NOM

The church gets caught with its "political pants" down, again.

FiveFingerMnemonic wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2018 3:29 pm

Kishkumen wrote:https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/02/06/ ... nterviews/

It appears to be dead.

It's nice to see Todd Weiler express regret at co-sponsoring the bill. He was the only one to respond to my messages to legislators. He seems like a genuinely good person.

No, Weiler is still an Ass. Don't let your guard down on this bill. According to what can be seen on the bill tracking, it's not officially dead yet. Seeing it resurrected later or attempted again next session wouldn't surprise me.

Linked wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2018 5:19 pm

Kishkumen wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2018 3:19 pm https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/02/06/ ... nterviews/

It appears to be dead.

That is great news! My email worked! I'm honestly a little surprised.

I'm also pleasantly surprised, if not slightly shocked. LDS-Inc. usually get's whatever they want in these situations.

Hopefully it's a sign that the theocracy is weakening.

I emailed my representative and they actually emailed me back. That was empowering. Maybe it's time to start following state policy more closely.

I’m not sure we all fully grasp what happened here - the Church flexed it’s political muscles to get what it wanted in Utah and got shouted down. That’s significant. The good people of Utah have more power to resist the theocracy than they thought they did.

The Church thought they could use their puppet legislators to get this passed without much pushback. Maybe next time they will think twice. Or maybe they will just be more sneaky in the future.

Negative publicity is about one of the few things that can stop the Church dead in its tracks. The lesson I hope everyone has learned is to speak up, sometimes it does make a difference.

Not Buying It wrote:Or maybe they will just be more sneaky in the future.

They've certainly got experience with that approach, though it doesn't seem to work for them as well as it used to.

Sent from my SM-J327V using Tapatalk

I am generally for a two party consent system. I don't want someone to be able to record me, and use that recording however they want. I would like to afford others the same right. Although, I would like requirements to be different with more power you have possibly. I don't know what that looks like.

This is also not about interviewing children. If people really wanted to protect their children, don't let them be interviewed. Or go with them in the interview. You have rights. This desire to be able to record a bishop is people trying to engage in a "gotcha" moment and gain some leverage. People should be proactively protecting, not recording and fixing the damage afterwards.

Emower wrote:I am generally for a two party consent system. I don't want someone to be able to record me, and use that recording however they want. I would like to afford others the same right. Although, I would like requirements to be different with more power you have possibly. I don't know what that looks like.

This is also not about interviewing children. If people really wanted to protect their children, don't let them be interviewed. Or go with them in the interview. You have rights. This desire to be able to record a bishop is people trying to engage in a "gotcha" moment and gain some leverage. People should be proactively protecting, not recording and fixing the damage afterwards.

It's not just about child interviews, it's about suppression of the freedom of the press. The current one party law is quite good in protecting you from having a recording done for illegal purposes.

https://www.rcfp.org/reporters-recordin ... guide/utah

Emower wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2018 8:55 am I am generally for a two party consent system. I don't want someone to be able to record me, and use that recording however they want. I would like to afford others the same right. Although, I would like requirements to be different with more power you have possibly. I don't know what that looks like.

This is also not about interviewing children. If people really wanted to protect their children, don't let them be interviewed. Or go with them in the interview. You have rights. This desire to be able to record a bishop is people trying to engage in a "gotcha" moment and gain some leverage. People should be proactively protecting, not recording and fixing the damage afterwards.

I tend to agree, with several exceptions. In most cases, I think people need to be informed if they are being recorded. But there are exceptions, and those exceptions trump the common curtesy of informing people they are being recorded. And preventing crime or detecting crime should trump the legal curtesy of informing people.

In general, it is better to keep children out of private interviews with adult priesthood, than it is to try to play gotcha by recording the interviews. But then there have been cases, even on NOM where parents told the bishop, no interviews unless a parent is there, and the bishop went behind the parents back and called the child out of class. When bishops engage in sneaky go behind the parents back, then I think it is time to do something, but I am just not sure what. The bishop needs to be held accountable for violating those parents wishes and how do you do that when he is just going to say he forgot that these children needed parental support. There's gotta be something a parent can do, and maybe recording the parents informing the bishop that he is not to interview their children alone s the way to go. Yes, it is playing gotcha, but then the bishop has already violated trust.

