Jump to content
The World News Media

Watch Tower Ups Pressure on YouTube & Facebook To Hand Over Infringers’ Details


Recommended Posts

  • Member
3 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

But we prefer to ‘do battle’ with them in the marketplace of ideas, not by ruling them illegal and muzzling them.

"the marketplace of ideas" :)))

This forum with JW Open Club is marketplace of ideas, too. How would you describe the participants confronting their ideas?  Who are the buyers and who are the sellers? What is their business ethics? Are there any restrictions on what ideas are allowed? ... etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 1.4k
  • Replies 65
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I just found this on JW Org. What Does the Bible Say About Revenge? The Bible’s answer   Even though a person may feel justified in taking revenge, doing so goes against the Bible’s counsel: “Do not say: ‘I will do to him just as he has done to me; I will get even with him.” (Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. , footnote) The Bible contains advice that has helped many overcome a desire for reve

In all four cases, either YouTube or Facebook are asked to hand over “all identifying information, including subscriber registration information” including their “name(s), address(es), telephone number(s), [and] any electronic mail addresses” associated with the allegedly infringing accounts. You Tube and Facebook could easily avoid this. They only need to declare themselves a kind of religion and appoint their employees or volunteers as clergy. They could then invoke the priestly privilege

Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. After filing a lawsuit against the creator of the 'DubTown' Lego stop motion series, Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, the supervising body and publisher for the Jehovah’s Witness religious group, has yet more alleged infringers in its sights. In addition to targeting more YouTube users, Watch Tower is attempting to find out the identities of people posting its songs to Facebook. As the owner of various co

Posted Images

  • Member
8 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

the marketplace of ideas"

Exactly. Jehovah’s Witnesses have to be the most tolerant of religions in that, with regard to confronting other faiths, their weapons are words only. Not only do they reject the hard violence of physical persecution of those of other beliefs, they also reject the soft violence of attempting to legislate their views upon others. 

 

8 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

This forum with JW Open Club is marketplace of ideas, too. How would you describe the participants confronting their ideas?  Who are the buyers and who are the sellers? What is their business ethics? Are there any restrictions on what ideas are allowed? ... etc.

In this case you have ones who failed to remake the JW organization in their own image, and who thereafter resort to incessantly attacking it, pitching and repitching many of the same defamatory mischaracterizations that FECRIS was rebuked for—and concocting some of their own. Three times in the last few weeks their have been statements against the JW organization (one from Witness, and two from Patiently Sitting on my Hands) that almost immediately had to be retracted as they were found to be false. Will that prevent further misrepresentations? I doubt it. 

In the face of this, ones adhering to the JW way of worship either respond with some bluntness or walk away. I would not choose the same words as Arauna, (OCD hate) but I see where she gets it from. Having left the JW faith, presumably you’ve found a life somewhere else. Continually attacking the faith you were not able to change smacks of sour grapes—why do you not move on in life? OCD is not such an unreasonable description at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
16 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Here is a German Court that ruled how most of the “anti-cult” organization, FECRIS—most of their charges against Jehovah’s Witnesses were false.

Unfortunately, I can only comment on an article by M. Introvign, and M.I. it is known to us from a particular and specific context from before.

It would be good to have court documentation, so that I would be able to give a clearer "opinion".

The article shows a detail that includes Russia and its judiciary with the JW and with "Western democracy." In this case, German democracy gives an opinion on Russia and its domestic policy towards the JW. This creates a problem and doubts the objectivity of the German court. On the other hand, we have the example of American courts that do not want to enter into theological debates and evaluate what and how which religion teaches and how it disciplines and guide its members. It does not discuss the internal rules and methods of church bodies. According to the article, this is also about such things.

quote: The court also found that FECRIS distorts the theology and practices of the Jehovah’s Witnesses with the intention of defaming them

WTJWorg in Germany seeks the opinion and approval of the court that certain JW theology and practices are correct. From whose point of view should it be correct? Court view? They also ask the court to declare certain observations of external observers to be false. It is possible that someone at FECRIS did not do a good research so he said the inaccuracy. ... quote: (Sometimes, it is unclear whether FECRIS activists, who claim to be experts on “cults,” are in bad faith or simply incompetent. They published the case of a 17-year-old Dutch girl who died during a measles epidemic in 2013 after her parents had refused vaccination for religious reasons and implied she was a Jehovah’s Witnesses. In fact, she was a member of a Calvinist Christian Reformed congregation, i.e., belonged to a church known for being a staunch opponent of the Jehovah’s Witnesses.)

