DefenderOTT

I LOVE IT when somebody else does the heavy lifting ... like taking a Grand Piano up a three floor spiral staircase ... and gets it RIGHT!
I did that with a refrigerator when I was a young man ... but worrying statistics and data until they yield TRUTH ... is HARDER.
That's a LOT of work JW Insider, and I wish I could write you an appropriate check that would not bounce.
 

subpoena
or subpena
noun 1. the usual writ for the summoning of witnesses or the submission of evidence, as records or documents, before a court or other deliberative body. verb (used with object), subpoenaed, subpoenaing. 2. to serve with a subpoena.   Allen:  Do you think that secret documents held in sealed envelopes at Kingdom Halls and at National Bethel Branch Offices under lock and key, that no Elder not involved was ever supposed to see ... was given to the ARC because they nicely asked for them, without a subpoena?   A "subpoena" is the document they give to the one summoned UNDER PENALTY OF PUNISHMENT, to appear.   That is what the word means ... sub (under), and pena or poena (punishment). If Bro. Jackson did not appear, as ordered ... ( He tried to beg off from appearing, saying he was only in Australia to visit his sick Father...) or the documents were not produced, as ordered by national sovereign entities of competent jurisdiction ... it would have resulted in contempt of court charges, and FINE and/or IMPRISONMENT.   Would not  THAT have made headline news?  "Jehovah's Witness Governing Body Member imprisoned for ignoring Subpoena ......  Film at 11."   When a Network News Crew Film Truck with the big telescoping antenna with satellite dish on top pulls up in the Bethel parking lot ... you know you are going to have a bad day!   Latin sounds soOOoooo profound, doesn't it.   Here's one for you, that only translates roughly from Latin to English, and no other language.   In Latin: "Sempre Ubi Sub Ubi   In English: "Always wear under wear".   Here is another one .... "Accipite pill autem rufus, Allen, Accipite pill autem rufus."        

This billboard was put up close to an Assembly Hall in July, 2015, at Belton, Texas.
THE BROTHERHOOD IN GENERAL IS NEVER TOLD WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON ... yet under your "scenario" this information is freely given to Australian Courts?
What are we?
Chopped Liver?
 

