Mormon WikiLeaks (MormonLeaks)

[ERCougar]

Why? I'm struggling to see what you're getting at here.

Well, for both ethical and PR reasons. It was (predictably) publicized immediately, which looks a lot like victim smearing. From a PR perspective, I don't think most non-attorneys think the leak was ok.
Media outlets withhold identifying information on sexual assault victims, and I don't *think* that's legally required. It just seems a general area where we've chosen to be much more discreet.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Hey ER, those attorney friends on yours on FB - is one of them named Adam Ford?

[ERCougar]

Argumentum ad populum!

Thank you for enlightening us poor saps on what normal people are thinking.

Um...logical fallacies don't mean the point is wrong. Do we really need to discuss whether victim smearing is ok?

[creekster]

Um...logical fallacies don't mean the point is wrong. Do we really need to discuss whether victim smearing is ok?

I cant help it.

It was NOT "smearing." It was true and accurate. It was not in violation of a legal privilege. It was revealed AFTER she had made a public claim. And, moreover, she held her own press conference, so it seems a little hard for me to see how revealing truthful facts about her background was 'smearing.'

You are seeing what you want to see despite the clear and unequivocal explanations of people here that are involved in similar work everyday. Want to guess who looks like they are trying a little too hard?

[falafel]

Well, for both ethical and PR reasons. It was (predictably) publicized immediately, which looks a lot like victim smearing. From a PR perspective, I don't think most non-attorneys think the leak was ok.
Media outlets withhold identifying information on sexual assault victims, and I don't *think* that's legally required. It just seems a general area where we've chosen to be much more discreet.

You keep calling it a "leak", which is part of your problem. If anything was "leaked", it wasn't by the Church, it was by Bishop's side. Another one of your problems is that you keep conflating the disclosure of certain information to the interested parties during settlement talks (which, as others have noted, is completely normal and not immoral in the slightest) with Bishop's publicizing of that information. I tend to agree with you about its publication - I don't think its good or right, whether from a PR or a "moral" standpoint. But you cannot pin that on the church or its attorney's. Its also interesting to not that Bishop's camp publicizing the info is not illegal, though the ethics of it are questionable.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Um...logical fallacies don't mean the point is wrong. Do we really need to discuss whether victim smearing is ok?

Red herring/appeal to emotion.

People resort to logical fallacies when the arguments they are making start to crumble. All smart people agree with me!

[creekster]

Just so we are clear, when I google "def smear" . this is what comes up:
smear
smir/Submit
verb
1.
coat or mark (something) messily or carelessly with a greasy or sticky substance.
"his face was smeared with dirt"
synonyms: streak, smudge, mark, soil, dirty; More
2.
damage the reputation of (someone) by false accusations; slander.
"someone was trying to smear her by faking letters"
synonyms: sully, tarnish, blacken, drag through the mud, taint, damage, defame, discredit, malign, slander, libel, slur; More


It has to be FALSE to be a smear. You arent smearing someone if you reveal the truth.

[Flystripper]

Hey ER, those attorney friends on yours on FB - is one of them named Adam Ford?

nah this isn't extorting money from business failing to comply to the ADA.

[Pelado]

As I'm sure you're aware, the suit hadn't been filed, so nothing was required. And I see your point about withholding information about Bishop.
I get that attorneys work in generalizable hypotheticals, but we're dealing with a specific victim of multiple sexual assaults, with a taped confession. That seems like it might warrant some sort of special treatment, even if it's legally required.


No, I don't think there's any special privilege claimed, nor do I think there was any contesting of the information being false. There is some stuff about confidentiality, either implied or expressed, regarding adoption proceedings and church discipline proceedings, but I don't know the details.

I'm not defending her interview. It was understandable, but probably not very ethical.

I think the taped interview reveals that Joseph Bishop was/is a duplicitous dirtbag, but I didn't see anywhere in the transcript where he admitted to this alleged assault.

I'm not a fan of Bishop's son/attorney having the information compiled by the church, but if he was going to get it anyway as part of the legal process, then I'll save my outrage for another day.

[creekster]

You keep calling it a "leak", which is part of your problem. If anything was "leaked", it wasn't by the Church, it was by Bishop's side. Another one of your problems is that you keep conflating the disclosure of certain information to the interested parties during settlement talks (which, as others have noted, is completely normal and not immoral in the slightest) with Bishop's publicizing of that information. I tend to agree with you about its publication - I don't think its good or right, whether from a PR or a "moral" standpoint. But you cannot pin that on the church or its attorney's. Its also interesting to not that Bishop's camp publicizing the info is not illegal, though the ethics of it are questionable.

Why is it ethically questionable? Assuming it is true, documented and not subject to privilege/protection?

If I was defending the church I might be pissed because I wouldn't want to share all of it now. I would want to save some of it for later. but thats just tactics, not ethics.

[ERCougar]

I cant help it.

It was NOT "smearing." It was true and accurate. It was not in violation of a legal privilege. It was revealed AFTER she had made a public claim. And, moreover, she held her own press conference, so it seems a little hard for me to see how revealing truthful facts about her background was 'smearing.'

You are seeing what you want to see despite the clear and unequivocal explanations of people here that are involved in similar work everyday. Want to guess who looks like they are trying a little too hard?

Fair enough about the "smearing". Whatever you call it, no one seemed ok with it last week. GM was hoping it wasn't true a few posts up. PR wise, I think it hurt.

Look, I believe all of you that this is normal practice--and that's something I've learned from the discussion, and so I guess even if I pissed everyone off and looked stupid, I'm glad I brought it up because I was admittedly ignorant. It still seems like it's a case where I might have held off sharing it with Bishop until I had to legally. Is there a problem with doing that?

[creekster]

Is there a problem with doing that?

No. It was discretionary.

[creekster]

In testing. One of the lawyers in that thread (if there are more than one, I don't know) is a Las Vegas attorney. I've never heard of him or his firm, but that is likely because his area of practice is "estate, business and asset protection planning." In other words, someone who has zero experience with litigation, document/information disclosures, and the concomitant practices and obligations. And yet he feels confident enough to confirm ER's supposition that the Church had to authorize the release of the info.

I styarted skimming that thread. It made my eyes glaze over. A whole lot of axe grinding going on. Not a lot of accurate info.

[Northwestcoug]

It's a sad day, very sad, when our medical professionals are reduced to laughing at their suicidal schizophrenic patients.

I’m just offended that you completely ignored the pathologist’s role in blood transfusions

[Jeff Lebowski]

I styarted skimming that thread. It made my eyes glaze over. A whole lot of axe grinding going on. Not a lot of accurate info.

I.e., just like 90% of FB threads.