Watchtower Hate Speech and Intimidation Might be a Violation of US Federal Law

The United States is more lenient than most countries when it comes to hate speech and allowing organised religions to have their way, even when they hurt others. However, there are limits. I found a federal law that seems strangely relevant to recent Watchtower articles that labels former members as "mentally diseased" and discuss the "slaughter of apostates". 

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241
Conspiracy Against Rights

This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).

It further makes it unlawful for two or more persons to go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another with the intent to prevent or hinder his/her free exercise or enjoyment of any rights so secured.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to ten years, or both; and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years, or for life, or may be sentenced to death.

source: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/federal-statutes

I'm not a lawyer, so these are just my opinions.

This law isn't about shunning or expelling a member from an organisation. The US courts have been reluctant to interfere with these issues. However, the Watchtower Society has conspired to intimidate and threaten it's members to avoid any questions or challenges to their authority or even leaving the religion peacefully and quietly. The enforced shunning from friends and family is certainly part of this intimidation, but it also includes written comments demonising and insulting any who disagree or leave. This includes a recent article that gleefully discusses the "slaughter of apostates". The fact that they say that they don't do that today (there is no mention of tomorrow) doesn't change the fact that the article is extremely threatening and intimidating. 

Furthermore, the article is largely directed at current Jehovah's Witnesses who may be intimidated to attend public JW meetings and are then confronted by direct threats about the things that will and might happen if they dare to question anything that is taught or if they just try to leave or change religions according to their contitutional rights.

I personally believe the discussion of the slaughter of a minority group who merely wish to exercise their freedom of (and from) religion, accompanied by both real and veiled threats and a range of official procedures and propaganda to further isolate and intimidate these people is a direct and blatent violation of this federal law. 

I welcome your comments.

Are you familiar with this group:   

USCIRF is an independent, bipartisan U.S. federal government commission. USCIRF Commissioners re appointed by the President and the leadership of both political parties in the Senate and the House of Representatives. USCIRF's principal responsibilities are to review the facts and circumstances of violations of religious freedom internationally and to make policy recommendations to the President, the Secretary of State and Congress. Website: www.uscirf.gov

U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom
800 North Capitol Street, NW
Suite 790
Washington, DC 20002
Tel: 202-523-3240
Fax: 202-523-5020

communications@uscirf.gov

If the Westboro Baptist Church can say the things they do, why would the WT be any different?

MrFreeze, Westboro came to mind to me instantly.  I think these issues are important and will be addressed some day, but I feel like we are far from resolving these things as a nation.

I think this is a hell of a stretch in the US. The US has very strong free speech protections.

If the Westboro Baptist Church can say the things they do, why would the WT be any different?

The law's verbiage indicates action of conspiracy not just speech.

Take their change of policy from announcing someone is disfellowshipped to announcing someone is no longer a Jehovah's Witness. They actually had articles (or maybe just letters) stating that when they say "no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses" they really mean to treat them as if they were disfellowshipped. Why were they forced to make this change? Because the term, when stated on a podium and in a formal way, evokes action from the congregation and that can be considered criminal hate.

Medical science of the brain has given the term "mentally diseased" a complex description. It was translated into the NWT (1 Tim 6:4) in the mid 20th century where that term was considered more slang or hyperbole.

What if they said all apostates have schizophrenia? Because that's basically what they are saying and when published in an article that millions of Witnesses will see, as well as predictably heed, it can easily consitute hate.

-Sab

I agree that there are serious obstacles to confronting this type of intimidation in the United States. However, I think it is encouraging that there are already laws on the books that could address this if there is ever enough political will to do so.

I also think that this involves much more than free speech. If I tell someone that I think it would be fun to see them put their hands in the air, that is free speech. If I also point a gun (or even something that looks like a gun) then it becomes a serious crime and act of intimidation. These articles are threatening, intimidating and accompanied by an entire system of procedures and statements that appear to be designed to deny people people's basic constitutional rights. They are also primarily the result of a single Governing Body who can be identified as the people who have conspired to produce this intimidation. The individual actions of shunning, disfellowshipping, hateful comments, etc. might not be crimes by themselves, but if they are intentionally used in combination as a way of denying people their rights, then a good argument could be made that they are violating the law. A prosecution based on this wouldn't have to be viewed as an attack on free speech.

