ARC - Case Study 54 - All Exhibits have been released

by jwleaks 346 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

  • slimboyfat

    Yes that was it, thanks.

    Amazing to think the lack of ethical awareness involved in drawing distinctions in that way.

  • wifibandit

    My archive of Case Study 54 documents has been updated. (Browse all files without downloading.)

  • LoveUniHateExams

    Excellent OP and comments from everyone.

    I'd just like to add some context: consenting, adult JWs who love each other and have sex outside of heterosexual marriage get into a lot of trouble. They can be shunned, lose their network of friends, etc.

    JWs who masturbate (that includes all teenage boys, and probably a fair amount of teenage girls) are made to feel guilty, worthless and depressed.

    At the same time as all that, the org doesn't consider viewing child porn as a form of child abuse. It also refuses to cooperate with authorities in matters of child abuse, unless there's a law that orders them to report.


    Just ... WTF?!

  • OrphanCrow
    LoveUni: At the same time as all that, the org doesn't consider viewing child porn as a form of child abuse....
    Just ... WTF?!

    Me too. I have been saying that all day.

    I don't get it.

    The WT needs to read the words of the great teacher at Matthew 5:27,28:

    "You heard that it was said, 'You must not commit adultery.' But I say to you that everyone that keeps on looking at a woman so as to have a passion for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

    So, tell me, all you WT apologists and all those of you who support and follow that beast, does this scripture not apply to looking at children being abused? Does not the one who looks at a child being sexually abused and desires that "within their heart", have they not "already committed" child abuse as Jesus said when he spoke of adultery? Is not the sexual exploitation of a child, the rape of a child, more abhorrent than adultery?

  • Richard Oliver
    Richard Oliver

    This is a much deeper subject. What is defined as child pornography is different and has different exceptions based on what is the image and how it is used. By your definition a doctor conducting research by taking pictures of children's genitalia where that child has a medical condition could be construed by some as child pornography. Or if a parent innocently takes a funny picture of children in the bathtub playing like many parents did in the past that could be construed and child pornography. Or if a teenager takes a naked selfie of themselves and sends it to their boyfriend/girlfriend who is also under age both have trafficked in child pornography. In the US there is also been cases where there has been virtual child pornography cases where the courts have ruled that only an actual minor can be considered in the trafficking of child pornography. Also, most states and the federal government allow for the accidental viewing or downloading of child pornography but is also very specific depending on the jurisdiction on what needs to be reported and what doesn't.

    Justice Stewart wrote:

    "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that." So there is always questions when it comes to pornography.

    Also you have to remember some jurisdictions like Australia has much stricter rules on pornography in general than other jurisdictions. And what you are quoting from is a worldwide document.

  • Pubsinger

    Richard Oliver you are indeed a complete imbecile who will attempt to defend your masters even when they sell you down the river. Go back to your Kingdom Hall and turn the lights of when you're the last man to leave. Enjoy every minute of your sad, sorry, deluded time there.

  • Richard Oliver
    Richard Oliver

    Everything that i stated is correct you may not agree with my conclusion but that is what the law is. So are you saying that you feel that teenagers should be arrested and prosecuted for child pornography?

  • OrphanCrow

    You are being intentionally obtuse and muddying the waters, RO.

    This is simple. Very simple.

    Let's put aside the whole argument of "crime" or the categorizing and breaking down into detailed lists of what does and does not fall into the category of child pornography.

    Let's just assume that the "child pornography" that the WT is talking about is exactly that - child pornography. Sexual images of minor children.

    Now tell me, what is your defense of the WT claiming that "viewing child pornography is not considered to be child sexual abuse"?

    And please, address the words of Matthew 5:27, 28 in your response

  • Fisherman

    WT claiming that "viewing child pornography is not considered to be child sexual abuse"?

    Depending on the jurisdiction, viewing child pornography is not child sexual abuse. But you will have to show that it is in Australia..

    Mathew 5:27,28 says nothing about viewing child pornography being child abuse. (although it is wrong to have sexual feelings towards a child) Children of the same age sometimes have sexual feelings towards each other and male children sometimes have sexual feelings towards a teacher for example.

  • Richard Oliver
    Richard Oliver

    Matthew is speaking of a spiritual aspect and not a legal aspect. Can the police arrest you for saying, God I want to kill that guy, if you don't make a specific threat or plans to murder that person? No, they can't arrest you for your thoughts. When was the last time a person was disfellowshipped for thinking about commiting fornication or thinking about adultery. It requires putting those thoughts into action.

    And you are conflating legal and moral questions together. Governments can only enforce laws not morals.

Share with others