If they (the WTBTS) thought they had something, and ran with it, it could have resulted in trouble for Cedars, even if that risk was small. By the intentional act of publicly accusing him of criminal conduct on a forum that you knew or should have known is likely to be monitored by the Watcthower, you did in fact intentionally try to harm him.
So lemme get this straight:
Per 144,00, all the JWN 'worker' bees are expected to defend the 'queen bee'?
(or maybe I should've used the 'JWN peanut gallery' metaphor, last used in another thread which devolved into one of those, "Hey everyone, look at me!!" attention-seeking threads?)
The problem is, the 'queen bee' has repeatedly unnecessarily exposed herself to some ill-defined "harm", and doesn't seem too concerned about it, not to do so repeatedly.
Cedars has hardly shied away from seeking public attention (while supposedly being a 'fader', and not even OUT of the Org!): setting up a site, posting videos on YouTube, posting WT-owned I.P. on JWN, or even participating in the whole "Anon hacked into a WT servers and has the encrypted pedofile list" attention-seeking campaign (the thread where he claimed to be in possession of hacked encrypted files from WT).
So no sirree, that's not demonstrating a willingness to break laws, or the willingness to create the appearance of illegality and impropriety, not to mention showing a TOTAL lack of concern for anyone else by failing to consider the HUGE implications of what unintended effects such a disclosure would have on victims AND the wrongly accused, alike. And given the FB forced outing scandal that occurred later, it turns out that such traits (eg a complete unwillingness to consider consequences of actions) wasn't unfounded. Dude is/was a loose cannon.
Of course, like any other attention-seeking ill-conceived scheme, these usually had all the tell-tale signs of tomfoolery written all over them, just like all the other Don Quixote campaigns dreamed up in the fertile imaginations of immature young males, driven by fantasies and delusions of grandiosity. It's a long history of such efforts that makes one wonder if someone isn't intentionally trying to be the living embodiment of the GB's caricature, but whatev... Regardless, it's still delusional game, and in the end, only the FACTS matter: JWs don't have "the Truth", and the ex-JW community does. It's really as simple as that, and ALL the rest is noise that only lowers the 'signal-to-noise' ratio.
As stated by others, if the WT truly wanted to 'out' him or others, or take out their YT account(s) in vengeance to silence their critics (which is more likely a vestige of JW's notorious "persecution complex" thinking, IMO), they could've done so in a heart-beat eg via filing DMCA copyright claims over their rightful intellectual property which IS being used without their permission (and claiming 'fair use' is a DEFENSE; it's not PERMISSION given from the IP owner to use their property).
Regardless, I highly doubt an ex-JW whining on a YouTube video is even a blip on the GB's radar; NONE of us do, except collectively as 'apostates'. That's why I say that we're all in the same boat, whether we like it or not.
What kind of logic is that? So someone needs to be personally aggrieved by something to have the right to speak out about it? Glad you weren't around during the Holocaust.
I agree: incredibly weak argument.
A moment's lucid thought should make one realize that per that concept, anyone who's not personally harmed by sexual abuse committed by JW pedophiles has no right to speak out against it? Well, you might run that one past all those who protest on behalf of the Conti case and similar victims, too (including Cedars, Barbara Anderson, etc)?
What an archaic sense of justice, since retribution isn't the exclusive domain of the victim or their family (it reminds me of how God commanded humans to handle bloodshed and criminal justice in ancient Isreal, with the avenger chasing after the killer of his kin; I wrote about ancient Israel's system of criminal justice here, in an article on my blog about Cain's killing of Abel).
I do agree that we need to clean up the garbage that some in the ex-JW community choose to spread and which reflects poorly upon all of us, but I do not believe that we need to go all out to inflict damage upon the individuals we have issues with. The question I raise is, where do we draw the line on what sort of conduct is appropriate to respond to ex-JW activity that we are offended by because we believe it to be dishonest, etc.? Is it OK to make a real effort to harm someone, because we don't believe in what they have to say, or their method of saying it?
First off, I see no evidence of "harm" that you repeatedly cite: has someone let their hatred spill over into real life, by perhaps stalking and threatening someone?
Freedom of speech and open discourse on a public forum leads some people to assume a level of importance to their "work" which just isn't present, IMO. This is (yet) another tempest in a teapot, since you haven't made a compelling case for ACTUAL damage having been done, only POTENTIAL harm. Of course, the criminal and civil courts don't handle "potential" damages but ACTUAL damages that can be shown to have occurred; and if such behavior occurs, I'll be first to join you in criticizing anyone who engages in it.
And NO, that's not contradictory with what I wrote above, since again, the methods used by apostates should be above reproach in order to avoid the taint of living up to the GB's straw-man stereotype.
In the past, Cedars has exhibited all the clinical hallmarks of an attention-seeking narcissist, who, while in the manic phase is able to output some decent work by taking on the Sisypean delusional task of toppling the WT (that is, as long as the reader doesn't perform any due diligence by digging too deep to confirm, AKA fact-checking!), but then he inevitably cycles into depression mode, exhibiting all the traits of paranoia (i.e. over-reacting and lashing out at every perceived slight (real or not), inability to accept responsibility for his own mistakes, eg the "WT is hacking our sites!" claim from a few months ago, when it finally came out someone had failed to apply a software update for a known vulnerability that had been issued to fix the problem).
IMO, this is (yet) another tempest in a tea-pot centered around a drama queen extraordinare.
Vampire 1: The Narcissist.
This vampire is grandiose, self-important, attention hogging, and hungry for admiration. She is often charming and intelligent–until her guru status is threatened.
Self-defense tips: Enjoy her good qualities, but keep your expectations realistic. Because her motto is “me-first,” getting angry or stating your needs won’t phase her. To get her cooperation, show how your request satisfies her self-interest.
I apologize to JWN for feeding his ego here, since the way to deal with such people is outlined above. Cedars is capable of doing some good work, yes, but he needs to continue to mature and GROW as a person in order to be a solid asset to the ex-JW community (and now that he's a father-to-be, hopefully the experience will force him into confronting from issues, rather than hiding and running from them). As stated above, Paul from jwfacts comes to mind as a great benchmark for everyone engaging in the effort, so if in doubt, ask yourself, "Hmm, what would Paul do?"