by Terry 11 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Terry

    JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES are in the news today--and nobody seems to know about it. I know about it and I'll explain the reason why.
    It has to do with TERRORISM and HATE SPEECH!

    In researching my book about Jehovah's Witnesses, (I WEPT BY THE RIVERS OF BABYLON) I studied many Supreme Court cases Jehovah''s Witnesses were fighting during the 1940's.

    One such case is: 1942 Supreme Court ruling Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire.

    If you had to use just two words to describe this case those two words would be: FIGHTING WORDS.


    A JW street preacher incited his fellow citizens to riot against him by insulting everything they held dear: their God, their Religion, their government, and their flag.

    (That doesn't surprise you, does it?:)

    Anyway. . .

    A precedent was established in that ruling which amounts to this: There are some things IF SAID will cause people to want to hurt you. These things are FIGHTING WORDS.

    What does that 1942 precedent have to do with TODAY'S NEWS?

    Read on. . .

    In Texas, where I reside, a contest to DRAW THE PROPHET MUHAMMED was being held in a suburb of Dallas and some radical Islamic terrorists showed up with automatic weapons, firing indiscriminately into the crowd. Local police sent them quickly to Paradise and 72 virgins.
    A New York politician's son, named Chris Cuomo (TV News guy) spoke up about the cartoon contest and called it "HATE SPEECH" and said it was not protected by the Constitution because of---(he cited the Chaplinsky ruling about Fighting Words.)

    I will cut and paste from my book the relevant paragraphs.

  • Terry
  • Terry
  • OrphanCrow

    Good post, Terry.I read a SCOTUS judgement, in another court case...maybe the same one..., that basically said that "a person's right to free speech ends at another person's rights".

    Freedom of Speech is not a blanket right and the historic JW court cases have much to do with current law. Covington sent many of the early JWs on legal journeys that targeted the SCOTUS for rulings that were quite significant.

  • Terry

    Here is what is interesting to me about this application of precedent.

    The offense can only take place inside the mind of another person!

    By deciding to be 'offended' I can curtail your right to say the thing which offends me!

    If this isn't arbitrary, capricious, and whimsical--I don't know how else to characterize it.

    It is not that different from saying "sexual harassment" is whatever causes another person to feel 'harrassed.'

    This circumvents the necessity of DEFINING something specifically.

    In other words, Beauty is in the eye of the Beholder and Fighting Words are whatever make somebody want to fight.

  • Crazyguy
    Sweet then if someone calls me an evil apostate I can go head and kick his ass?

    No. You have the right to call him out in a public debate. You can't assault him. If he tries to physically attack you, then you can kick his ass.


  • Terry

    DATA-DOG, you're a real buzz-kill sometimes! :)

  • Driving Force
    Driving Force

    Crazyguy and DATA-DOG

    Now if I incited Mr. Somebody to hate you and call you both "Crazy Apostates" and then he shot you both as well, Mr. Somebody would be guilty of a hate crime under American law. What about me, who incited "Mr. Somebody" to hate you, I didn't incite him to shoot you, but just to hate you, this hate cause him to shoot you. Am I guilty of a crime because I incited him to hate.

    The Watchtower incites hate, have done for years. Hate leads to serious crimes.


    "Hate leads to serious crimes."

    True. That's why some advocate ( not me of course.....) a "Batman" style justice.

    1) Watch criminal.

    2) Secretly beat them is a dark alley.

    3) Never tell anyone.


Share this