Sounds like a case of: "Play stupid games; win stupid prizes," and indeed, the first thing I thought of as I read the beginning of this piece was Mike Waltz's massive faux pas of inviting Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg in on what should have been a highly classified conversation in a SCIF. Obviously, JWs don't have SCIFs (at least not to my knowledge), but maybe they should have, or at least be a great deal more circumspect about who they're involving in their meetings about child abuse.
What their lawsuit amounts to, at least from where I sit is: "How dare you document how we shot ourselves in the foot?" Long story short, they want recompense for their boneheaded move.
In this case, all the JWs had to do to secure their meeting was not invite a reporter to it and check the list of attendees before they got started. Idiots.
This lawsuit is the JWs trying to deflect by pretending to be the victims of a muckraking reporter so people won't pay attention to the fact that they're an organization that covers up for pedophiles.
I truly hope so. Religious support and protection for child rapist who are clergy or other members of a cult (e.g., jw, catholic, protestant..) is still the order of the day, with chid victims victimised again by the coverups.
The question becomes whether or not O'Donnell has the means and the backing to fight this thing. I for one hope he does, because the JW's stupidity does NOT deserve to be rewarded in any way, shape, or form.
It is possible that someone in the JWs is trying to do the right thing by making sure someone knows what is really going on. If so, great there may be a reckoning and we should protect the whistleblower.
But, more likely, since there was very little new information on that call and the JWs knew about the incident and the podcast after, this was an intentional slip designed to silence the reporter. They let him in, pretending to be unaware of his presence. Allowed him to hear information that isn’t surprising, or all that damning, making sure it’s cleared through lawyers and with lawyers (potentially to claim privacy through attorney client privilege, even if it doesn’t really pertain to reporters). Then later, once some harm is developed through the leak, file a lawsuit and demand a high dollar amount that the reporter himself cannot cover, bankrupt him or cause enough damage to keep him out of their affairs.
Or maybe they didn’t pay attention to who was on the call, or what the reporter was saying, until it was too late.
I might assume ignorance over malice, but it’s a difficult assumption to make considering who we are talking about.
It can be both. There is historical precedent in all types of situations where when a person's ignorance was shown, they took advantage of it to strike back with malice.
The case seems way to weak and late to be planned, IMO. If this had been a plan to go after him, they would've gone after him immediately, not a year later. And they'd have tried to get some evidence to sting him on (a signed NDA, a verbal agreement not to disclose, etc.), rather than this baloney 'attendence was wiretapping' argument.
If you've covered up abuse -- and especially CSA -- your reputation should already be obliterated. In a just world, there'd be nothing left for O’Donnell to "harm."
Yup. When a state investigation has turned up evidence that you had pedophiles in your ranks and you covered it up, it's kinda hard to argue 'reputational harm.' Just look at the catholics. The first allegations of child sexual abuse came to light in 2003 when the Boston Globe published its Spotlight investigation. After that, allegations started cropping up all over the US and the rest of the world. Their reputation and moral authority has never recovered.
The Catholic Church has lost more members than any single denomination in all the recent religion surveys from Pew and other organizations that track US religious observance. They're surviving, but lots of dioceses here in the US have had to pay out billions in damages because of the pedophile priest scandals, and parishes are having to consolidate and close churches all over the country due to lack of attendance. The shortage of priests has become so severe, the church has had to accept married priests from other sects, e.g., for Episcopalians. While I expect the church will get a positive PR bump from the election of the first American pope, I wouldn't say the church in the US or overall is 'doing just fine.'
I know. I’m just playing. I do believe that the purpose of this new American Pope is to rather forcibly lock down power over here and as you mentioned, throw in some PR AKA bare minimum virtue signaling to cover their tracks. How Americans will react to it will have to wait to be seen.
Ratzi the nazi's job, while arch bishop of Munich, was to protect those pedophiles, according to the investigation done by Germany. The office was formerly titled the "Inquisition".
I'm not certain that the JW's reputation for child abuse has been reported on as widely in the US as elsewhere (Australia comes to mind). O'Donnell may wind up doing the general population a great service with his reportage on this incident.
Oh I agree, and I think O'Donnell is doing great work. I'm just disappointed this is work that still needs to be done. Their reputation should already be in tatters, but cheers to O'Donnell and others for working to rectify the fact that it's not.