It's also interesting that the Watchtower Society's actions are primarily directed at their own members. Hateful comments may be less intimidating when the people making them don't also have the power to destroy your life. The Watchtower Society has this power over their members, which includes minors and people who are vulnerable in other ways, such as people who are mentally ill or physically dependent on the care of other Jehovah's Witnesses.

If this hateful speech escalates or results in violence or other unlawful or intimidating actions, then it would be easier to make a case that a certain group of people (the governing body) actually conspired to interfere with the basic human rights of its members. This would especially be true if they persist in their actions despite worldwide media coverage and possible prosecutions in other countries. They won't be able to claim that they couldn't have predicted the results of their actions.

They would probably claim that the courts don't have jurisdiction over their internal religous affairs, like they have in the past. The good thing is that law is designed to protect constitutional rights, so it might be harder to use freedom of religion as a defense.  

If this hateful speech escalates or results in violence or other unlawful or intimidating actions, then it would be easier to make a case that a certain group of people (the governing body) actually conspired to interfere with the basic human rights of its members. This would especially be true if they persist in their actions despite worldwide media coverage and possible prosecutions in other countries. They won't be able to claim that they couldn't have predicted the results of their actions.

I hate to say it, but certain Witness "types" are the prime profile for degrading to violence. It's the one's the have developed a codependent relationship with the Watchtower and it's doctrine. They use the Watchtower like piglets use their mother's teats. As the Watchtower's fantasy degrades down many people will find themselves frightened and completely void of world view.

-Sab

I believe this is way more serious than a mistake.  Anyone can issue a "slur" in their teachings--whether it be racial, gay, or religious.  Someone can call a black person something they will regret.  They can call a homosexual person something that is unsavory.  Usually, these are isolated mistakes.

What is going on here is more than this.  It is one thing to call apostates "mentally diseased".  It's another to expound on it to make it appear that such apostates are scumbags, and worthy of destruction.  The whole paragraph is the offense, not just the phrase "mentally diseased".  And it is worse because it goes in line with things the religion persistently teaches--treating apostates as something vile, shunning them, busting up their families, and even threats that they are going to get destroyed.  I have seen it hinted that only secular law prevents them from killing apostates.  This whole pattern, not just the phrase, is enough to get each and every person making up the Filthful and Disgraceful Slavebugger charged with hate crimes--against people that have had enough of the lies, discrepancies, and lousy treatment.

Well said WTW.

-Sab

If this hateful speech escalates or results in violence or other unlawful or intimidating actions, then it would be easier to make a case that a certain group of people (the governing body) actually conspired to interfere with the basic human rights of its members. This would especially be true if they persist in their actions despite worldwide media coverage and possible prosecutions in other countries. They won't be able to claim that they couldn't have predicted the results of their actions.

I hate to say it, but certain Witness "types" are the prime profile for degrading to violence. It's the one's the have developed a codependent relationship with the Watchtower and it's doctrine. They use the Watchtower like piglets use their mother's teats. As the Watchtower's fantasy degrades down many people will find themselves frightened and completely void of world view.

I've said similar things before, and have been criticized for it too.  I honestly feel that for some JWs, it wouldn't take too much of a "suggestion" or "hint" from the WTS for them to switch from Waiting On Jehovah™ to destroy Apostates™ to being happy to do Jehovah's killing on His behalf. They've never retracted this statement from the November 15, 1952 Watchtower:

*** Nov 15, 1952 Watchtower ***

We are not living today among theocratic nations where such members of our fleshly family relationship could be exterminated for apostasy from God and his theocratic organization, as was possible and was ordered in the nation of Israel in the wilderness of Sinai and in the land of Palestine. "Thou shalt surely kill him; thy hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him to death with stones, because he hath sought to draw thee away from Jehovah thy God, . . . And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is in the midst of thee."-Deut. 13:6-11, AS.

Being limited by the laws of the worldly nation in which we live and also by the laws of God through Jesus Christ, we can take action against apostates only to a certain extent, that is, consistent with both sets of laws. The law of the land and God's law through Christ forbid us to kill apostates, even though they be members of our own flesh-and-blood family relationship.

