John Dehlin is thinking about bringing Mormon Stories back

[myboynoah]

Yes. That is the principle everyone has been living with in the state of Utah up to this point in time.

There are times when recording someone is in incredibly poor taste and inconsiderate, but it shouldn't be a felony.

That's a slippery slope. I'm sure there must some cases in which you would restrict that principle.

[Jeff Lebowski]

That's a slippery slope. I'm sure there must some cases in which you would restrict that principle.

Help me understand the cases where that principle does not apply that aren't already covered by privacy laws.

[jay santos]

I am with Jay on this one. John Dehlin is a horrible human being, but I don't like this legislation. If you don't like being recorded, don't say anything you aren't willing to own.

I'm not advocating a position on the bill. mpfunk says it's a good bill. I don't understand the in's and out's here. But what I think is that the very narrow application of someone recording a bishop's interview should not be a large factor in both proposing and opposing the bill. I'm disappointed in both sides, if what we are hearing about the LDS church advocating this bill is true.

[Topper]

I'm not advocating a position on the bill. mpfunk says it's a good bill. I don't understand the in's and out's here. But what I think is that the very narrow application of someone recording a bishop's interview should not be a large factor in both proposing and opposing the bill. I'm disappointed in both sides, if what we are hearing about the LDS church advocating this bill is true.

Apart from what the LDS Church's motivation may be, there are public policy reasons why an "all parties' consent" law is reasonable. As noted above 12 other states have "all parties' consent" laws, two of them are vastly different, California and Nevada. Recording somebody surreptitiously has a dirty feel to it, so requiring all parties' consent seems like a better situation that allowing one party to record, perhaps entrap or encourage a compromising statement doesn't offend me.

[wuapinmon]

I, for example, don't let students tape my classes. Why? Because it makes other students self-conscious to know that they're being record, and there are already enough affective filters against participation in a language classroom, I don't need someone's recorder adding to it. If they tell me, "I'll hide it" I still tell them "no" because all it takes is one person finding out they've been recorded for it to cause the whole class to know and then everyone to shut down.

SC is a one-party consent state. If they were to record me against my will, I can't really do anything, but, could I not sue them for making a surreptitious copy of my copyrighted lecture?

[old_gregg]

Help me understand the cases where that principle does not apply that aren't already covered by privacy laws.

it's a matter of presumption. for the person being recorded to have to affirmatively prove that their privacy was invaded doesn't make sense to me. the person who is doing the recording should have to prove that there is some kosher motivation behind the recording (obviously subject to statutory exceptions for domestic, sexual and child abuse).

[DrumNFeather]

Apart from what the LDS Church's motivation may be, there are public policy reasons why an "all parties' consent" law is reasonable. As noted above 12 other states have "all parties' consent" laws, two of them are vastly different, California and Nevada. Recording somebody surreptitiously has a dirty feel to it, so requiring all parties' consent seems like a better situation that allowing one party to record, perhaps entrap or encourage a compromising statement doesn't offend me.

If one wanted to be cynical, they might say that John is more concerned about the recordings of church courts that he, Runells and others did without consent...if one wanted to be cynical.

[Topper]

If one wanted to be cynical, they might say that John is more concerned about the recordings of church courts that he, Runells and others did without consent...if one wanted to be cynical.

Dehlin is just an ass, and asshats like Dehlin often make murky discussions which deserve an unmuddled discussion.

I agree with ole greg that the surreptitiously recording person should have the burden rather the recorded person. It just smells.

[Shaka]

Oh boy, a friend I've been trying to help with her faith crisis is headed of to a Dehllin retreat in St. George. I keep telling her he wants to make cash off her faith crisis but she will not listen.

[jay santos]

If one wanted to be cynical, they might say that John is more concerned about the recordings of church courts that he, Runells and others did without consent...if one wanted to be cynical.

If I were being cynical I would say John doesn't even know why he's against it, he just heard the Church is for the bill, so he's sure there's a reason he should oppose it.

[Topper]

Oh boy, a friend I've been trying to help with her faith crisis is headed of to a Dehllin retreat in St. George. I keep telling her he wants to make cash off her faith crisis but she will not listen.

Tell her to keep the cash and sit down with her local bartender. She'll probably enjoy herself more and save some money. Given his lack of credentials, it is offensive he charges for shit like that.

[Shaka]

I've told her something similar. She will not listen.

[DrumNFeather]

I've told her something similar. She will not listen.

I've got a similar situation going on with a guy in my ward. He's not going to retreats or anything, but he keeps giving me all of the bona fides that these folks tout. "HE WAS AN RM AND AN ACTIVE MEMBER OF THE CHURCH...HELD CALLINGS TOO!"

[old_gregg]

Oh boy, a friend I've been trying to help with her faith crisis is headed of to a Dehllin retreat in St. George. I keep telling her he wants to make cash off her faith crisis but she will not listen.

she better be careful or she's going to end up the meat in a brief pudgy middle aged white guy threesome sandwich

[Topper]

I've got a similar situation going on with a guy in my ward. He's not going to retreats or anything, but he keeps giving me all of the bona fides that these folks tout. "HE WAS AN RM AND AN ACTIVE MEMBER OF THE CHURCH...HELD CALLINGS TOO!"

Sounds the same bona fides for soliciting investments in "sophisticated" real estate "scams", I mean deals.