It remains incredible to me that our most loved, most important asset of all - our children - can’t be protected from religious institutions that attack them with impunity. Obfuscation, outright lying and subterfuge are the “go-to’s” for churches with predators on staff. For this they are rewarded and pay no taxes?
It must be an USAian thing. Almost. In Norway we still have schools that "forget" that for pupils, visiting a church sermon before Jule is not mandatory.
Highly insular religious groups always have something to hide. While I have no use for any religion, the JW's are right up there with Scientology. If they're really not systematically abusing children, then why don't they demonstrate that rather than go after a critic? Religion tends to be self-justifying, and adherents of a particular sect have a way of seeing what ever they do as either approved of by God, or being forgiven by their particular version of the almighty.
I’m of the belief that someone invited O’Donnell in as he specifically states he’s protecting journalistic sources. As others have pointed out, it’s not rocket science to see who’s on a Zoom call. Waiting to file suit is not unusual, but I have to think some event we’re not aware of precipitated the urge to file this suit.
Regardless, fuck the JW’s, their reputation has never been worth a dime, let alone $2.8 million.
One of the reasons the JWs want this is to make sure they can expel and shun everyone who talked to Mr O'Donnell. Good on Mr O'Donnell for maintaining jounalistic integrity, shame on the JW's for trying to punish concerned members.
Just like the "Judeo-" part of "Judeo-Christian" may be jettisoned when Christians come to find Jews inconvenient, Mormons are only Christians when the other, older Christian sects feel like inviting them into the tent.
Whether intentional or by accident, the only way O'Donnell would have had access to that telecom, let alone know it was happening, was if someone on the call gave him the login code. This sounds like some version of a SLAPP suit to prevent O'Donnell from talking - AFTER he's already published what happened on the call.
A group that's being investigation for child sexual abuse and covering up child sexual abuse is hardly in a position to claim 'reputational damage' when they invited a reporter into their meeting to discuss their legal strategy to limit the fallout. O'Donnell didn't violate any privacy, wiretapping or other laws any more than Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic did when some Trump mook invited him onto a Signal chat discussing an imminent attack on the Houthis.
I expect this suit will be thrown out and O'Donnell will be awarded damages and legal fees.
But ain't it nice to know that yet another religious organization is more concerned with circling the wagons and protecting its own reputation than it is with rooting out pedophiles in its midst?
If he were to publish something, the royalties alone would take care of his money problem. He wouldn't have to fleece the flock, ahem, require tithing of the congregation.
One of the reasons I despise religious organizations, including the actions of my own ancestors, is this desire to preserve their reputation, or, as they like to call it, "the Church's reputation." That's ALL they care about. Narcissistic to the core. Who cares about your own children's trauma--it's fine to sacrifice them to "god." At this point it seems that every single religious denomination is a cover for abuse.
As an Old People who Know How Computers Work, I agree that it is easy to solve. My 85 year old mother, who doesn't understand very much about how computers work has learned how to do google searches and video calls on her smartphone. The last schoolwork my mother did happened in 1958. The JWs discourage college, but that isn't even a barrier to learning how to look at the list of participants in the Zoom call. They figured out how to get on a Zoom call, they can figure out the rest of the app.
This is much less about invasion of privacy and reputational harm and much more about information control. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 want to be the only ones providing information to anyone about what they do. I don't think they care very much about how outsiders view them, the persecution complex is strong with them. The more information they can control about themselves, the less likely the rank and file sees through the bullshit and leaves.
Not just old people but old, STUPID people. I had a dear friend I lost recently (he was 88) who was legally blind, yet had no problem using his computer. He was one sharp old guy.
More lazy and trusting than stupid. I don't know how many business Teams meetings I've been on where some unknown phone number tries to call in and someone not the organizer clicks "accept" without any question or inquiry to the organizer. For one standing meeting, we the organizers had to announce "don't do this" in the invite, then in additional reminder emails, then in the meeting itself...and it still took like 3 weeks before the 'normal attendees' actually stopped doing it.
The folks who don't live in the world where Operational Security matters every day have an extremely low tolerance/patience for doing it.