Allen, It has become obvious that you are only on this topic to cause contentions, divisions, obfuscate, and create diversions. This does not mean that all the information you provide is false. But it appears that your overall intent is always to mislead and I think your contentiousness is designed to be part of your approach.
As to statistics, you should also look at http://www.invisiblechildren.org/2017/12/29/child-abuse-statistics-the-best-resources/
Of course they are looking for donations and may have therefore cherry-picked from exaggerated sources, but most of the numbers align with reasonable sources. These are just a few from the page:
37% of American children are reported to Child Protective Services by their 18th birthday (African American children are reported at 54%) 1 in 4 girls and 1 in 6 boys will be sexually abused before they turn 18 years old.13  34% of people who sexually abuse a child are family members.  3% of girls were age 10 or younger at the time of their first rape/victimization, and 30% of girls were between the ages of 11 and 17.  96% of people who sexually abuse children are male, and 76.8% of people who sexually abuse children are adults.  325,000 children are at risk of becoming victims of commercial child sexual exploitation each year.  The average age at which girls first become victims of prostitution is 12 to 14 years old, and the average age for boys is 11 to 13 years old.  80% of child fatalitiesinvolve at least one parent. Estimated that between 50-60% of maltreatment fatalities are not recorded on death certificates. More than 90% of juvenile sexual abuse victims know their perpetrator. Child abuse crosses all socioeconomic and educational levels, religions, ethnic and cultural groups. Terrible but reasonable statistics also appear here at http://victimsofcrime.org/media/reporting-on-child-sexual-abuse/child-sexual-abuse-statistics
---------beginning of quotations from site--------
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Children’s Bureau report Child Maltreatment 2010 found that 9.2% of victimized children were sexually assaulted (page 24). Studies by David Finkelhor, Director of the Crimes Against Children Research Center, show that:
1 in 5 girls and 1 in 20 boys is a victim of child sexual abuse; Self-report studies show that 20% of adult females and 5-10% of adult males recall a childhood sexual assault or sexual abuse incident; During a one-year period in the U.S., 16% of youth ages 14 to 17 had been sexually victimized; Over the course of their lifetime, 28% of U.S. youth ages 14 to 17 had been sexually victimized; Children are most vulnerable to CSA between the ages of 7 and 13. According to a 2003 National Institute of Justice report,
3 out of 4 adolescents who have been sexually assaulted were victimized by someone they knew well (page 5). A Bureau of Justice Statistics report shows
1.6 % (sixteen out of one thousand) of children between the ages of 12-17 were victims of rape/sexual assault (page 18). A study conducted in 1986 found that
63% of women who had suffered sexual abuse by a family member also reported a rape or attempted rape after the age of 14. Recent studies in 2000, 2002, and 2005 have all concluded similar results (page 8). Children who had an experience of rape or attempted rape in their adolescent years were 13.7 times more likely to experience rape or attempted rape in their first year of college (page 9). A child who is the victim of prolonged sexual abuse usually develops low self-esteem, a feeling of worthlessness and an abnormal or distorted view of sex. The child may become withdrawn and mistrustful of adults, and can become suicidal (page 1) Children who do not live with both parents as well as children living in homes marked by parental discord, divorce, or domestic violence, have a higher risk of being sexually abused (page 171). In the vast majority of cases where there is credible evidence that a child has been penetrated, only between 5 and 15% of those children will have genital injuries consistent with sexual abuse (page 2). Child sexual abuse is not solely restricted to physical contact; such abuse could include noncontact abuse, such as exposure, voyeurism, and child pornography (page 1). According to the study published online and in the June print issue of the Journal of Adolescent Health.
Compared to those with no history of sexual abuse, young males who were sexually abused were five times more likely to cause teen pregnancy, three times more likely to have multiple sexual partners and two times more likely to have unprotected sex, ------end of quotes from site-----
Note added by JWI: My apologies for blatant copying of the page. I began to reformat but left all the information as it was. Will remove if there is any complaint.

Why are you separating law from spiritual matters? The GB claims to take the lead over the ENTIRE organization--not just the spiritual. The "buck stops" at the GB. They've claimed that responsibility, and they have to accept accountability. The child abuse legal troubles are due to policies that the GB gave a stamp of approval on. The GB may delegate responsibilities to helpers such as lawyers, but all entities within the organization must report to the GB and get their stamp of approval. Very little is getting past the eyes of the GB. Elders act based on the GB-stamped direction they receive from Bethel. It's set up to be that way, because the GB want maximum control over the group as the self professed "faithful slave."
To suggest that the GB was somehow disconnected and not responsible for ineffective abuse policies is ridiculous. The org is controlled from the GB down. Elders have been sending files of alleged pedophiles for years to the branch. This has been a long, ongoing issue.