Translation: The WTS would love for individual JWs to execute God's Judgement™ on Apostates™ who are "members of our own flesh-and-blood family relationship", if it weren't for that pesky "law of the land".

If you want to be really edgy, why not also bring up the WT's published anti-gay statements. That is always an easy button to push and very Politically Correct!

Where there could be consequences in the US pertains to religious discrimination.  Supposing a very influential and well-to-do brother hires only JWs.  (He is already discriminating on the basis of religion by NOT hiring anyone of other religions).  Suppose one of the formerly zealous JDub employees gets DFd.  Are all the other faithful JDubs going to continue working in his presence?   Will Brother Big Shot terminate the employment of the newly DFd (non)witness?  THAT would be religious discrimination.   Brother Big Shot is up for a lawsuit up the wazzoo.

Hasn't there been some dispute over whether Bethelites are employees?  Consider loyal Bethel "employee" who is DFd because of differing religious beliefs (apostacy)...... Much of his/her earnings are room/board etc.  When "fired" because of his/her new religious beliefs, is this not religious discrimination?  Is he/she entitled to financial compensation for loss of "earnings"?

Just thinking out loud......

DOC

Personally...  I think there is a line somewhere between 'speaking out against those that are offensive' and 'having a vendetta'.

The WT said something offensive...  Those who were offended spoke up, and were clearly heard.  It is good that some folks brought this to the attention of national news orgs., and that they picked up the story and brought it to public light.  No-doubt there were curious people out there who found the hurtful teachings of the WT shocking, and perhaps some isolated exJW's could feel a little less alone in a post-JW life.

I'm content to leave it at that.  The world has bigger problems.  Knowledge is the first defense, and I'd rather serve it one sip at a time and be heard, than shout so loudly and frequently that people tune us out.  Let this settle into people's minds, and lurk in Internet search results.  I think trying to escalate this further and further - in some vain hope to 'punish' the WT or GB... just makes ex-JW's look petty and vindictive.  It isn't realistic, and it won't be productive.  Like others have pointed out - there are free-speech laws, and realistically little more can come from this.

I don't think we don't need to destroy the organization.  We can leave that to the GB.  They are the ones that have to answer to their gradual accumulation of lies, errors, and cover-ups.  A little patience goes a long way, and as others have said - a sucker is born every minute.  We can't help the sucker - but we can help the wiser.

I think, for the sake of people, we should focus on keeping our own house clean:  Maintaining a welcoming, honest community for those who want to break free...  Providing a truthful, accurate, non-hateful accounting of the real-world JW mentality and lifestyle...  etc.

Personally, I think we could clean our own house a little better before getting too ambitious.

- Lime

The First Amendment protects speech. The ACLU has gone to court to defend the rights of the KKK to burn crosses on their own property as free speech. Statutes are meaingless compared to the First Amendment.

Thank you for your comments. Any prosecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in the United Sates could be very difficult. I'm not saying it shouldn't be tried, but I know that I'm not volunteering. However, things could change very quickly. I say it pays to be prepared and consider possible legal strategies before they are needed. It's probably a wast of time to attack Watchtower hate speech in the United States, but if that hate speech incites violence or results in other illegal activity, then the situation might be different. Another possibility is if documents related to the deliberations of the governing body are leaked or a member defects then there might be a basis for prosecution if it can be shown that their actions are intended to deprive their members of their constitional rights.

In any case, if all this thread does is make the Bethel spies a little bit nervous, then I think it's well worth it. 

Frankly, any WT lawyer would find this thread comical. Hate crimes are statutes. Statutes are only valid if they are const'l. The First Amendment is vibrant and I am glad.

We live in a country that grants religions great freedom. I don't see that as bad. Cults can be combatted by knowledge. Law is not a place to change society. Public opinion is a great place. Rather than say religious speech is hate crime, it makes more sense to focus on neutral cult prevention.

In your opinion B.O.R was the First Amendment adopted to protect only religious and other institutions, or to protect individuals as well ?

I think it should be tried.  I just don't think it will be very successful.