How the elders (and JW lawyers) in the Judicial Communities working, is evident from some other court documents and videos. If the elders were to make their notes available, (if they were written) rather than destroyed them as instructed by the GB Legal Department and representatives, then perhaps this “story” should be different. 

quote: The German Jehovah’s Witnesses asked the District Court of Hamburg to examine 32 statements. The court found 17 of them defamatory, one partially defamatory, and 14 non-defamatory. 

What is the content of these 14 and 1/2 ? They are true, right? Can you find out what this is about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
12 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

they also reject the soft violence of attempting to legislate their views upon others. 

Outside, or inside the organization? Outside, they most certainly fight to impose their view on others through legislation.  They always have through history.    Inside?  Soft violence is used every day by the GB against the anointed.  Matt 24:48-51  When someone tells you not to seek out and gather with brothers and sisters to read and study the word of God, that is "soft" violence enacted against a people - a spiritual nation.   These are "living" temple stones figuratively scattered throughout the congregations of JWs; yet, surrounded by elder "Gentiles". (2 Thess 2:3,4; Rev 11:1,2)  Soft violence can crush an individual into submission; or worse, into spiritual destruction.  Luke 19:44; 21:6      (1 Pet 2:5,9; 1 Cor 3:16,17)

 

12 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Jehovah’s Witnesses have to be the most tolerant of religions in that, with regard to confronting other faiths, their weapons are words only.

"other faiths"...the faith promoted by the organization is total reliance on...the organization.  This is a faith contrary to what the scriptures teach.  The "other faith" found in the organization is within the hearts of the anointed and should be practiced by them.  But, they have become submissive to "organizational" faith under the rule of men.  Is any tolerance found regarding where their faith should lie?  

"For although we live in the flesh, we do not wage war according to the flesh, 4 since the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but are powerful through God for the demolition of strongholds. We demolish arguments 5 and every proud thing that is raised up against the knowledge of God, and we take every thought captive to obey Christ. "  2 Cor 10:4,5

that is raised up against the knowledge of God,

Nowhere can it be found in the scriptures that support the rulership of "uncircumcised" men over God's anointed Temple dwelling.   (Ezek 44:6-9; 1 Cor 3:16,17; Matt 24:15,16)  

the demolition of strongholds.

What is the stronghold that will be demolished by the Word of God, the Spirit of God?  The mountainlike organization that destroys His people with soft violence.  Zech 4:6,7; Rev 8:8; 13:5-7; 19:20; Isa 2:12-18

If only the anointed and all JWs would realize to...

 Put no more trust in a mere human,
who has only the breath in his nostrils.
What is he really worth?  Isa 2:22

    Hello guest!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

quote: That defamatory statements about the Jehovah’s Witnesses come from Russian official documents does not mean that organizations in democratic countries are free to reprint them.

    Hello guest!

Is this, above, German Court ruling, opinion or something else? Or is this M.I interpretation?

According to JW interpretations about Bible and Romans 13 in particular, every secular government are equal before God. No matter is it about more or less "democratic countries" or or about other political ideology. In such point of view, all good and bad decisions aka "official documents" made by "democratic" or by "not-democratic" countries have same value. And people are free to choose to obey or not to obey, to trust or not to trust in such "official documents". With various outcome made by individual or group decision. In case of Russian JW they made their choice with knowing in advance what could and would look like going against "official documents".

We can "reprint" (copy/paste) WTJWorg official site articles or videos and say what we think about it. Or do M.I thinks we have to be silent about it/them?

WTJWorg publications (especially in the past) were full of freedom of (hate) speech against other religions, especially the Catholic Church. So, what's the problem now? Maybe the difference is that JW’s attacks on other religions are justified in JW’s eyes? Because other religions are false and their doctrines are false? And their traditions are wrong? So it's free to attack them?
Catholic priests told their members not to read literature from JW. What do JW elders and GB tell their members? The same thing, not to read anything that comes from other religions.

Today, “hate speech” in WTJWorg concentrates on former members. Who wants to deal with such things as listening to arguments from both sides and giving opinions? Maybe the German Court? It seems to be interesting to them, so maybe they will deal with it in the future as well. :))

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
On 5/23/2021 at 9:28 AM, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

  After filing a lawsuit against the creator of the 'DubTown' Lego stop motion series, Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, the supervising body and publisher for the Jehovah’s Witness religious group, has yet more alleged infringers in its sights.

...

This makes no sense at all.

