Hi Anonymous. No I am really Randy Galbraith. If you search for my name on YouTube you may be able to find one where I gave a sermon at Unitarian Universalist congregation I now attend. I say "hi" just to be polite, although it may be my Canadian roots :-). If you are one of Jehovah's Witnesses that is fine me. I have family and friends who remain in the faith. As an honor to them I still attend memorial each year. Cheers, Randy

Hi tepples, One of the marks of high-control groups is information control and the lack of trust that engenders. If you had become one of Jehovah's Witnesses and then told some in the congregation that you had seen a parody of one of the videos it is near certain the elders would counsel you. Why? Because fundamentally there is a lack of trust. You cannot be trusted to determine what to read or even who to associate with. When JWs shun they do it simply out of obedience to a command. "Obey Jehovah" in pragmatic terms means obey the leadership of JWs. JWs are 8.5 million members strong. The jw [dot] org website has professionally produced material in hundreds of languages. It seems unlikely that anyone in the public would visit a "exjw" Reddit and not know they are reading content produced by folks critical of Jehovah's Witnesses. Likewise I'm sure very few folks would have been confused by the Sparlock parody and think it was produced by JWs themselves. And if there was any confusion JWs have a tremendous ability to respond with information of their own far beyond what Darkspliver can produce.

Now, having been on the inside I get it. These computer animated videos show creativity and are the product of lots of hard work by JW volunteers. I'm sure it must be frustrating to see such dissed. But in the real world one doesn't get to control how some may respond to your creative works. Alas, I believe the faith is so insular the leadership can wind up suggesting that Jehovah, almighty God, creator of the universe, is concerned about a plastic action figure. That a small child should be expected to process guilt induced by his parents and reach the conclusion that he should throw away the toy gift his friend gave him. Sad to say, as I child growing up in this faith concerns about how "Jehovah feels" or machinations of "Satan" are all too real. I had several vivid nightmares about such as a child. Cheers, -Randy

Hi RobXiii. From a legal perspective JWs have the right to protected their copyrighted material. And given that copyright is used to protect Free Software I favor relatively strong but reasonable copyright laws. Legality aside JWs and copyright raises some interesting moral and religious questions. For many years the JW literature we distributed had a set price. Then we were told that we would stop that practice and go to "voluntary donation basis." Unknown to me a the time Jimmy Swaggart Ministries had lost a case in court regarding "priced" religious literature being tax exempt. The moral and religious question is why would JWs be concerned at all? All of the content is produced by JW volunteers who, it would be assumed, wish for the widest distribution possible (i.e. "You received free, give free." - Matthew 10:8). This is not a case of these authors being deprived of income by unauthorized distribution. Thus it is fairly clear the JW leadership is concerned about reputational damage. I think it is also fair to conclude they simply do not like critical comments by members, former members and others. This of course drips with irony in that JWs historically have been very critical of other faiths. Cheers, -Randy

Hi mysidia, That certainly is a risk, but I think fairly unlikely in this case. Jehovah's Witnesses believe the "superior authorities" mentioned at Romans 13 are the secular government. As such they generally feel one should follow secular laws. However they also feel justified to disobey laws that conflict with "God's Law." Most of the time this is the reason JWs will continue to preach in countries where they are "under ban." I of course know nothing about why they are taking these actions of late, but it does seem the leadership is getting increasingly frustrated that some current members are willing to leak internal information or speak (anonymously) critically in public. Personally I view the announcement "So-and-so is not one of Jehovah's Witnesses" (what is said at the Kingdom Hall for disfellowshipping and disassociation) as a form slander and an invasion of privacy when applied to former members. I say this because this simple statement is a coded message for "So-and-so is the moral equivalent of the sexual pervert mentioned in 1 Corinthians 5 and thus should be shunned." That said, freedom of speech and freedom of religion is precious. Courts in Canada and the USA have both recognized the right of JWs to make this announcement. However, I do believe the legal team at HQs realizes they are on the edge here. In particular they could face wrongful-death suit if it could be shown a former member committed suicide under such shunning stress or a member refused a life-saving blood transfusion due to fear of being shunned. If the lawyer who learns the identity of Darkspliver were to violate the court order not only would he or she face serious consequences professionally their case would be invalidated (I'm guessing). In my own case local elders contacted me in January of 2010 but no action was taken until March of 2010 (see my comment above for details). I confident the delay happened because I insisted I have a lawyer present during any discussions with the local elders. In any regards for Darkspliver's sake I sincerely hope the lawyer who learns of his or her identity keeps the matter confidential as the court has order. Cheers, -Randy

I was one of Jehovah's Witnesses all my life until leaving the faith in 2007. I served as both a ministerial servant and then later as an elder. In court Jehovah's Witnesses make the incredible claim: "Watch Tower further argues that Watch Tower is not Darkspilver’s local church and has no ability to excommunicate him from his local congregation." While technically true all Jehovah's Witnesses know congregations are directed by the organization. They don't act on their own. Every case of disfellowshipping is sent to HQ where it is reviewed. It is near certain Darkspiliver's "local church" would pursue him or her as soon as the identity became public information. In my own case when we openly celebrated Christmas in 2009 the local congregation took action without informing me. My calls to elders were not answered until one day I called from work. Eventually I received a letter from HQs from SDB:SSY (yes, the JW author used an pseudonym to conceal his identity!) informing me action had been taken. All of this is so unfortunate since many individual Jehovah's Witnesses are just good people. I received much practical help during my youth from congregation members who now will not even say hello to me. They don't really have a beef with me -- rather they are induced to shun by the organization. I hope Darkspliver finds some comfort in this ruling. I also hope current members who wish to leave find their way out. It is a difficult journey but many have left and live successful lives in wider world. Cheers, -Randy