I already mentioned this to you Allen, that you should tell the truth when making an accusation. You indicate that I defended JTR for saying things like there were "1006 perpetrators in over 5,000 instances." This is another falsehood from you. I have never defended those numbers. In fact, I saw them before on this forum and more than once, I corrected them.
In fact there were 1,006 perpetrators who were Jehovah's Witnesses at the time of the the accusations of their crimes. There were more instances than just 1,006 of course. But the number of instances reported in the documentation was not 5,000. Here are some quotes from the ARC's website and documentation. Mostly from: https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/sites/default/files/file-list/Case Study 29 - Findings Report - Jehovahs Witnesses.pdf
As at 16 September 2016, the Royal Commission has held 5,925 private sessions and more than 1,687 people were waiting to attend one. Many accounts from these sessions will be recounted in later Royal Commission reports in a de-identified form.
The 5,925 "instances" probably referred to many from Catholic, Unified, JWs, and many other institutions and organizations. Page 11 says:
The evidence before the Royal Commission is that it is not the practice of the Jehovah’s Witness organisation to report child sexual abuse to authorities unless it is required by law to do so. At the time of the public hearing, the Jehovah’s Witness organisation in Australia had recorded allegations, reports or complaints of child sexual abuse made against 1,006 members of the organisation. There is no evidence before the Royal Commission that the organisation reported any of those allegations to police or any other secular authority.
Other statistics that might be of relevance in answering the question about the "90% claim" were also included in the document. It said that the total number of JWs in Australia was 68,000 as of October 2016 (7,000 of them were elders and m.s.) and that it had been 53,000 in 1990, increasing only 29% while the population had increased 38% in the same period. (The worldwide JW membership was reported as 8.2 million at the time.) Also, of interest, is the fact that branch rules for handing child abuse cases began to specifically reference child abuse in 1988, and the rule to call the legal department of the branch for any such case started in 1992. (See also the 1991 "Flock" book.) This might help explain why so few cases were recorded prior to 1988, even though the earliest case references the 1950's.
Page 58 of the October 2016 pdf document states:
In response to the Royal Commission’s summons, Watchtower Australia produced some 5,000 documents comprising, among other things, case files relating to 1,006 alleged perpetrators of child sexual abuse dating back to 1950. Royal Commission staff analysed those files and produced data which was for the most part uncontested by Watchtower Australia. Perhaps someone got the idea that there were 5,000 instances from a statement like the above. But that isn't what is says, or means.
Other statistics in the findings show that 579 of the 1006 admitted their guilt, and that 199 of the 1006 had been involved in child abuse or an accusation of the same before becoming JWs, although it was admitted (by Mr. Spinks, a JW on the stand) that these probably were also involved in such accusations again after becoming Witnesses (which would be the explanation as to why they were included on the list).
Page 58 also clarified that the number being thrown around as 5,000 alleged victims, according to the data provided, is really about 1,800:
the allegations, reports or complaints that the organisation received relate to at least 1,800 alleged victims of child sexual abuse I will quote the additional statistical points from page 58 which included the point above:
the allegations, reports or complaints that the organisation received relate to at least 1,800 alleged victims of child sexual abuse 579 of those against whom allegations were made confessed to having committed child sexual abuse of the 1,006 members against whom allegations of child sexual abuse were made, 108 were elders or ministerial servants at the time of the first instance of alleged abuse 28 alleged perpetrators were appointed as elders or ministerial servants after an allegation of child sexual abuse was made against them 401 alleged perpetrators were disfellowshipped as a result of an allegation of child sexual abuse and 230 of those alleged perpetrators were later reinstated of those disfellowshipped, 78 were disfellowshipped on more than one occasion as a result of an allegation of child sexual abuse.  

This is actually a valid musing. I see the outrage regarding the child abuse issue as an evidence of one of the last sparks of morality in a dying and corrupt civilisation. 
This issue has extraodinary emotive power in many circles. Despite the prevalence of institutionalised wholesale abuse in the form of abortion; confused censorship; inadequate, inconsistent legislation; resistance to proper investigation; recruiting of child-soldiers; human trafficking; inequitable access to food, medicine, education, and whatever else one cares to list, there's nothing so attention grabbing as accusations of child abuse and/or the suggestion that such depraved and appalling behaviour should be tolerated and allowed anywhere.
In the light of the Scripture's presentation of Christians as prime targets of a spiritual enemy, with toxic influence far more dangerous than Novichock, why should we think their institutions would be immune to infiltration by that most insidiously deceptive of all criminals, the child abuser? Or why would individuals within their ranks be any less susceptible to the torrent of living-room piped,  immoral effluent found on the internet? Even a most conservative estimator of this content, Dr. Ogi Ogas, commented "Fourteen per cent of searches and 4% of websites devoted to sex really are very significant numbers, when you stop to ponder it." And then of course , in birth itself there is no religious discrimination in it's apportioning of genetic malfunction.
But that spiritual enemy is expert at fanning sparks of humanity into flames of bigotry and intolerance as he aims his fiery missiles into the unwary and unguarded hearts of hapless men. By means of this issue, he reduces rational, decent humans into prejudiced, unreasonable witch-hunters, clawing at each others throats, trading accusation and insult, deflecting attention to any one but the real enemy, whilst his worm-like minions advance unchecked, the cries of his victims continue, as if unheard.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/dec/18/cases-of-child-sexual-abuse-up-31-says-nspcc
https://www.nspcc.org.uk/services-and-resources/research-and-resources/statistics/
http://www.nationalchildrensalliance.org/media-room/media-kit/national-statistics-child-abuse
https://www.statista.com/statistics/639375/number-of-child-abuse-cases-in-the-us/

