Article: U.S. News & World Report-Mentions JWs.! "A look at how the federal criminal code regards hate speech _ what's legal and what's not"

by AndersonsInfo 5 Replies latest jw friends

  • AndersonsInfo



    To a large degree, yes. The First Amendment offers broad free speech protections and permits membership in organizations, such as the Ku Klux Klan, that espouse hateful ideologies.

    But while the Constitution gives latitude to hate speech and offensive rhetoric, court decisions in the last century have carved out notable — though narrow — exceptions to free speech guarantees and authorized prosecution for language deemed to fall out of bounds.

    Comments intended as specific and immediate threats brush up against those protections, regardless of a person's race or religion. So do personal, face-to-face comments meant to incite imminent lawlessness, such as a riot.

    A 1942 Supreme Court decision called Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire — which involved a Jehovah's Witness who cursed at a city marshal, calling him a "damned fascist" — articulated a "fighting words" doctrine that restricted insults intended to provoke an "immediate breach of the peace."

  • Bill Covert
    Bill Covert

    I have been turned in to the US Postal Inspector for threatning speech in my letter writing campaign. Of which he carefully read and he found no real threats just allegories, symbolisms, and realized that all that was being was just someone fucking with the minds of a church. Interesting comment he made was that letters like mine are not that uncommon going through the mail. It did not take him long to realize the situtation of a church home wrecking and he wished me well in my endevor and to be mindfull to keep distance between my self and church so as not to trigger a restraining order.

    I got turned into RPD for posting threats on Kingdom Hall doors [like Martin Luther] but police supervisor was quick to see the situtation of a father seperated from family by church. he was well aware of the principle of disfellowshiping. Agai wished me luck just keep my distance from the church.

    Interesting today Dec 31 is a aniversary of the demise of a elder of whom the letter writing campaign was centered on [heart attack] resulting from my taping a court decission [as to a swindler, Raymond C. Dale was swindling a widow out of a trust deed] to the church doors 5 days earlier. And it was you Barbara who unlocked the mystery of Merton Campbell of the Service Dept. who had instructed the Circuit Oveerseer [Lester Bailey] and the disfellowshipping appeals committee to keep that court decision secret. that court case #149893 was finished two monthe prior to wife leaving the marriage on the grounds that I was a threat to her spirituality.

    Wasn't it in Denmark where the WBTS was taken to task in the paper for violating the national law on "hate speech" pertaining to their "Human Apostate" talk in the 2013 summer convention? The attorney quoted stated that the Danish law was the result of Hitlers treatment of the Jews. It was in this "Human Apostate" talk where the church refered to my letter writing campaign as being a new tactic by apostates to write letters to the homes of the publishers.

    So supposed threatening speech is a tool and can be used to stop hearts of elders with guilty conscience.

  • Beth Sarim
    Beth Sarim
    By calling people ''mentally diseased'', I wonder if that can be classified as ''hate speech''.
  • Simon
    By calling people ''mentally diseased'', I wonder if that can be classified as ''hate speech''.

    It's unpleasant and insulting hyperbole but actual hate speech? I think it's a stretch. What do you imagine a court would decide? What would the punishment for such a "heinous crime" be? There are many more much worse examples of unpleasant and more targeted rhetoric (heck, watch any Donald Trump speech) and none of those are challenged in court.

    There is real hate speech targeted at the less fortunate / minorities and I would much rather the police's time be spent on those cases than the overdone outrage over a clumsy phrase the WTS once used half a decade ago.

  • Vidiot

    IMO, trying to nail the WTS for stuff like "hate speech" or "violation of religious freedoms" is a waste of time.

    Stick to the really nasty stuff, like child abuse.

  • kairos

    Nailing them for all their criminal conduct is the only way to go.

    All of them.

Share this