rawe wrote:
Thus... the official statement "So and so is no longer of of Jehovah's Witnesses" I would argue in court is a coded messages that is understood by the membership to imply a much broader statement of a person's character. As such it has clear and provable impact on the reputation of the target among the membership. As such it is in fact slander (and if written libel) with malicious intent to bring harm. This is so because once decoded the actual message is this:

"So and so has unrepentantly done one or more of these things: committed fornication, adultery, bestiality, pedophilia, murder, blasphemed God, was unfaithful or disloyal, etc. As such no decent God-fearing person should associate with such an unrepentant wrongdoer until he/she is ashamed, seeks repentance and is reinstated into God's favour. Until such time, anyone who even says 'Hello' to such an individual has in effect joined them in the wrongful despicable course".
I am going to play Devil's Advocate here to this particular argument, which is more than likely the way the WT got away with it.

"We don't have any control over what people think." Keep in mind that the WT is very good at obeying the LETTER OF THE LAW, not the SPIRIT, and will use every technicality to avoid having to pay damages.

It is my understanding, the whole reasonh for the wording "so and so is no longer a Jehovah's Witness" was because they did loose a slander case brought against them when someone was disfellowshipped and the reason was given to the congregation the person took them to court, and proved in a court of law the reason given for expulsion was a lie. However, the court upheld the expulsion because the court could not interfear with the working of the WT without violating the spirit of the 1st Amendment, but the WT had to pay damages for slander to the person they disfellowshiped.


"In the hegemonic state there is neither right nor law; there are only directives and regulations which the director may change daily and apply with what discrimination he pleases which the wards must obey. The wards have one freedom only: to obey without asking questions. "
Ludwig von Mises -- Human Action p. 199; p. 198