Chaplinsky: a Fine Example of "Christian Conduct"

by Farkel 13 Replies latest watchtower scandals

  • Farkel
    Farkel

    If the WTS likes to brag about anything other than themselves and how great they are, it is their boasts about their triumphs in the United States Supreme Court. They brag about how much the people of the United States owes them and their God Jehovah for their part in championing freedom of speech and religion in America.

    We've seen all of those Supreme Court Cases paraded about in various WTS publications, haven't we?

    Well, not ALL of them. I recently found one of them that is nowhere to be found on my WT CD ROM. It was decided in 1942 by a vote of 9 to 0, and in terms of freedom of speech issues, it was a landmark case. I found a reference to it while doing research on something entirely unrelated to JW issues. I looked up the case in my copy of "The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States", 1992 Edition, Oxford University Press.

    The "Mother"in Brooklyn could have chosen to discuss this case in its publications as an example of everything a good Jehovahs Witness should NOT be, but it is such an embarrassment to them that they never even mentioned it.

    Being the good, mild-mannered and humble JW that he was, Chaplinksy was passing out WT crap on the street and calling other religions "a racket," just as his religious master Joseph Frankem Ruthlessfraud Goebbels had instructed him to do.

    Needless to say, he pissed off a lot of people, so an official came on the scene and told Chaplinsky to tone it down. Realizing the command in Romans 13:1 to be in subjection to the superior authorities, and knowing that those superior authorities were Jehovah and Jesus, Chaplinsky carefully considered his Christian options. (Since then, new light has blazed forth and told us that the superior authorities really ARE the worldly authorities, after all: just like they were before they weren't.)

    After carefully weighing his Christian options and in a humble and sincere desire to emulate his mediator (or emulate his "Mother" if he didn't happen to be "anointed") Chaplinsky under Jehovah's Holy Spirit Direction called the cop "an agent of Fascists", and a "god-damned racketeer." It seemed like a good thing to say at the time.

    He was arrested and convicted for using "lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, insulting 'fighting words' against a public official", which was not protected by the First Amendment.

    When Jehovah Spirit Directed His Organization to appeal the case and bring the case up to the United States Supreme Court, the Court affirmed the decision. Jehovah lost the case and so did Chaplinsky. Ruthlessfraud would have been PISSED OFF over that had he still been alive!

    Since that time, the Courts have allowed a less restrictive interpretation of the First Amendment. Today, one might just be able to get away with calling a public official a "big weenie."

    The Watchtower Printing Corporation never saw fit to milk that case like they did all the others. I wonder why.

    Farkel

  • purplesofa
    purplesofa

    Thanks for posting,

    Seems like the WT had to evolve into their christian qualities.

    I doubt they would defend that kind of behaviour now.

    Wonder how much it cost members to defend that case?

    purps

  • parakeet
    parakeet

    Chaplinsky under Jehovah's Holy Spirit Direction called the cop "an agent of Fascists", and a "god-damned racketeer."

    If only he were still alive and an elder today. What would the Ministry School be like under his direction?

    Bro. Chaplinsky: "Good morning, sir. I'm here to tell you the good news that your religion is a snare and a racket."

    "Householder": "Get off my porch, you scum-sucking dirtbag."

    Bro. Chaplinsky: "Gladly, you fascist pig. But I'll soon be back, living in your house after Jehovah roasts your god-damned ass."

    Never, ever heard of that Supreme Court case. They actually took up the Supreme Court's time to see if dubs could legally mouth obscenities to the police? No wonder the WTS is hiding that juicy morsel.

  • Farkel
    Farkel

    Sorry I didn't post the case citation on the thread topic:

    Chaplinsky vs. New Hampshire, 315 US, 568, decided 9 March, 1942.

    Farkel

  • lalliv01
    lalliv01

    Brother Chaplinsky had a set if big ones.

    I can't stop laughing. Good one, Farkel.

    lalliv01

  • aligot ripounsous
    aligot ripounsous

    Never heard about Chaplin having been involved with public preaching, although I can imagine him quite well. Did he kick the cop's ass or did he beat him with his cane and run ?

  • cabasilas
    cabasilas

    Farkel, you have a PM.

  • sir82
    sir82

    I'm trying to figure out why the WTS would support him and take the case that far.

    Did they really expect the Supreme Court to guarantee the right to cuss out policemen?

  • Farkel
    Farkel

    Thanks to our own Cabasilas, I've been informed that the Consolation magazine DOES discuss this case. My WT CD ROM only goes back to (I think) 1970 for Awake!, so that is why I missed it. Now I'm curious if that 1942 Consolation is the only reference to the case by the WTS, or not.

    I'm am most curious to see this article, Cabasilas, especially to see what kind of spin the WTS puts on a Supreme Court Case they did lose? Would you mind scanning it, or at least posting some of the relevant parts of the article?

    Farkel

  • cabasilas
    cabasilas

    It's discussed starting on page 20 of the June 10, 1942 Consolation (the predecessor for Awake!) . For those interested, that issue can be downloaded from:

    http://www.filesend.net/download.php?f=0b52a25151ac4cc496e2eafa28760687

    The file's about 6 MB.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit