JW table at small airport

by Bryan 59 Replies latest jw experiences

• 

  Gopher

  free speech is fine unless it offends the sensibilities of others;

  If you impose that view, then speech is not truly free.

  The examples of KKK or NAMBLA -- if they're promoting illegal activity (as is clearly the case with NAMBLA), then their public speech promoting such should not be allowed.

  However, the JW's (as much as we dislike their views) and their activities are still legal. If local airports allow such displays, any lawful group should be allowed.

  I think Bryan's observation that everybody was ignoring this JW lady and her publications demonstrates the best response. The JW gets to count her time, and everybody else in the community gets to go about their business.
• 

  Bryan

  It certainly isn't about ONLY ALLOWING speech and ideas and beliefs and teachings that YOU approve of or that YOU find correct.

  An airport is not a public place as is the street corner. Do you know anyone who would say that, letting your child die instead of using ALL medical support to save them, is an approved teaching and belief?

  How many non-Witnesses do you think know the blood issue about Witnesses? I suspect the admin at the airport didn't. I know if I had that resposability, I would want to be informed.

  Bryan

  Have You Seen My mother
• 

  Puternut

  The poor lady is merely doing her job and counting her time until Armaggedon arrives. If that is what she believes in and gives her hope until she expires, who are we to make trouble for her?

  Puternut
• 

  Bryan

  Okay Puternut, I'll go along with that reasoning. I too have compassion for little old ladies. What if though, someone does listen to her, takes her literature, studies, gets babtized, then shuns the family. What if the new publisher brings in children who can then die because they can't have blood to save their life?

  Just a thought.

  Bryan

  Have You Seen My Mother
• 

  jeanniebeanz

  If that is what she believes in and gives her hope until she expires, who are we to make trouble for her?

  Sorry, Puternut, but that line of reasoning doesn't hold water IMHO. If she were to rope in an unsuspecting woman who then by becoming a JW brought about the destruction of her family because of it, someone would get hurt.

  That is the bottom line here; witness beliefs break up families and hurt people including children. I'd rather make a bit of trouble for those spreading the poison...

  J

  edited to add: you beat me to it bryan.
• 

  Oroborus21

  Greetings:

  Willie, yes I would. As the old expression goes: I may not agree with what you have to say but I will defend your right to say it.

  As another person correctly pointed out there is a big (and lawful) difference between conduct that is itself unlawful (or even immoral), speech which is designed to provoke and immediate unlawful response (so called "fighting words" See a JW case: Chaplinsky) and speech that is MERELY objectionable or personally offensive to us.

  With regard to a table by the KKK, NAMBLA or Al Quaida for that matter, I would welcome a table to be set up in the marketplace of ideas.

  The counter to speech that one finds abhorrent is not to seek to REPRESS that speech (by writing a letter to the airport administrator for example) but rather to set-up a table in the marketplace of ideas that competes with or counters the speech you object to.

  You are obviously unfamiliar with my views or else you are quick to jump to conclusions (not unusual with many on this board) when you say that I view JWs to be "innocuous" or "unharmful". This is not the case as I find some of their practices and beliefs to be detrimental and harmful to others, especially Witnesses.

  Jeenie: Obviously, you fail to appreciate that there is a difference between my expressing my OPINION that people that wish to repress freedom of speech are "whiners" and (worse) and should shut up and try to compete in the marketplace or ideas instead AND if I were to advocate a position that the administrators/moderators (Simon et al) should repress what the whiners are saying. I do not advocate such position because I think that 1) all expressions should be tolerated 2) people can come to their own conclusions and see such whiners for what they really are (religious bigots) - that is the very concept of the Marketplace of Ideas afterall.

  Additionally, I might add that legally speaking the concept of freedom of speech and protection thereof (by the U.S. Constitution/Fed law/State law) is only applicable to the GOVERNMENT's conduct towards those wishing to speak.

  In other words, because and airport (a municipal facility, a division of the state) is controlled by the Government entity and because it has evidently made available a PUBLIC FORUM (the space for the table at the airport) the Government therefore cannot and should not be permitted to discriminate between speakers that may choose to use such forum.

  A common and popular misconception is that there is a legal right to free speech in a PRIVATE NON-GOVERNMENTAL forum. I don't have the right to set up a table on your front lawn.

  Likewise, in this privately owned forum, JWD, Simon et al. have established some restrictions on free speech. You can type or use curse words, and some threads get deleted for violating the policy. This is all fine since it is a private forum that is opened by the grace of the owner for the public's limited use.

  -Eduardo
• 

  Big Tex

  I see no harm in her sitting there. I may not agree with her belief system, but if letting her sit quietly and allowing others to approach her gives her a feeling that she is worshipping her God well -- no harm no foul. vive la difference

  I'd feel differently if this were an aggressive Witness, who was approaching people in the airport, making a nuisance of themselves or even intimidating passersby, but I don't see the harm here.

  Chris
• 

  GetBusyLiving

  I'm with you on this Bryan. One hundred percent. Its not about the little old lady, its about discouraging people from being sucked into a harmful cult.

  GBL
• 

  Puternut

  Sorry, Puternut, but that line of reasoning doesn't hold water IMHO. If she were to rope in an unsuspecting woman who then by becoming a JW brought about the destruction of her family because of it, someone would get hurt.

  That is the bottom line here; witness beliefs break up families and hurt people including children. I'd rather make a bit of trouble for those spreading the poison...

  Many people offer many different things. I have been a witness for over 26 years, and I know the ropes of the borg. But we all take responsibility for our own actions. We can choose not to accept. Jw's are no different from other religions and do 'secret' things behind the scenes like the rest. Before we make any choice we have the responsibility to check things out before we choose.

  Would we be doing the same thing if we saw a Mormon or the Hari Krishna at the airport? Or are we simply vengeful because we were a dubbie once. I am by no means endorsing what they teach. But we can be bigger than them by our example of 'acceptance' toward other people.

  Puternut
• 

  jeanniebeanz

  Eduardo,

  First of all, please use more care in spelling my name correctly.

  Secondly, the witnesses comprise a destructive cult that destroys generation after generation of families. If it took having their book selling at government owned operations stopped in order to save these families, then I'm all for it. Even if, in your book, that was a violation of free speech. Hey, they are pulling the ten commandments and crosses out of public facilities, why not throw out the witnesses while they are at it?

  Third, I have a question for you. What I think you are trying to say is stop fighting the witnesses on this board and do it publicly in the airports and malls. Is that correct? Please correct me if I am mistaken.

  Jeannie