Sounds like a case of: "Play stupid games; win stupid prizes," and indeed, the first thing I thought of as I read the beginning of this piece was Mike Waltz's massive faux pas of inviting Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg in on what should have been a highly classified conversation in a SCIF. Obviously, JWs don't have SCIFs (at least not to my knowledge), but maybe they should have, or at least be a great deal more circumspect about who they're involving in their meetings about child abuse.
What their lawsuit amounts to, at least from where I sit is: "How dare you document how we shot ourselves in the foot?" Long story short, they want recompense for their boneheaded move.
And they damned well shouldn't get it.
In this case, all the JWs had to do to secure their meeting was not invite a reporter to it and check the list of attendees before they got started. Idiots.
Clearly, whoever spawned the meeting wasn't paying attention ... and they DO NOT get to blame O'Donnell for their own mistake.
This lawsuit is the JWs trying to deflect by pretending to be the victims of a muckraking reporter so people won't pay attention to the fact that they're an organization that covers up for pedophiles.
Let us fervently hope that their lawsuit backfires on them by calling still more attention to what provoked it — just as Hemant has done here.
People who bring suits like this always forget about discovery. Big mistake. All the secrets they're trying to hide will come out in discovery.
I truly hope so. Religious support and protection for child rapist who are clergy or other members of a cult (e.g., jw, catholic, protestant..) is still the order of the day, with chid victims victimised again by the coverups.
Exactly! And they don't get to play 'look what you made us do' either.
I think they are hoping to turn it into "we're going to make it cost you so much to play this game that you just concede and settle on our terms."
The question becomes whether or not O'Donnell has the means and the backing to fight this thing. I for one hope he does, because the JW's stupidity does NOT deserve to be rewarded in any way, shape, or form.
I suspect the ACLU or some other group would gladly take this case because it has clear First Amendment implications.
Excellent idea! 👍
It is possible that someone in the JWs is trying to do the right thing by making sure someone knows what is really going on. If so, great there may be a reckoning and we should protect the whistleblower.
But, more likely, since there was very little new information on that call and the JWs knew about the incident and the podcast after, this was an intentional slip designed to silence the reporter. They let him in, pretending to be unaware of his presence. Allowed him to hear information that isn’t surprising, or all that damning, making sure it’s cleared through lawyers and with lawyers (potentially to claim privacy through attorney client privilege, even if it doesn’t really pertain to reporters). Then later, once some harm is developed through the leak, file a lawsuit and demand a high dollar amount that the reporter himself cannot cover, bankrupt him or cause enough damage to keep him out of their affairs.
Or maybe they didn’t pay attention to who was on the call, or what the reporter was saying, until it was too late.
I might assume ignorance over malice, but it’s a difficult assumption to make considering who we are talking about.
This is the age of attacking whistleblowers. Somehow, in this Upside-Down, the whistleblowers are the criminals.
Yep, we are now living on Htrae.
What Htrae is? My thanks in advance
Not a Superman fanboy?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bizarro_World
It can be both. There is historical precedent in all types of situations where when a person's ignorance was shown, they took advantage of it to strike back with malice.
The case seems way to weak and late to be planned, IMO. If this had been a plan to go after him, they would've gone after him immediately, not a year later. And they'd have tried to get some evidence to sting him on (a signed NDA, a verbal agreement not to disclose, etc.), rather than this baloney 'attendence was wiretapping' argument.
"caused 'reputational harm' to them"
If you've covered up abuse -- and especially CSA -- your reputation should already be obliterated. In a just world, there'd be nothing left for O’Donnell to "harm."
Yup. When a state investigation has turned up evidence that you had pedophiles in your ranks and you covered it up, it's kinda hard to argue 'reputational harm.' Just look at the catholics. The first allegations of child sexual abuse came to light in 2003 when the Boston Globe published its Spotlight investigation. After that, allegations started cropping up all over the US and the rest of the world. Their reputation and moral authority has never recovered.
And it shouldn’t recover. The coverup destroyed any semblance of honesty and righteousness in the Catholic Church.
That's exactly right, Walt. It's the very definition of 'the cover up is worse than the crime.'
The great whore…
Has it though? They seem to be doing just fine with or without our support.
