In the US for the government to enforce a prior restraint on the speech of a citizen or an organization they have to show a compelling governmental interest in restraining that speech. The most common expression that comes to mind is that you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater, but why would that restraint be permissible. The government has a compelling interest in keeping citizens safe from the undue panic that could cause foreseeable and imminent danger. If someone yells fire in a crowded theatre many people will rush out of the theatre and the likelihood of injuries is read and substantial so there is a compelling interest in stopping that kind of speech. The other issue is that Watchtower can claim freedom of the press when they present material in a written format they are serving in a capacity of the press. In New York Times v United States the court ruled that the government could not stop the paper from printing the pentagon papers even though the Nixon administration felt that there was a compelling government interest in keeping secrets just that secret. The court ruled that there is a heavy burden that the government must show in order to restrain the conduct of the press and that even those secrets did not rise to the level of that burden.
Richard Oliver
JoinedPosts by Richard Oliver
-
115
Could a petition to make shunning illegal work?
by aboveusonlysky inwe're currently watching leah remini's series about scientology and the main thing she seems to focus on is the shunning policies of the scientology organization which let's face it are very similar to jw procedure.. i was wondering with all that's in the media recently about bullying could a petition be put together to get the goverment to consider making religiously mandated shunning illegal?
has such a thing been tried before?.
https://petition.parliament.uk/help says the following - .
-
-
-
115
Could a petition to make shunning illegal work?
by aboveusonlysky inwe're currently watching leah remini's series about scientology and the main thing she seems to focus on is the shunning policies of the scientology organization which let's face it are very similar to jw procedure.. i was wondering with all that's in the media recently about bullying could a petition be put together to get the goverment to consider making religiously mandated shunning illegal?
has such a thing been tried before?.
https://petition.parliament.uk/help says the following - .
-
-
Richard Oliver
Even if one would agree with the contention that shunning should be illegal it raises a number of questions. Who would enforce no shunning rules? How would you enforce it? How can someone prove that they didn't speak to someone not for religious reasons but for another reason? Would family members be required to communicate with each other a certain amount each day, week, month or year? Would there be jail time for not communicating with someone?
-
19
Being homosexual in a JW house hold
by Jean ini could not find a topic about this if there is one ooops.
it is hard to speak with my mother or any other witnesses about this, their response is "its ok to be gay just don't ever 'act out.
acting out = being with someone even if its a healthy consensual legal relationship between two adults its still wrong.
-
-
Richard Oliver
Jean I am in very much the same circumstances. I still believe in the tenets of JWs except that I am gay. It is rough I am not going to say it isn't but you have to do what you think is best for you and your circumstances and what you believe in. I still remember what a psychiatrist told me when I was coming to terms with my sexuality, he was gay too, he said there is no wrong way to live as a gay man, everyone has different circumstances and different desires.
-
115
Could a petition to make shunning illegal work?
by aboveusonlysky inwe're currently watching leah remini's series about scientology and the main thing she seems to focus on is the shunning policies of the scientology organization which let's face it are very similar to jw procedure.. i was wondering with all that's in the media recently about bullying could a petition be put together to get the goverment to consider making religiously mandated shunning illegal?
has such a thing been tried before?.
https://petition.parliament.uk/help says the following - .
-
-
Richard Oliver
Look at Glass v First United Pentecostal Church of DeRidder. A gentleman sued his church, which is his civil right to do so, but the repercussions that came from that action is something that the government cannot intervene in.
It is evident to us that this dispute is rooted in an ecclesial tenet of The First United Pentecostal Church which prohibits members from suing fellow church members. Certainly, in civil law the plaintiffs-appellants had a right to pursue their mandamus action. However, we hasten to add that the religious repercussions that were set into motion as a result of the exercise of their civil right is another matter beyond the reach of judicial authority. In that light, anything we might consider in our analysis of the two exceptions to their petition for damages would require us to apply, interpret, and comment upon The First United Pentecostal Church tenet against the institution of suits among church members
-
115
Could a petition to make shunning illegal work?
by aboveusonlysky inwe're currently watching leah remini's series about scientology and the main thing she seems to focus on is the shunning policies of the scientology organization which let's face it are very similar to jw procedure.. i was wondering with all that's in the media recently about bullying could a petition be put together to get the goverment to consider making religiously mandated shunning illegal?
has such a thing been tried before?.
https://petition.parliament.uk/help says the following - .
-
-
Richard Oliver
From your own words "You might think bullying is worse than ostracism" so clearly there is a distinction between bullying and ostracism. What you indicated in previous posts is that if bullying leads to suicide that the person who did the bullying can be prosecuted but if bullying and ostracism is different things that would be a different circumstance.
