Reading some of past landmark decisions is fascinating because I feel the more publicity this case gets the deeper the hole the Watchtower corporation gets into. It is all down hill from here for the WT's case:
Determining the First Amendment Test.
“It is well established that the First Amendment protects the right to anonymous speech.”
Art of Living Found. v. Does 1-10, 2011 WL 5444622, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2011) (citing
McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U.S. 334, 342 (1995) (“An author’s decision to remain
anonymous, like other decisions concerning omissions or additions to the content of a publication,
is an aspect of the freedom protected by the First Amendment”). Moreover, the protection for
anonymous speech applies to speech on the internet. In re Anonymous Online Speakers, 661 F.3d
1168, 1172-73 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[O]nline speech stands on the same footing as other speech –
here is ‘no basis for qualifying the level of First Amendment scrutiny that should be applied’ to
online speech.”) (quoting Reno v. Am. Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844, 870 (1997)). “As with
other forms of expression, the ability to speak anonymously on the Internet promotes the robust
exchange of ideas and allows individuals to express themselves freely without “fear of economic
or official retaliation ... [or] concern about social ostracism.” Id. (quoting McIntyre, 514 U.S. at
341-42).
“The right to speak, whether anonymously or otherwise, is not unlimited, however, and the
degree of scrutiny varies depending on the circumstances and the type of speech at issue.” In re
Anonymous Online Speakers, 661 F.3d 1168, 1173 (9th Cir. 2011). “[T]he nature of the speech
should be the driving force in choosing a standard by which to balance the rights of anonymous
speakers in discovery disputes.” Id. at 1177; see also Signature Mgmt. Team, LLC v. Automattic,
Inc., 941 F. Supp. 2d 1145, 1154 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (noting that courts begin “by considering the
nature of the speech before determining the appropriate standard”).
Courts apply a rigorous or “most exacting” standard when the speech is political, religious,
or literary. In contrast, commercial speech is afforded less protection. In re Anonymous Online
Speakers, 661 F.3d at 1177. Where, as here, the speech touches on a matter of public interest,
courts in this district have applied a stronger standard than if the speech were commercial. See
Highfields Capital Management, L.P. v. Doe, 385 F. Supp. 2d 969 (N.D. Cal. 2005); see also Art
of Living Found. v. Does 1-10, 2011 WL 5444622, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2011).
In Highfields, the speech at issue was postings of “sardonic commentary on a public
corporation; through irony and parody, these bulletin board postings express[ed] dissatisfaction
with the performance of the stock and the way company executives choose to spend company
resources.” Highfields, 385 F. Supp. 2d at 975. The speech also expressed disapproval or
criticism of the corporation’s largest single shareholder. Id. The speech expressed “views in
which other members of the public may well be interested” and that the speaker had the right to
express anonymously. Id. The court noted speaker’s rights to speak anonymously on these topics
were vulnerable and precarious and “close to the central societal values that animate our
Constitution.” Id.
Case
If WT legal makes it known to the GB or service department who the mole is they are in some very deep doo doo. Darkspilver is now a Teflon Don thanks to this, I think this case will do tremendous harm to the Watchtower Corporation and all it other corporation as these become public in the shell game of who do you sue.
These guys in legal got to be complete ass holes or ordered by complete ass holes to make these cases and hoping to win and put a stop to people leaking sensitive information to the public who have a right to know they are being scammed by a greedy fuck up mind control cult that abuses kids no less? To put it bluntly.
This Watchtower attorney talks to the judge like a complete ass hole in denying the true nature of these kangaroo court proceeding orchestrated by them to punish those the WT don't like. Loser what a loser! Want a bet the Judge had google the WT corporation and knows of all the scandals and how they handle people to control them, and that they are full of lies and half truths. I'm sure the Judge has done some home work and know all about the WT corp. because it is easily found on the internet.