Allen, Allen Allen ..... sigh ......
 
Whatever meds you are on .... check with your Doctor.

Since you mentioned me three times in your immediately preceding post, here is my third reply.
I agree with you on THAT comment AllenSmith ... if it had not been for OUTSIDE sources ... all the secular authorities ... we would know NOTHING about all that is going on concerning this issue.
Bro. Stephen Lett in a JW.ORG Video declared quite vehemently, looking straight into the camera,  that all the accusations about JW Pedophile issues and cover-ups were  " .. APOSTATE LIES !!"
.. and this was about two months before we learned from the ARC ... an arm of the Australian Government, of 1006 perpetrators in over 5,000 instances that were hidden from the Brotherhood, in secret files in various Congregations, and in secret sealed blue envelopes sent to the Australian JW Branch Offices.
In my PERSONAL experience ...  have never seen or heard, even through gossip,  about any JW pedophiles in over 50 years ... so I am inclined to believe ( somewhat ) TTH's claim that we do better than 90% of the "world" in that regard .
As much as what IS really going on burns my butt ... I am even more concerned about the institutional cover-up via THREATS of disfellowshipping ... and ACTUAL disfellowshippings, of the Brotherhood ... Brothers and Sisters in the Congregations  .... victims .... and those who wanted to go to the police, but under threat of expulsion, and actual expulsion and abandonment, did not, and were SILENCED.
In over 50 years, I have repeatedly personally seen in many, many Congregations,  and experienced myself, many similar unjust things.
This I have PERSONALLY seen, as institutionalized policy ... in actual practice.
It is our immoral capacity for institutionalized extreme CRUELTY TO EACH OTHER, in the name of righteousness ...  that boils my blood.
I am not discouraged by how I am treated by the "world". 
I can shrug that off.
I am weary to my very soul of how we,  to defend the indefensible,  we treat each other.
... and don't even get me started about the perversion of Justice in the Delaware cases of the Society's Lawyers doing everything they can to keep lawsuits from being adjudicated, ACTIVELY perverting Justice using contributed donations .... and their similar efforts in every court case I have read about, and every court transcript I have read.
Want to test this hypothesis about honesty and integrity?
Go to the JW.ORG website, where legal developments in the news concerning JWs are highlighted ... and see how much honest real legal news about THIS there is.
The last time I checked, it was ZERO
It is NOT Theocratic Loyalty to defend the indefensible.
If it had not been for OUTSIDE sources ... all the secular authorities, and others incensed by injustices ... we would know NOTHING about all that is going on concerning this issue.
...... and that's the fact, Jack.