I watched the entire series of  Lego animated  "Dubtown" satire on YouTube, and barked myself silly! 

It was obviously ( to me ... ) "fair use" of whatever logos or trademarked material ....  as it was biting satire. 

Works can be copied in their entirety if the use is satirized.

WHERE was the infringement?

I hope it was NOT claimed that it was recordings of Meetings, or Field Service. 

Oh my!

MANY claim extensive knowledge of the Law and it's applications to life, but they are usually just jealous paranoid busybodies, without an ounce of humor or creativity in their souls.

Although articulate and well educated, more often than not it turns out that everything they DO know .... is WRONG.

One time I chased a bee from "Winnie The Pooh and the Honey Tree" across the woods and bit it, so I know how that goes.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
On 5/26/2021 at 5:25 AM, Srecko Sostar said:

WTJWorg in Germany seeks the opinion and approval of the court that certain JW theology and practices are correct

No they do not. They seek the opinion of the court that their theology and practices are not being lied about by FECRIS—whether they are correct or not is immaterial. And the court says, in 17 instances out of 32, that FECRIS has indeed lied about them in “defamatory” statements. It is a prime example of Jesus’ words on how opposers would “lyingly say every sort of wicked thing about you.”

On 5/26/2021 at 5:25 AM, Srecko Sostar said:

What is the content of these 14 and 1/2 ? 

It hardly matters, does it?  Would you invite for your keynote speaker someone with a GPA of .6 in their field of expertise? “Well, he doesn’t lie all the time—let’s see what he has to say!” Perhaps in your twisted world that would work, but not in any world respecting integrity.

On 5/26/2021 at 5:25 AM, Srecko Sostar said:

The article shows a detail that includes Russia

A far more significant detail that the article does not show is that the VP of FECRIS, Alexander Dvorkin, is the prime instigator of the ban against JWs in Russia. Armed with FECRIS ideology, he shouts “CULT!” in the crowded Russian theater with “facts” that are incorrect 53% of the time. Thus he and his FECRIS is responsible for the mayhem that results. Each time a Witness is beaten, tortured, jailed, detained, or harassed, it falls upon him.  It is the same as how someone shouting FIRE! in a crowded theater would be held accountable. Hopefully, now that his credibility is seriously undercut, the government may reassess the degree to which they wish to rely upon his “expertise.”

I’m not holding my breath, but it may be like when the US Supreme Court ruled during WWII that Witness children could be compelled to salute the flag. A wave of persecution broke out across the country that saw widespread destruction of property, and even some Witnesses lynched. In the aftermath of what had been unleashed, 2 or 3 of the justices gave to understand they thought the case had been decided incorrectly. Another 2 or 3 retired and were replaced by ones thought more agreeable to individual liberty. The case came before the court once again, just three years later, and the decision was reversed. Would that such a thing were to happen in Russia. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

It is my understanding that Eleanore Roosevelt was horrified at how Jehovah's Witnesses were treated after the first Supreme Court ruling on the issue of compulsory flag salute ... and influenced the Supreme Court to look at what damage they had caused, by this ruling, resulting in an unprecedented reversal on Flag Day, 1945, as World War II was raging.

Her opinions were generally VERY highly respected.

Perhaps we could use some of her wisdom and intelligence here.

Elenore Roosevelt.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
11 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Perhaps in your twisted world that would work, but not in any world respecting integrity.

Dear Tom, when GB members call listeners on JWTV and in literature; "Trust Us because JHVH and Jesus have full trust in Us...", don't you think how GB statement is enough twisted (distorted) and how GB lives in their twisted world with twisted reality they constantly creating in JW Church? 

What ideology is behind the GB claim? For sure it is not about Idea, but about Ideology! 

Thus, we have a question; What did Jesus promote? Idea or Ideology?

What was promoted by (what is behind) Massimo Introvigne, the German court and FECRIS? Ideology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
4 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

What was promoted by (what is behind) Massimo Introvigne, the German court and FECRIS? Ideology.

Any statement by any person represents “ideology.” The difference between the ideology of FECRIS and the ideology of Introvigne is that the first stands for intolerance and the second for tolerance. Introvigne would allow all law-abiding faiths to exist. FECRIS would not. Introvigne draws the line at defaming faiths with false statements. FECRIS does not. 53% of the statements they make regarding Jehovah’s Witnesses are factually incorrect. It is not enough for FECRIS to say they don’t like Jehovah’s Witnesses. They have to lie about them, too.