Just the fear that some kid may be recording him is enough to keep most bishops in line. They are going to protect themselves and if they fear that some kid is going to record them, at least it keeps them aware of the problem of getting into the details of what color the girls panties are when she is confessing. It would keep the bishop aware that if he explains what some weird fetish is in asking about the child's morality, it might go viral on the Internet.

So, think of the prevention of abuse that the fear of going viral might cause a bishop.

I think bishops - and the Church in general - needs the threat of being recorded to help keep them in line. The fact that the Church supported the legislation tells you they know things are said by bishops behind closed doors they don’t want out in the open. They supported the bill to protect bad actors and to protect themselves protecting bad actors, for that reason alone it needed to die.

Having the courtesy to tell someone a conversation is being recorded is a very different thing than being in a room alone with a Church leader who is being inappropriate and will win any “he said she said” by virtue of his ecclesiastical authority. Members need of be able to protect themselves from their leaders, they have precious little protection as it is.

Myself, though, if it ever came to it with my bishop I’d lay my phone on the desk and say “keep in mind you are being recorded”. If he objected, my response would be “if you are going to say things you aren’t comfortable with me recording, then we aren’t having a conversation”. And I’m not just being what Thayne use to call “an internet tough guy”, that’s exactly what I’d do.

FiveFingerMnemonic wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2018 10:11 am

Emower wrote:I am generally for a two party consent system. I don't want someone to be able to record me, and use that recording however they want. I would like to afford others the same right. Although, I would like requirements to be different with more power you have possibly. I don't know what that looks like.

This is also not about interviewing children. If people really wanted to protect their children, don't let them be interviewed. Or go with them in the interview. You have rights. This desire to be able to record a bishop is people trying to engage in a "gotcha" moment and gain some leverage. People should be proactively protecting, not recording and fixing the damage afterwards.

It's not just about child interviews, it's about suppression of the freedom of the press. The current one party law is quite good in protecting you from having a recording done for illegal purposes.

https://www.rcfp.org/reporters-recordin ... guide/utah

For illegal purposes sure. What if it is not an illegal purpose? What if someone just doesnt like you? So they record you, edit it however they want, possibly pull it out of context and then publish it? What if you are a business owner whose life and livelihood could be ruined by something like this, all based on someone who disliked you? And the phrase, "reasonable expectation of privacy" could really screw a person over.

To be clear, I am not against being able to record someone. I am sure glad we have some of the recordings of Trump that we do which does inform about what kind of person he is. Perhaps rules for public figures can be different. Perhaps the rules for people with authority over other people can be different, but a blanket one party consent is something that makes me uncomfortable.

Emower wrote:

FiveFingerMnemonic wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2018 10:11 am

Emower wrote:I am generally for a two party consent system. I don't want someone to be able to record me, and use that recording however they want. I would like to afford others the same right. Although, I would like requirements to be different with more power you have possibly. I don't know what that looks like.

This is also not about interviewing children. If people really wanted to protect their children, don't let them be interviewed. Or go with them in the interview. You have rights. This desire to be able to record a bishop is people trying to engage in a "gotcha" moment and gain some leverage. People should be proactively protecting, not recording and fixing the damage afterwards.

It's not just about child interviews, it's about suppression of the freedom of the press. The current one party law is quite good in protecting you from having a recording done for illegal purposes.

https://www.rcfp.org/reporters-recordin ... guide/utah

For illegal purposes sure. What if it is not an illegal purpose? What if someone just doesnt like you? So they record you, edit it however they want, possibly pull it out of context and then publish it? What if you are a business owner whose life and livelihood could be ruined by something like this, all based on someone who disliked you? And the phrase, "reasonable expectation of privacy" could really screw a person over.

That's the whole problem. This bill is even more vague in its exceptions than the current law. This vaguery having a felony attached just creates overnight felons if you happen to want to protect your kids with a nanny cam for instance.

FiveFingerMnemonic wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2018 11:11 am

Emower wrote:

FiveFingerMnemonic wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2018 10:11 am It's not just about child interviews, it's about suppression of the freedom of the press. The current one party law is quite good in protecting you from having a recording done for illegal purposes.

https://www.rcfp.org/reporters-recordin ... guide/utah

For illegal purposes sure. What if it is not an illegal purpose? What if someone just doesnt like you? So they record you, edit it however they want, possibly pull it out of context and then publish it? What if you are a business owner whose life and livelihood could be ruined by something like this, all based on someone who disliked you? And the phrase, "reasonable expectation of privacy" could really screw a person over.