Child molestation occurs in many large organizations--religious, governmental, and academic--that in itself is not a red flag. When it continues unabated, that's when there's a problem.
It is clear that the JW organization has an ongoing problem with child abuse. When confronted on this issue, the org had the opportunity to make positive reforms and reevaluate its policies. Instead, the org staunchly defended the policies that have created the problems in the first place. They've used the two-witness Bible principle as a crutch for their inaction through the years--a fact they're very proud of in the JW Broadcast. There is this smugness among the JW leadership, as if Jehovah God approves of elder inaction that gives predators a free pass to continue preying on children. The ego and lack of accountability by those taking the lead is alarming. I'm not sure how they reconcile all this exposure with their own conscience. In situations like this, where proactive action is vital, there is actually a laissez-faire attitude by the org. Why? It is the moral obligation of the elders to protect the flock: not only the victim but other potential victims. This is not like other sins--this is predatory and hurts others. To drag your feet isn't an option.
The secular authorities can be an important resource to elders in investigating and uncovering abuse (a capability that the elders lack), but the org emphasizes an avoidance of police involvement as much as possible. Why is this? Why the mistrust of authorities? This is something JWs must ponder. Where are the org's priorities? Saving face or protecting their own?
The org has made itself a martyr to worldly entities that dare question their abuse policies. Their policies have created actual victims to abuse, but the org has twisted it to make itself the victim! And that's the way "in" JWs perceive these inquiries--as attacks by Satan. Has the Watchtower "addressed" this issue to its adherents as another board member suggested? No. It continues to proport itself as a spiritual paradise and ethically superior to any other organization on earth. These inquiries like the ARC are nothing of substance--nothing more than Satan's attacks on the true religion. So information is being heavily distorted by the org to its adherents--another alarming reality. Because child molestation is a huge problem in the org, and its policies play a part in it. But JWs are ignorant to this and are consequently put in a dangerous position. It is our responsibility to seek the TRUTH...if it wasn't for independent research I wouldn't have know about the ARC or Candace Conti or any of the lawsuits. We can't accept the distorted reality the org is selling.

I see the same thing, and it's usually overkill. It's often not limited to just wanting to have a serious discussion about process and practice and doctrinal issues. Some is out of anger at the organization, obviously, and therefore includes typical spite from ex-JWs. Some is out of the iconoclastic desire to tear down something that is essentially good but they perceive it as claiming itself to be "perfect." But there is little chance of this being discussed thoroughly among JWs in a congregational setting, or in a monthly broadcast. There is little chance that JW.ORG will ever include a comments section. So this is still about as good a place as any I know to discuss it with others who might wish to put some depth and thought into fixing it.
Perhaps it does. And perhaps your point is true.  But a scale can balance rotten fish with rotten vegetables. It would still be good to know if the counterpoint is valid.

Allen, Your point should be the same as mine, and it would be a shame (literally) if it is isn't. I understand as well as anyone why you think that a knee-jerk reaction to protect the reputation of the organization is so important. I've been there myself. And sometimes that reaction is correct and on-track. But there are times when justice is more important than protecting a reputation. When we put ourselves on the side of justice we are defending Jehovah's reputation, and this is better for the organization, too, in the long run. There are times when unrighteousness should be exposed. It is short-sighted to think that we are defending Jehovah's name by covering up what is bad. 
So, my point is that the problem is bad, because every instance of child abuse is bad -- even if our statistics are better than someone else's. If you don't think the problem is bad, then I don't trust that you are are doing everything you can to reduce the problem. We should advocate for children. We should advocate for justice. And we need to do more about this reputation we have earned, as an organization, for trying to hide the extent of the problem. It makes us look like we would prefer ignoring or hiding the problem rather than admit that the problem is bad.
I don't think your insult has any basis. You say that people like me threw incorrect information out there without first understanding secular law. I can't speak for what others know or don't know about secular law, but I saw no instances where your insult applied to anything I said on the subject. I don't recall anything JTR said on this subject, but I do recall several of the things Anna said, and I don't think either of us stated anything incorrect or conflicting with respect to secular law. Both of us, as I recall, discussed the value of Brother Jackson requesting a legal change with respect to a consistent requirement for reporting, in all cases, which would resolve a large portion of the inconsistencies. As I recall, we both discussed this long before you yourself mentioned that you also agree with Brother Jackson's recommendation as a resolution for many issues.
If you really think I said something incorrect, I welcome the correction. But with you it's usually just bluster, obfuscation, vagueness, and braggadocio. I hope this isn't more of the same.
I don't condemn the Watchtower for inaction. I have long stated that the Watchtower Society has made many excellent changes with respect to these crimes in the past decade especially, and even some good changes to policy and procedure in the last two years. Perhaps you think you are trying to impress an audience who doesn't know any better when you make up false things about people you don't seem to want to get along with. If you have facts, that's great, but please leave aside all the acting and histrionics.
There are not many way to make sense of that statement of yours. The trouble seems to lie in your attempt to fit too many untruths in a single sentence without thinking clearly about the issue. To be clear I am not excusing anything. I am "blatantly" trying to get to truth of the "90% claim." If you have any facts to add, great! As you can see, you probably weren't thinking clearly at all when you said I was "condemning the use of other religious statistics." I was the one who just recommended the use of other religious statistics for comparison.
If you don't like this topic, Allen, you are free to avoid it, but please don't fill it with untruths for your own purposes.

