Using Illegal Means for Righteous Activism
I wanted to get people's opinion on something. How do you feel when people use illegal means while performing their activism to shed light on the Watchtower. There have been people who have illegally recorded conversations with Elders and with Branch offices or at meetings. They have done this in states or countries that require two party consent to record conversations and where the penalties can be a criminal prosecution. The use of copyrighted material is also illegal and can lead to civil penalties. There has even been talk of hacking into Watchtower's computer system to download the paedophile database or other information, which would be a violation of the law in a major way, and even talk about it could be considered conspiracy to commit a crime.
I understand the desire behind it is to bring justice to the people who have been hurt by Watchtower and to protect other people, but do you think it is right to willfully break the law to get this accomplished?
All is fair in love and war and it's "spiritual warfare"--right?
It is absolutely the right thing to do Richard Oliver.
Why do you seek so hard to protect your cult?
There has even been talk of hacking into Watchtower's computer system to download the paedophile database.....JD
What do you think of elders lying in court?
What do you think of elders and the branch not reporting child abuse?
What do you think of Headquarters not obeying court orders?
What do you think of GB members not obeying subpoenas?
Does this smack of a criminal organization?
Is it more important to discuss the ethics of an organization, or of the ethics of dealing with an unethical organization?
I'm actually split on this. When someone approaches a cart with a "story" that isn't really true.....I bristle a bit. Of course that story IS true, just not of the person speaking.
The database could be a mess of it was just downloaded and posted. It would contain innocent people, rip open old wounds, and more. So I prefer that be declassified in a larger court case for the sake of transparency.
As far as recording JC's.....I have zero issue with it. this is because if you requested to record it, they would not meet with you. they would however carry out the judgement phase of the meeting without you present. Since there is no legal protection for you because of the first ammendment.....record away.
I think the recording of a judicial committee that refuses your right to counsel or even any 3rd party independent observer is dubious - you have rights too and they are violating them.
Copyright violation, not so much. The law is the law regardless of our desire to have something and the excuses to justify it. Other than the very specific case of a database of criminals that should be handed over to the authorities, I can't think of much that really makes it "OK". It's possible to expose their lies without making entire publications available for download - that's the definition of fair-use.
Same goes for any more obvious crimes - there are no excuses for any harassment or assault of JWs (except in clear cases of self-defence which I think would be incredibly unlikely and rare).
The recent scathing Charity Commission report was based largely on a clandestine recording of a judicial committee hearing. I am not sure of the legal status of that recording though I do know that the accused is routinely asked not to record the proceedings.
There are many instances of important, head-rolling information being released into the wild though sometimes the whistle blower has been prosecuted. I applaud those that release this information, legally or not.
Not every state in the US requires two party consent to record a conversation. In many places it's not illegal. I think bringing to light the actions of judicial committees is far more important.
There comes a time when what is hidden must be uncovered for the sake of justice. Think Watergate...among many.
In a judicial hearing you can't even bring a friend or relative. Their rules are devious and harmful. They will not think twice about damaging a person's life. You must protect yourself.