That's the whole problem. This bill is even more vague in its exceptions than the current law. This vaguery having a felony attached just creates overnight felons if you happen to want to protect your kids with a nanny cam for instance.

Well I would say that if the nanny cam was in your home there would need to be specific provisions for it, but I dont think that you should be able to send a nanny cam into the bishops office. If you are that worried about it, go in there yourself. Of course, the obvious solution to this problem is for the Church to quit requiring this out of the youth and out of the bishops.

Emower wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2018 11:24 am Well I would say that if the nanny cam was in your home there would need to be specific provisions for it, but I dont think that you should be able to send a nanny cam into the bishops office. If you are that worried about it, go in there yourself. Of course, the obvious solution to this problem is for the Church to quit requiring this out of the youth and out of the bishops.

Emower, are you arguing in favor of two-party consent laws in general or in favor of this particular Utah bill?

Would you use California's two-party consent law as a good example, or do you think this bill provides a better solution?

(It's hard to tell just what you are proposing and objecting to in your comments with FiveFingerMenmonic.)

I've read several comments that this particular Utah bill as poorly constructed, with terribly vague exceptions. Some have stated that if Utah wants a two-party consent law, its lawmakers should at least read other existing ones, such as California's, as examples of where to start.

Jeffret wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2018 11:48 am

Emower wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2018 11:24 am Well I would say that if the nanny cam was in your home there would need to be specific provisions for it, but I dont think that you should be able to send a nanny cam into the bishops office. If you are that worried about it, go in there yourself. Of course, the obvious solution to this problem is for the Church to quit requiring this out of the youth and out of the bishops.

Emower, are you arguing in favor of two-party consent laws in general or in favor of this particular Utah bill?

Would you use California's two-party consent law as a good example, or do you think this bill provides a better solution?

(It's hard to tell just what you are proposing and objecting to in your comments with FiveFingerMenmonic.)

I've read several comments that this particular Utah bill as poorly constructed, with terribly vague exceptions. Some have stated that if Utah wants a two-party consent law, its lawmakers should at least read other existing ones, such as California's, as examples of where to start.

In general. I am not well versed in two party consent laws as found in different states. I am opposed to the general exmormon reaction to this law which is outrage that this impedes folks ability to record a bishop, because, you know, the children. Think of the children. This doesn't seem to be about the children. I don't like the thoughts of a two party consent law which I see as a better way of protecting my rights, being shot down because exmo's want to burn the church.

I am sure there are ways to protect my rights while keeping the ability for unjust actions to be brought to light. A better constructed bill could probably do that. I just think the dialouge should focus on that, and not the fact that the church supports this therefore it must be underhanded and selfserving, even if it is underhanded and selfserving.

Emower wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2018 1:03 pm I don't like the thoughts of a two party consent law which I see as a better way of protecting my rights, being shot down because exmo's want to burn the church.

I am sure there are ways to protect my rights while keeping the ability for unjust actions to be brought to light. A better constructed bill could probably do that. I just think the dialouge should focus on that, and not the fact that the church supports this therefore it must be underhanded and selfserving, even if it is underhanded and selfserving.

I think it would help your cause to be clearer that you are in favor of two-party consent laws and not necessarily in favor of the proposed Utah bill. This bill was clearly written in an attempt to legally shield the Church. People have identified a number of concerns about this bill.

ACLU Utah's gives some background: Why does the ACLU support two-party recording laws (but is neutral on HB330)?. This article describes why the ACLU supports two-party consent but not HB 330.

This article, Without secret recordings, how would we know about Romney’s 47 percent, Gov. ‘Available Jones’ Herbert or the arrest of Nurse Wubbels?, involves reporters raising issues about HB330 specifically and two-party consent in general.

As this Tribune editorial, We don't need any more laws to protect the powerful states,

On balance, though, it is clear that the point of HB330 is not to hold the powerful to account, but to protect them from it. For that reason, the bill deserves to be dropped.

This article, Utahns spoke loudly against recording bill supported by the Salt Lake Chamber and Mormon church, so lawmakers have dropped it, describes some concerns that HB330 or any two-party bill should address:

The bill provides for a number of exemptions. It still would be legal to record public officials or employees making statements related to their formal duty.