-
115
Could a petition to make shunning illegal work?
by aboveusonlysky inwe're currently watching leah remini's series about scientology and the main thing she seems to focus on is the shunning policies of the scientology organization which let's face it are very similar to jw procedure.. i was wondering with all that's in the media recently about bullying could a petition be put together to get the goverment to consider making religiously mandated shunning illegal?
has such a thing been tried before?.
https://petition.parliament.uk/help says the following - .
-
-
Richard Oliver
The congregation is not engaging in the activity of shunning, it can be said that they are encouraging individual members to engage in the activity but the organization is not doing that. In fact, their official agents are encouraged to communicate with disfellowshipped and disassociated individuals when elders go and speak with those individuals. And again even though the statement of shunning indicates an action what it really is doing is not engaging in activity that of speech and association with someone else.
-
115
Could a petition to make shunning illegal work?
by aboveusonlysky inwe're currently watching leah remini's series about scientology and the main thing she seems to focus on is the shunning policies of the scientology organization which let's face it are very similar to jw procedure.. i was wondering with all that's in the media recently about bullying could a petition be put together to get the goverment to consider making religiously mandated shunning illegal?
has such a thing been tried before?.
https://petition.parliament.uk/help says the following - .
-
-
Richard Oliver
When you sue anyone you have to show damages that were caused by the person actions. It is only under very narrow circumstances can someone be sued for not acting. It is the difference between malfeasance and nonfeasance, malfeasance you have done an act that is against the law whereas nonfeasance is you didn't do something that you are required to do.
-
115
Could a petition to make shunning illegal work?
by aboveusonlysky inwe're currently watching leah remini's series about scientology and the main thing she seems to focus on is the shunning policies of the scientology organization which let's face it are very similar to jw procedure.. i was wondering with all that's in the media recently about bullying could a petition be put together to get the goverment to consider making religiously mandated shunning illegal?
has such a thing been tried before?.
https://petition.parliament.uk/help says the following - .
-
-
Richard Oliver
aboveusonlysky what you are referring too in bullying requires an action not the lack of action. The action is the actual bullying of someone which requires direct and systematic harassment of an individual. Shunning is different it is the lack of action on a person. And the announcement that is made at a meeting that someone is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses is a true statement that is also why it is not a libel statement. If they claimed that someone was an adulterer and that is why they were disfellowshipped and they never committed the act then that would be a libel statement.
-
48
Disfellowshipping decision to go before Canadian Supreme Court
by Simon inhigh court will examine whether judicial review applies to membership decisions made by religious groups.
the supreme court of canada has agreed to hear an appeal involving a calgary man who was kicked out of his jehovah's witness church.. randy wall, a real estate agent was "disfellowshipped" from the highwood congregation for being drunk on two occasions and allegedly verbally abusing his wife.. as a result, he says his clients refused to do further business with him, so he argued his property and civil rights were affected.. after losing three internal church appeals of his expulsion, wall made an application with the court of queen's bench in calgary which ordered a hearing to first determine if there was jurisdiction for the court to hear the application.. decisions and appeals.
a judge decided the superior court did have jurisdiction to hear the application.. the church then appealed wall's decision to the alberta court of appeal, which upheld the court of queen's bench, affirming the court has jurisdiction to hear the matter.. one of the three appeal court judges dissented — arguing that congregations are private organizations akin to bridge clubs, whose decisions "are not enforceable promises and have limited, if any, impact outside its small circle.".
-
-
Richard Oliver
Randy. What is the relief you are asking for?
-
1
Doe, et al v National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA.
by Richard Oliver inthis is a lawsuit brought by watchtower against an insurance company.
the company provided four insurance policies between 1989 and 1993. the policies were there to pay out any liability damages that would arise during that time from any damages caused by elders and mss advice.
there were a number of exceptions that were spelled out in the policy which included that of a sexual nature and that if an elder or ms violated a law then the payout would not qualify.
-
-
Richard Oliver
This is a lawsuit brought by Watchtower against an insurance company. The company provided four insurance policies between 1989 and 1993. The policies were there to pay out any liability damages that would arise during that time from any damages caused by Elders and MSs advice. There were a number of exceptions that were spelled out in the policy which included that of a sexual nature and that if an elder or MS violated a law then the payout would not qualify. Apparently 3 insurers filed a claim so that the insurance company would payout for damages but the company refused to pay for it. There was a civil action and the insurance company won a summary judgement. The Plaintiffs appealed the decision and the appeals court reversed that decision and remanded it back to the court for a full trial. What I can glean from the case is that it is possible that the action that arose from the advice was that of child sexual abuse.