As I was watching the news last night (CNN), the Supreme Court case (mentioned above) scrolled across the bottom of the screen, stating that JWs believe it negates the right of freedom of speech. But what about the homeowners freedom of privacy, especially if you say Jehovah's Witnesses are not welcome?
WTS v. Stratton
by Marvin Shilmer 16 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
biblexaminer
The bottom line is, the WTS will not honor the outcome if it is not in their favor.
The only proven way of keeping JWs from calling, is to so agitate the homeowner/renter/dweller that they call up the local KH and scream bloody murder.
This has been done. In my city, the CO barred all JWs from doing ANY and ALL preaching/mag distributing etc in any and all laundymats. It is a City Edict.
We will be working on all doctors offices in the spring of this year, and then perhaps government offices by summer.
How you ask? Oh! That's a good one. After the Letter to Stratton is in the mailbox, and I can breath again, I will post more.
-
borgfree
MacGregor Ministries has "No Visits From Jehovah'Witnesses Please" stickers for doors.
http://WWW.MacGregorministries.org
Borgfree
"True patriotism doesn't exclude an understanding of the patriotism of others" Queen Elizabeth II
-
MadApostate
Just a little 'FYI' on the no trespassing thing...
The latest "direction from the Society" on this matter is that witnesses are to avoid homes having "Posted - No Trespassing" signs. Although I haven?t seen anything in writing yet (Wt mags.) this is the instruction being propagated through the congregation elders since roughly Fall 2001.
Five Gospels
It would seem that such "new light" would have mentioned in one of the recent KMs.Would someone please check such. I won't send the above LTE until I get some sort of feedback on this.
-
Marvin Shilmer
Hi, MadApostate
Back in about 1994/5 congregations in the USA received a letter telling elders that publishers who go beyond 'No trespassing' signs do so at their own risk, and that residents might be able to prosecute accordingly. But the letter said nothing about honoring 'No Soliciting' signs as though they might apply. In fact a 1994 KM says, "it would be appropriate to go ahead and knock at such doors [with a sign prohibiting solicitors]."[1] This is why my comment above focused on that aspect of Polidoro's statement, because his statement did not stop with "No Trespassing' signs; he included "No Soliciting' signs too!
Again, since Polidoro himself sternly asserts, "We are not solicitors," then why would he be discouraged from invading the privacy of an individual troubling themselves to put up a 'No Soliciting' sign outside their door? If he were tried for ignoring a "No Solicitation' sign he would declare the same defense he offered to The American Lawyer, that Jehovah's Witnesses are not soliciting. He is speaking as you said--different things out of opposite corners of his mouth.
[1]
*** km 6/94 2 Question Box ***
Sometimes we come upon a sign prohibiting salesmen or solicitors. Since we are doing charitable religious work, that does not really apply to us. It would be appropriate to go ahead and knock at such doors. -
MadApostate
Thanks for the additional info and commentary, Marvin. I will revise my LTE to incorporate such, as well the KM citation.
Anyone else have anything else pertinent?
Again, I encourage others to write their own letter incorporating their own experience.
Thanks again, MS.
-
bluesapphire
He didn't say they were solicitors. He just said a householder could sue them for violating their no soliciting sign. We all know that then they would say they are not solicitors. He just didn't disclose the full truth of their beliefs. Theocratic War Strategy indeed.