The United States [bipartisan] Commission on International Religious Freedom denounces the “anti-cult” ideology (of which FECRIS is a foremost part) for its “pretension to standing as the final arbiter of religious truth.” FECRIS is a humanist organization. It will tolerate religion only so long as religion embraces humanist goals. If religion is eviscerated to the point where it becomes a majority-rule affair, and thus as subject to contemporary trends as anyone else, FECRIS has no problem with it. 

How does FECRIS know that that model is agreeable with God? It doesn’t, and it doesn’t care. Humanist goals are what it champions. It is plain that Christianity never would have taken root in the first century had FECRIS been around then. The manifest human authority revealed in New Testament writing would have been denounced by them as outside interference. “It is necessary to shut the mouths of these men,” Paul wrote of one situation back then. You think FECRIS would have stood still for that?

It just may be that human authority is inherent in how God leads his worshippers. Any reading of scripture would certainly suggest so, yet that is a suggestion that FECRIS will not let stand. So it is that they presume to stand “as the final arbiter of religious truth.” 

It matters not whether one agrees with the leadership of Jehovah’s Witnesses. That is not the issue taken up by Introvigne or the German Court. The obvious course for anyone in disagreement with the tenets of Jehovah’s Witnesses is not to be one. Upon taking that course, there is no longer any problem. Introvigne himself obviously doesn’t agree with Jehovah’s Witnesses in all things, maybe in none of them. Otherwise, he would be one. He is not. He is Roman Catholic. What he is is a voice calling for tolerance between religions. Criticizing other faiths if fine, so long as one does not lie about them. Lord knows Witnesses have criticized other faiths, but they do not lie about them. FECRIS does—53% of the time, it turns out.

If I recall correctly, early Christianity was controversial, so much so that 40 years after Jesus death, Nero was throwing them to the lions. Introvigne would just prefer not to see the scenario repeat. Anything wrong with that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

    Hello guest!

“The court also found that FECRIS distorts the theology and practices of the Jehovah’s Witnesses with the intention of defaming them. FECRIS falsely claimed that the Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that “there is a difference between men and women who receive the heavenly calling from God, in that only women ‘must receive a change of nature,’ but not men,”

Absolutely true.  All of those men and women in the upper room during Pentecost who received the anointing, including Mary, the mother of Jesus, are depicted as men sitting behind their thrones and all looking exactly alike.  Unless Wt. removes their illustrations about the 144,000 in heaven, a picture is worth a thousand words of proof.

that women who serve as door-to-door missionaries are “women slaves,” 

Absolutely true.  Aren’t they considered the “large army” who pedal the doctrine of men?  (2 Tim 4:3; 2 Cor 11:20)

and children are “compelled” to participate in the public preaching,

Of course they are.  It is the “best life ever”; one to inspire a child’s mind as the goal for his future.

that women in the family should not only submit to their husbands but also “to their male children,”

Ahh, haven’t they just recently enacted damage control about this teaching?

are “forbidden to divorce without being immediately excommunicated,”

This happens generally in the case of abuse, but I wouldn't dismiss a case of adultery committed by the husband.  A woman who leaves such a situation can be disfellowshipped, while the man retains his good standing in the organization.

 and “cannot rebel within the home without being immediately judged by the congregation’s elders.”   

The wt. is a misogynous organization, primarily taking the side of the man.  Can it be proven on paper?  Not if they are destroyed. It can only be proven by one’s personal testimony.

That Jehovah’s Witnesses teenagers caught kissing are automatically “taken to a JW’s judicial committee,”

My son and his girl friend were leaving a meeting with the girl in the passenger seat.  Immediately, two JWs reported this to the elders, since they believed there was no chaperone with them.  Of course, my son was contacted by an elder who was told the girl’s mother was in the back seat.  I can’t imagine what would have happened if he was to lean over and kiss his girlfriend, as they prepared to leave. 

and that a young woman who stays overnight in the home of a male friend would be found guilty by a judicial committee even in the absence of other elements indicating an improper relationship, were also judged to be false and defamatory statements.

These are not false allegations.  They have happened to people over the years and have been reported by them; people who do not have the monetary means to hire a man like M. Introvigne who will go to work to sustain wt.’s oppressive tactics securing their corrupt spiritual reign.  

Another false claim the court regarded as defamatory was that the Jehovah’s Witnesses have announced 26 different dates for the end of the world and are now predicting it for the year 2034.

This is a false claim???  How so?  Is their math off?  Did they forget to carry the one?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share





×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.