anti DoorKnocking / neo Green River Act in New England?

by james_woods 9 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  james_woods

  I saw a short piece last night on an activist group in a little town in (I believe) Connecticut -

  They were trying to enact local legislation to limit door knocking. The issue was not the JWs - it was about one of those general magazine salespeople who got into some elderly ladies house and robbed & murdered her a year or two back. However, it did mention commercial, political, and religious purposes.

  The idea was that all doorbell solicitors would have to register and accept responsibility to abide by a list of homeowners who opted to register as a "don't knock" address. This was modeled off of the famous (and IMHO successful) act to limit phone solicitation during the dinner hour by those annoying "charities" , carpet cleaning salesmen, etc..

  It reminded me of the so-called Green River Act years ago which some communities tried to use against the JWs. As I recall, the WT legal dept fought against this tooth and nail and also traditionally refused to register as door-to-door salespeople (which of course they were).

  Wonder if this fight is on again, this time fueled by the murder outrage?
• 

  Big Tex

  I think it's a great idea, not just for Jehovah's Witnesses selling their literature but for anyone. Nothing more annoying than having someone come at dinnertime to sell you something totally useless. Same with telemarketers.
• 

  Forscher

  Yep.
  They had a spot on it on Fox News the other day. It seems like these ordinances are starting to pop up all over the place. I guess the Watchtower legal department is about to haveits hands full.
  By the way, the case mentioned invovled the town of Stratton, Ohio. You can find the Supreme Court decision at:
  http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=00-1737
  Forscher
• 

  FreeFromWTBS

  Thankfully, I live in a private community so the only ones who have come by are the JW's and the boyscout that lives a couple doors down from me in the community.
• 

  garybuss

  I think it's a shame the Jehovah's Witnesses defeat, in my opinion, a good law that protects vulnerable people. Because of Jehovah's Witness attorneys everybody can go door to door without consequences. To me, that's not right.
  
  There's no problem for Jehovah's Witnesses to register to visit private homes. When was a witness, I wasn't going to do anything illegal going door to door. If I'm proud of being a Jehovah's Witness and I have no problem with people knowing I'm a Jehovah's Witness, why do I care if I register?
  
  It's not about "rights". If I register, I still have the "right" to go door to door. What's the issue? Why would anonymity be an issue? If some ax murderer can go door to door without registering because of my defeating a security law, how does that benefit my community? Especially when it didn't hurt me one bit to register.
  
  What's the REAL reason the Society doesn't want the Witness people to register? Is it all irrational? All paranoia? Or is there a valid, rational reason? If there is, why hasn't the Society ever disclosed it? They always go back to "rights". "Rights" within a system they condemn. They spend many thousands when the outcome didn't matter. It makes no rational sense.
  
  Is it just so they can "say" they won in court? Big deal! The end is near, so what? Is it so they can gloat over the free publicity they get in competing media publications?
  
  Is headquarters afraid "they" will be able to compline a list of all Jehovah's Witness solicitors if the Witnesses had to register? Is Bethel afraid "the enemy" will be able to figure out how much money they make? They do file tax returns . . . don't they? Is there more cash going under the table than we are aware of?
  
  Why this irrational fear of disclosing their identities? Why fight that to the point of hurting other people?
  
  
• 

  Shining One

  You may want to know that the Supreme Court ruled on a similiar piece of legislation last year. The village of Stratton, Ohio lost the suit and it had similiar language.
  Rex
• 

  kwr

  There was just a case just decided by the Supreme Court that no religious or political speech can be covered by any law about knocking on the door of a private residence.
  

  http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=16434
• 

  james_woods

  Well, kw, that is just great.

  So, In the eyes of the present supreme court:

  * it is perfectly ok for the police to bust down your door without knocking to search the premesis...

  * it is perfectly ok for your city coucil to take your house through eminent domain, in order for their friendly local development company to build a shopping mall...

  * it is perfectly ok for weird religious or political groups (which you do not wish to talk with) to knock on your door at all hours day or night.

  ______

  I also appreciated the earlier comments on how much the society either hated or feared the simple request to register as a door-to-door campaign. Right up to the point of spending the night in jail, in some cases. Hard to see how this would violate any scriptural principle, isn't it...?

  James
• 

  kwr

  Well, kw, that is just great.
  
  
  So, In the eyes of the present supreme court:
  
  

  * it is perfectly ok for the police to bust down your door without knocking to search the premesis...

  That is not what the Supreme Court ruled about not knocking before entering a home with a valid search warant.

  * it is perfectly ok for your city coucil to take your house through eminent domain, in order for their friendly local development company to build a shopping mall...

  The court decided this on a States Rights issue. If you want to change the law if your State allows that then organize your fellow citizens to prevent the use of eminent domain. BTW, They don't take your house they purchase it for fair maket value.

  * it is perfectly ok for weird religious or political groups (which you do not wish to talk with) to knock on your door at all hours day or night.

  You can tell them to leave your property and never come back. If they do in most States you can arrest them for trespassing.

  With the three subjects you listed it seems you have a problem with the Constutition of the United States. You could always immigrate to a nanny state like the UK.
• 

  james_woods

  KW - I was not criticizing you for reporting what the supreme court ruled. I don't like the ruling, you just reported it. Thats fine with me. There are, however, a few things about that reply you did that I do not understand...

  First, the nanny state comment: I have lived in the midwest all my life - Oklahoma City, western Oklahoma, and now Dallas Texas. I have owned a dog, a pickup truck, and several guns for the past 40 years. I am registered independent and tend to vote for moderates or conservatives of whatever party I like. That is not nanny.

  The idea that we should be living in a smug police state with increasing powers of spying, search, and seizure is in fact as nanny as you can get! I don't care if you call it homeland security or not - breaking into your home, wiretapping your phone, or taking your car's picture at a red light to make money from the fine...that is approaching 1984 by 22 years too late!

  The idea that private property can be absconded by any branch of government for vague commercial purpose of so-called public good is also just about as nanny as you can get.

  The idea that weird people are completely free to bother me on my phone or at my door (notice - on my private property) because of some protective right they might have to promote their cause in non-public speech is wet nurse baby-suck nanny. Your argument that I have to tell them not to do it, and then charge them with trespassing is not only laughably impractical but imposes a burden on the persons (me and other homeowners like me) that the constitution is supposed to protect. Think about it - pioneer sister A pisses me off, so I tell her to go on. Now, the people that want me to stop eating meat products do it the next day, plus the anti-Iraq-war activist the next, etc...

  People should have the right to live their private lives in their private homes in peace without fear of disturbance - whether it is physical door breaking, wiretapping, economic attack by forced sale, or verbal abuse by nutbar groups. This is fundamental constitutional property rights, IMHO.

  James

  PS - I think I should reference this on the thread "did you ever bomb a thread without intending to" - and I don't know if it was me or KW that planted the bomb...