The Catholic Church has lost more members than any single denomination in all the recent religion surveys from Pew and other organizations that track US religious observance. They're surviving, but lots of dioceses here in the US have had to pay out billions in damages because of the pedophile priest scandals, and parishes are having to consolidate and close churches all over the country due to lack of attendance. The shortage of priests has become so severe, the church has had to accept married priests from other sects, e.g., for Episcopalians. While I expect the church will get a positive PR bump from the election of the first American pope, I wouldn't say the church in the US or overall is 'doing just fine.'
I know. I’m just playing. I do believe that the purpose of this new American Pope is to rather forcibly lock down power over here and as you mentioned, throw in some PR AKA bare minimum virtue signaling to cover their tracks. How Americans will react to it will have to wait to be seen.
At least he's more Francis than Benedict, so there's that to be thankful for. I'd rather have that baseline as the starting point than the other.
Seems the RadTradCaths have already decided they hate the guy, and he's only been on the job for a week for so.
As Bill Maher remarked when Pope Francis first appeared on the scene "Now the glass is all the way up to ⅒ full."
Ratzi the nazi's job, while arch bishop of Munich, was to protect those pedophiles, according to the investigation done by Germany. The office was formerly titled the "Inquisition".
I'm not certain that the JW's reputation for child abuse has been reported on as widely in the US as elsewhere (Australia comes to mind). O'Donnell may wind up doing the general population a great service with his reportage on this incident.
Oh I agree, and I think O'Donnell is doing great work. I'm just disappointed this is work that still needs to be done. Their reputation should already be in tatters, but cheers to O'Donnell and others for working to rectify the fact that it's not.
It remains incredible to me that our most loved, most important asset of all - our children - can’t be protected from religious institutions that attack them with impunity. Obfuscation, outright lying and subterfuge are the “go-to’s” for churches with predators on staff. For this they are rewarded and pay no taxes?
It must be an USAian thing. Almost. In Norway we still have schools that "forget" that for pupils, visiting a church sermon before Jule is not mandatory.
Edited spelling.
...and yet the force-Birthers want poor women to pump out more victims for their religion to victimize.
Highly insular religious groups always have something to hide. While I have no use for any religion, the JW's are right up there with Scientology. If they're really not systematically abusing children, then why don't they demonstrate that rather than go after a critic? Religion tends to be self-justifying, and adherents of a particular sect have a way of seeing what ever they do as either approved of by God, or being forgiven by their particular version of the almighty.
I’m of the belief that someone invited O’Donnell in as he specifically states he’s protecting journalistic sources. As others have pointed out, it’s not rocket science to see who’s on a Zoom call. Waiting to file suit is not unusual, but I have to think some event we’re not aware of precipitated the urge to file this suit.
Regardless, fuck the JW’s, their reputation has never been worth a dime, let alone $2.8 million.
𝐼𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑔𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛, 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐽𝑊𝑠 ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝑑𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝐼 𝑛𝑎𝑚𝑒 𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑦 𝐽𝑒ℎ𝑜𝑣𝑎ℎ’𝑠 𝑊𝑖𝑡𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝐼 ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑚𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑡 𝑓𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑔𝑎𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑓𝑎𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐽𝑒ℎ𝑜𝑣𝑎ℎ’𝑠 𝑊𝑖𝑡𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑠. 𝑂𝑏𝑣𝑖𝑜𝑢𝑠𝑙𝑦, 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑤𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑑 𝑟𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑎𝑙 𝑚𝑦 𝑗𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑛𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑐 𝑠𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑠, 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐼 𝑤𝑖𝑙𝑙 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑑𝑜 𝑠𝑜.
One of the reasons the JWs want this is to make sure they can expel and shun everyone who talked to Mr O'Donnell. Good on Mr O'Donnell for maintaining jounalistic integrity, shame on the JW's for trying to punish concerned members.
Once again, Christians say "To hell with the victim!" and go after the person pulling their covers.
You'd be hard-pressed to find a more amoral bunch than Christians (besides Republicans, of course. But they're usually Christians).
Mo(r)mons ?
Mor(m)ons.
Thanks, I slept 4 hours a night since half a week and I make more mistakes than usual.
When faulting God, mistakes are permitted.
God, however, is perfect and infallible.
They're Christians, too. :)
Just like the "Judeo-" part of "Judeo-Christian" may be jettisoned when Christians come to find Jews inconvenient, Mormons are only Christians when the other, older Christian sects feel like inviting them into the tent.
😝
“That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.”
—P. C. Hodgell
Excellent quote (cut - paste!)
