What is the difference? If I recall, the JW version of Freeness of speech has to do with having a clear conscience to preach, ergo the inwardly concientious right to expression of belief, whereas Constitutional Freedom of speech is the outwardly political right to expression of belief.
So is there any version of freedom of speech in the JW doctrinal pantheon? I say this because I am trying to formulate my thoughts with regards to a potential refusal by my dying father to see me on his deathbed. As far as I can reduce it to fewest simplest terms, JWs ratify the expression of the findings of private inquiry when those findings are parallel to JW doctrine, and damnify the expression when those findings are contradictory. Now, a DF'd person might go to other churches in a personal inquiry of spiritual alternatives, and they will not be considered apostate. If someone does inquiries regarding the veracity of JW doctrine by means of non-apostate reading materials, they are not automatically considered apostate. If someone reads apostate literature once or twice, they are not automatically considered apostate. But if someone expresses their contradictory findings, whether those findings came from an original apostate source or from the individual's OWN research, then that person is automatically considered apostate.
While the JWs claim as their own right the right to concientious Freeness of speech based upon personal inquiry, they refuse to accept, ratify, recognize or otherwise condone the right to contientious expression of findings of private inquiry when, when and however those findings are contraindicative of JW doctrine.
Did I miss anything? Is it that simple or is there some fine detail or nuance that can ameliorate this hypocritical double standard?