Note this excerpt from one account of the U.S. Supreme Court deciding to hear this Ohio case involving JWs:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63859-2001Oct15.html
The Supreme Court, however, has agreed to review one particular aspect of the case: the provision of the town's permit requirement that says Jehovah's Witnesses or other door-to-door canvassers must display their permits, which bear their names, on demand.In siding with Stratton, the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals noted that "individuals going door-to-door . . . are not anonymous by virtue of the fact that they reveal . . . their physical identities."
But the Jehovah's Witnesses argue that the 6th Circuit's ruling conflicts with the Supreme Court's 1995 ruling striking down an Ohio law that prohibited the distribution of unsigned political campaign literature. In that case, the court said anonymity is often necessary to enable those who advocate unpopular causes or ideas to express themselves freely.
"Stratton's ordinance removes that shield of anonymity," attorneys for the Jehovah's Witnesses wrote in their appeal to the court.
Thus, though the Jehovah's Witnesses themselves eschew involvement in politics as a matter of religious principle, they are in the position of trying to strike down Stratton's ordinance on the grounds that it may burden political activists.
Please note, the Supreme Court is only going to hear one narrow aspect of this law, that of requiring a permit showing the name of the person at the door. Thus it will be tried on narrow First Amendment grounds, deciding whether the right to have the shield of anonymity in political actions outweighs the needs of the community to demand the identity of the person calling at their door.
The court is NOT going to be deciding if the community can ask JWs to notify the town ahead of time, or get a permit. It is only this anonymity issue. Therefore, past cases before the Supreme Court involving the JWs will probably not apply here. And this is not an issue of whether the town will allow JWs to preach.
If you want to get involved, as some are talking about in the "Child molestor at your door" thread, keep in mind that the court is only looking at a very narrow, technical part of this law. Talk about anything else, and you won't be doing any good as it will be irrelevant to the issue.
On the other hand, as the article says, there is a certain irony about JWs fighting for the rights of political activists to have their say! Anyway, if you want to speculate why the WTS is fighting this, focus on this one narrow aspect only. Personally, I'm not sure what their angle is. The only point I can see is what the WTS has itself identified, that of protecting the right for anonymous free speech. But it's not likely the WTS cares about a pure principle. They must have some reason for fighting this that would directly benefit them. I'm not sure what it is.
For those who want to force JWs to identify pedophiles among them, this law won't help. Printing the name of the JW on the permit won't help because pedophiles among JWs are hidden. That's the real problem, JWs hiding from the law. Once the law finds out about their actions, they get plenty of publicity from the state. With things like Megan's Law, their identities are readily made known even without this law. And if a convicted pedophile goes to the local municipal building to get a permit, they will certainly know who he is, and can decide for themselves if they want to let a convicted pedophile go door-to-door. Remember, that part of the law is NOT being reviewed by the Court. The only part that is being reviewed is whether, once the town decides that a convicted pedophile CAN go door-to-door (and why would they decide that?), his name has to be on the permit. Then it would require the householder to ask to see the permit and recognize the name before it would help.
That seems like a very narrow chance indeed. Remember, most pedophile JWs are under cover, and the state knows nothing about it. Putting their name on a permit won't help one bit.