Whether intentional or by accident, the only way O'Donnell would have had access to that telecom, let alone know it was happening, was if someone on the call gave him the login code. This sounds like some version of a SLAPP suit to prevent O'Donnell from talking - AFTER he's already published what happened on the call.
A group that's being investigation for child sexual abuse and covering up child sexual abuse is hardly in a position to claim 'reputational damage' when they invited a reporter into their meeting to discuss their legal strategy to limit the fallout. O'Donnell didn't violate any privacy, wiretapping or other laws any more than Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic did when some Trump mook invited him onto a Signal chat discussing an imminent attack on the Houthis.
I expect this suit will be thrown out and O'Donnell will be awarded damages and legal fees.
But ain't it nice to know that yet another religious organization is more concerned with circling the wagons and protecting its own reputation than it is with rooting out pedophiles in its midst?
Hey JWs...
Why haven't you sued God? He's the biggest eavesdropper of them all. And you invite HIM in to do it!
They might, but Yahweh doesn't seem to be a news reporter. I mean, when is the last time he published ANYTHING???
If he were to publish something, the royalties alone would take care of his money problem. He wouldn't have to fleece the flock, ahem, require tithing of the congregation.
JW: We are going to sue you.....
MO: Ok. When should we start the discovery processes?
JW: Discovery?
MO: That's when both sides can ask the other side for information relevant to the law suit and a judge can force them to give that information.
JW: Ok, we are going to sue you and then drop the suit right before this discovery process to teach you a lesson.
One of the reasons I despise religious organizations, including the actions of my own ancestors, is this desire to preserve their reputation, or, as they like to call it, "the Church's reputation." That's ALL they care about. Narcissistic to the core. Who cares about your own children's trauma--it's fine to sacrifice them to "god." At this point it seems that every single religious denomination is a cover for abuse.
𝑇ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑖𝑠𝑛’𝑡 𝑎 𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑙 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑏𝑙𝑒𝑚. 𝑇ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑖𝑠 𝑎𝑛 𝑂𝑙𝑑 𝑃𝑒𝑜𝑝𝑙𝑒 𝑁𝑜𝑡 𝐾𝑛𝑜𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐻𝑜𝑤 𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑢𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠 𝑊𝑜𝑟𝑘 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑏𝑙𝑒𝑚. 𝐼𝑡’𝑠 𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑦 𝑡𝑜 𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑣𝑒.
As an Old People who Know How Computers Work, I agree that it is easy to solve. My 85 year old mother, who doesn't understand very much about how computers work has learned how to do google searches and video calls on her smartphone. The last schoolwork my mother did happened in 1958. The JWs discourage college, but that isn't even a barrier to learning how to look at the list of participants in the Zoom call. They figured out how to get on a Zoom call, they can figure out the rest of the app.
This is much less about invasion of privacy and reputational harm and much more about information control. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 want to be the only ones providing information to anyone about what they do. I don't think they care very much about how outsiders view them, the persecution complex is strong with them. The more information they can control about themselves, the less likely the rank and file sees through the bullshit and leaves.
Not just old people but old, STUPID people. I had a dear friend I lost recently (he was 88) who was legally blind, yet had no problem using his computer. He was one sharp old guy.
The JWs who pulled this stunt? Not so much.
More lazy and trusting than stupid. I don't know how many business Teams meetings I've been on where some unknown phone number tries to call in and someone not the organizer clicks "accept" without any question or inquiry to the organizer. For one standing meeting, we the organizers had to announce "don't do this" in the invite, then in additional reminder emails, then in the meeting itself...and it still took like 3 weeks before the 'normal attendees' actually stopped doing it.
The folks who don't live in the world where Operational Security matters every day have an extremely low tolerance/patience for doing it.
Whatever you call it, it's pretty clear that SOMEONE wasn't paying attention / thinking / being aware of just WHO was on the call.
I think I'm going to call this: "Going Full Hegseth." You don't EVER want to go full Hegseth! 😁
Hell, I don't even want to go PARTIAL Hegseth. (It helps that I'm already a teetotaler.)
👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏May it go viral.
It’s almost like the Jehovahs Witnesses don’t want someone to witness.
JWs: I am the law
No you’re not and children are being abused.
JWs: I don’t care. I am the law. Give me money.
8^(.