Other exemptions include instances where the person making the recording believed the communication was part of an ongoing pattern of harassment or abuse; was likely to be fraudulent, obscene or harassing in nature; or involved or conveyed threats of extortion, blackmail, bodily harm or injury.

The wording of the exceptions — that it’s legal if someone “reasonably believes” there is a threat — is vague enough that it presents a challenge that would have to be settled by a court, according to media attorney David Reymann.

If someone recorded, for example, a bishop’s interview out of a concern of possible harassment, they could be sued. It would then be up to a court to decide whether that person’s concern was a reasonable belief or not, Reymann said Tuesday.

And that might deter people from recording, rather than risk breaking the law, he said.

“What is a reasonable belief may vary from one person to another.”

The bill doesn’t include protections for reporters, and “poses significant risks to legitimate, investigative reporting,” Reymann added.

“There are some stories that can only be obtained through investigative reporting … and this law has no exception for legitimate newsgathering by reporters,” he said. “It is a significant concern under the First Amendment when a law starts to criminalize legitimate activity that is necessary for reporters to do their jobs.”

Beyond that, he said, the bill risks a chilling effect for reporters who are trying to uncover information “because they’d be under constant threat of criminal prosecution or civil liability,” Reymann said.

Emower wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2018 8:55 am I am generally for a two party consent system. I don't want someone to be able to record me, and use that recording however they want. I would like to afford others the same right. Although, I would like requirements to be different with more power you have possibly. I don't know what that looks like.

This is also not about interviewing children. If people really wanted to protect their children, don't let them be interviewed. Or go with them in the interview. You have rights. This desire to be able to record a bishop is people trying to engage in a "gotcha" moment and gain some leverage. People should be proactively protecting, not recording and fixing the damage afterwards.

Before writing my representative about my feelings for the bill I did a small amount of research into one and two party consent systems. I found it interesting that most two party consent laws are in more liberal states, yet the conservative church backed a two party consent system and the typically liberal exmo group fought against it.

The main conflicting ideologies seem to be the rights of the individual not to be recorded without knowledge or consent and the right to record your conversations regardless of the other party's knowledge or consent. By requiring consent you can prevent malicious recording to slander you. By not requiring consent you can prove you were harmed. These are both important.

In this case, at this moment, I think this is actually largely about interviewing children. Once this moment has passed and the church has responded to the pressure it is getting I think it can become more about our individual freedom not to be recorded without knowledge or consent. For now, the world needs to have the harm proved.

Linked wrote:

Emower wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2018 8:55 am I am generally for a two party consent system. I don't want someone to be able to record me, and use that recording however they want. I would like to afford others the same right. Although, I would like requirements to be different with more power you have possibly. I don't know what that looks like.

This is also not about interviewing children. If people really wanted to protect their children, don't let them be interviewed. Or go with them in the interview. You have rights. This desire to be able to record a bishop is people trying to engage in a "gotcha" moment and gain some leverage. People should be proactively protecting, not recording and fixing the damage afterwards.

Before writing my representative about my feelings for the bill I did a small amount of research into one and two party consent systems. I found it interesting that most two party consent laws are in more liberal states, yet the conservative church backed a two party consent system and the typically liberal exmo group fought against it.

The main conflicting ideologies seem to be the rights of the individual not to be recorded without knowledge or consent and the right to record your conversations regardless of the other party's knowledge or consent. By requiring consent you can prevent malicious recording to slander you. By not requiring consent you can prove you were harmed. These are both important.

In this case, at this moment, I think this is actually largely about interviewing children. Once this moment has passed and the church has responded to the pressure it is getting I think it can become more about our individual freedom not to be recorded without knowledge or consent. For now, the world needs to have the harm proved.

Good summary, it's the classic battle of privacy vs transparency. Now with the added complexity of available technology.

Mormon Leaks today -- woman recorded her stake president confiscating her recommend for talking to friends about her divorce. After an affair, husband gets to ordain his kids. She gets to be an "apostate" for complaining.

She was interviewed on the KUTV Channel 2 news and they even played excerpts of the recording.

One clarification. The affair, apparently, was an "emotional" rather than a physical one, whatever that means.