@Space Merchant, I hate to admit it, but I have never really read any of your comments on the forum until this morning. Now and then I read some of the posts by @Witness, but the only reason I ended up in this thread was because JTR is one of the persons I follow, and a notification came up, when he asked a question about the Masonic-related speech. I immediately pointed him to a link that debunks the Freemason membership. I hadn't seen that Witness already gave a link to the entire sermon/talk. I knew that the pdf on my hard drive had the talk, but it was a large pdf to post for just a few pages inside it.
So I wanted to apologise for not taking note of your previous posts. I ended up overlapping a bit with yours, mostly on the Great Pyramid.
I just wanted to say, too, now that I have read many of your posts, I really liked them. I found them to be well-informed and relevant.
Thanks.

I’m glad there are people like you that are advocates for breaking the law. Remind me of your Christian status? What does that have to do with the fact that this artist did ask for permission from Michael Jackson, and JTR misrepresented that fact, that you are poorly attempting to defend for him, now? Is this an author thing? Defend each other’s mistakes?

Hmm!!!

Would this thought include, taking someone else’s work, completely out of context and displaying copyrighted material, for the purpose of distorting facts? Isn’t that a REWRITE?

JTR. You fall short on your facts.

The first time I met him in person was long after I had gotten permission to do "Eat It" back in 1984.

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/michael-jackson-remembered-weird-al-yankovic-on-imitation-as-flattery-20090709

http://mentalfloss.com/article/75056/9-musicians-who-refused-let-weird-al-yankovic-parody-their-songs

But I can understand why you would want to defend enablers and abusers of copyright.

I figured, with your moniker, it implies you are a Witness. What’s this frivolous point about monikers, since under your own understanding, it means something else?
We have erred in both instances under your understanding. I, however, don’t make it a habit of advocating someone abuse copyright material, which under Christian life is against bible law, Exodus 20:15 and Caesar’s law. Perhaps, you see a “little white lie” acceptable, but it shouldn't be, to a Christian. What part of “misrepresentation of facts” is tripping you that you find it hard to accept, JTR simply made an error?
That in itself makes no sense, especially if you are referring to this site as, academic. What are you TEACHING then?

Hopefully, opposers are paying attention to your “wisdom” of 2-3 lines of copyrighted material to debate and criticize. Unfortunately, this also put owners, with none compliance, for allowing it, happen in their forums. Remember, copyright is part of intellectual property.

Take it from people like Charlie Chaplin that successfully defended his intellectual property from people like Charles Amador a.k.a. (Charlie Aplin), and Ben Blue (Benjamin Bernstein) Also, Windows with Lindows, to name a few.

Hmm!!!

