they would patiently wait until after the case is done and over before they take some kind of action at DS. At that point in time, one of the "prominent" elders will "stumble" upon his identity. OR perhaps so paralegal in the office of the attorney (you can be sure they are all JW's) will break confidentiality (even at risk of their position and/or license) and pass off some documents that prove the identity.
This is the kind of approach they have taken in other cases, for example, Menlo Park and also against an elder who testified against them in a child abuse case here in the US (California, I believe). He & his wife are members here, so they can correct me if I have misstated the facts.