Would this thought include, taking someone else’s work, completely out of context and displaying copyrighted material, for the purpose of distorting facts? Isn’t that a REWRITE?

JTR. You fall short on your facts.

The first time I met him in person was long after I had gotten permission to do "Eat It" back in 1984.

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/michael-jackson-remembered-weird-al-yankovic-on-imitation-as-flattery-20090709

http://mentalfloss.com/article/75056/9-musicians-who-refused-let-weird-al-yankovic-parody-their-songs

But I can understand why you would want to defend enablers and abusers of copyright.

Let me give you a good example .... the law allows you to parody someone elses work, and use it in ITS ENTIRETY.
Remember Michael Jackson's mega hit "Beat It"? Good ... because I remember hearing ABOUT it ... after Weird Al Yankovich took his entire sound track, and made a parody called "Eat it".
Completely legal.
 
 

Under the law, ignorance is no excuse or substitute to make a defense. First, you would start, by not justifying the abuse, and then, ask yourself, which laws you think can be broken to satisfy defamation.

God starts with your heart, where, does those calling themselves witnesses, START!!

Then anyone can use you published work without your permission, just because you think “fair use” is “fair game”. That's amusing coming from you.

A good place to start (and finish, for the most part) is to google: 'wikipedia fair use'

Religious organizations do a limited Q&A to confirm or refute some underline claim, by others. The Bible Students used their publications for rebuttal. However, there are circumstances that even the Watchtower has to be given permission to use information that is copyrighted. They also GRANT permission too many that have an interest in the Watchtower publications, History and Chronology.

None of which is Granted automatically, as its being abused here. I used your position as an Author to make a point, not directly to you, BUT EVERYONE HERE. This includes Witnesses, opposers, and the OWNER, that contributed this hilarious controversial portion of this website for people to malign the Watchtower.

Just, like you wouldn’t want your works stolen, what makes anyone think the Watchtower does?

 
Ephesians 4:28 World English Bible (WEB)

 
28 Let him who stole steal no more; but rather let him labor, producing with his hands something that is good, that he may have something to give to him who has need.

World English Bible (WEB)

 
By Public Domain. The name "World English Bible" is trademarked.

I think we are somehow not communicating. If anyone else is doing wrong, fry him. But I am not.
To reproduce long excerpts from a copyrighted work, you need permission. 
To reproduce short ones - a sentence or two  - you do not. Watchtower publications do it all the time.
 
 

Exactly. You, as an AUTHOR, should have been aware of copyright, even before JWI obscured, the fair use, view. So, what makes your works better, that it needs YOUR PERMISSION, from, that of the Watchtowers, that people think they DON’T need permission from the Watchtower to publish ANY of their copyrighted material. If, you’re NOT willing to subject your own published works to the same standard, then, don’t advocate, the infringement of the Watchtower copyrighted material.

I believe it does, in short segments (a sentence or two) for the sake of commentary. Longer passages would have to be authorized by me. 
Do you think every book or movie reviewer has the permission of the artist?
Nor should you think I am in cahoots with JWI or even sympathetic to his aims. What he is doing, he is doing, and can defend himself if he chooses to. I can answer only to what I am doing.
I knew of "fair use" long before I knew of @JW Insider. It is not something obscure.
Should you want to post anything relevant to law, I will be grateful to you. If it turns out I am doing wrong, I will mend my ways. However, as stated, I would have to search some to find even where I have copied anything of theirs. I mean, I would not challenge that I have done it, but it is not frequent and it is never long. Some here (and everywhere) have reproduced entire articles. I have never done that, believing it to be a violation of copyright unless done with written authorization.
A snippet is something else entirely.

Then I suggest you start educating yourself in the laws that govern copyright, and not assume as JWI has about fair use. There are plenty of websites to aid you. This ideology of violating other people’s rights just to make websites of opposition, viable, is no longer an excuse.

However, Does this mean, I can publish YOUR books content online?