Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Recommended Posts

State laws that require two party consent to recording generally follow the federal wire tap act.   General the prohibition is not universal, but only requires consent if the speaker has a societally accepted expectation of privacy.   I cannot picture the speaker in a class or seminar having any reasonable expectation of privacy in their speech.

 

Of course the problem with this video is that Dr. Peterson gives speeches for his work and gets paid for doing it.   Anyone posting the material is likely to run  into a copyright challenge and a demand for compensation.  The extent to which the fair use doctrine permit the publication might end up decided by a judge.

Edited by rpn
Link to comment

State laws that require two party consent to recording generally follow the federal wire tap act.   General the prohibition is not universal, but only requires consent if the speaker has a societally accepted expectation of privacy.   I cannot picture the speaker in a class or seminar having any reasonable expectation of privacy in their speech.

But aren't the Church's ward buildings considered private property?  This isn't some town hall meeting, or a college classroom that Dan was speaking at.

Link to comment

Was the meeting a "private" setting? Experience has shown that when meetings are called to "unshake" the shaken faith, that recordings of some form are made. Is there a reasonable expectation privacy in such a setting? That no one would record a meeting intended to unshake the faith?

If the fireside was in a chapel, visual recordings are not to be made according to the Handbook, I believe. That would be a violation of private property at the least surely.

I don't know what the rules are for the rest of the building, it is not in the handbook but another manual.

Edited by calmoriah
Link to comment

State laws that require two party consent to recording generally follow the federal wire tap act. General the prohibition is not universal, but only requires consent if the speaker has a societally accepted expectation of privacy. I cannot picture the speaker in a class or seminar having any reasonable expectation of privacy in their speech.

Of course the problem with this video is that Dr. Peterson gives speeches for his work and gets paid for doing it. Anyone posting the material is likely to run into a copyright challenge and a demand for compensation. The extent to which the fair use doctrine permit the publication might end up decided by a judge.

Dr. Peterson does not get paid for his apologetic work, I believe. He always donates his time for all the events I have known. I don't know if he gets any royalties as an author for any published apologetic works (as opposed to being paid for editing services). I suppose he got some for Abraham Divided which I believe I have heard him talk about in a fireside now that I think of it (have lost track of what I heard or read from him where) so I am thinking you are right in that sense.

I think he did get compensated for a recorded debate that involved either politics or was with an atheist and another theist once several years ago (tough I could be confusing him with someone else) but they were using it as a moneymaking function. I don't know if he would consider that as overlapping or too different in subject matter. This seems to be the rare exception though.

Edited by calmoriah
Link to comment

The only awkwardness that I felt was in discussing such matters with an obviously militant apostate in front of an audience of 14-18 year-olds at an informal youth fireside.

 

I didn't know who he was -- I'd heard of Mike Norton, but he'd never loomed very large in my mind -- and, until he began pressing me, thought that he was probably a parent of one of the kids.

 

Incidentally, I don't get paid for doing apologetics.  I've never been paid for doing a fireside.  I don't even get reimbursed for the gas.  My salary at The Interpreter Foundation is $0.00 per year.  In fact, my wife and I have donated serious sums (for us).

 

Well, it was a pretty dumb move on his part to post that thing on YouTube.  Now you know exactly who he is.  That will be the first and last time you will every be caught off guard by him.

 

I've told you this before, but I really thought you handled that situation with a lot of class.  You weren't intimidated at all, and I think you were a great example to the kids there of how to handle something like that.

Link to comment

THANK YOU, Mods for addressing this so quickly! :air_kiss:

I am so glad you posted this. I would have missed this otherwise.

PS: there is one problem though...I am starting to look forward to bannings for the moderator remarks.

Edited by calmoriah
Link to comment

I don't think his real name or identity is a secret. I understand he also posted a video of himself at Priesthood session making the point that a rabid anti ex-Mo was allowed in, while active women were not.

 

As a matter of fact, Norton's priesthood video shows up in the Youtube list of related uploads to the left of the second video recording of Peterson linked in the OP. 

 

Norton's priesthood video provides a brief gimps into the extraordinary depth of himself. I now can put a real face with the on-line personas.

 

Mike+Norton.jpg

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

.

Link to comment

That was sooooo damaging. I am ready to leave the church. Maybe this guy should have brought up that his mom left the church because JS had a gun at Carthage.

 

I think what is even a little funnier is the guys that left comments that tried to take on DCP's arguments.

 

"So the Nephites called them horses because they had never seen a horse". Well we can tell that guy paid attention.

Link to comment

That was sooooo damaging. I am ready to leave the church. Maybe this guy should have brought up that his mom left the church because JS had a gun at Carthage.

 

Did she leave because she is opposed in principle to someone defending himself and his friends against mob brutality?

 

Or did she leave because she hadn't heard about it before?

 

That gun is still displayed and identified at the Church History Museum, the Church's flagship museum, in downtown Salt Lake City. (Yep, I was there less than two weeks ago.)

 

So nobody can credibly say the Church tries to cover it up.

Link to comment

I love the exasperated sigh at 4:22 in the second video.

 

One of the respondents to the videos claimed that Peterson's body language was indicative of deception. I am not sure if the respondent had the exasperating sigh in mind or not.

 

But, putting the response into perspective and context, it was in relation to a video that was clandestinely taped, uploaded under anonymity, by an interloper, using his mother as a foil for asking loaded question that are really the video taper's own, which the taper had previously posed and received answers to on numerous occasion, and yet the respondent thought Peterson was the one being deceptive. Simply stunning!

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund
Link to comment

I watched this video the other day and way impressed with the way Dan handled it as well.  Although Dan is to humble to admit that he owned this situation I can almost hear Aloe Bacc's song "I'm The Man" playing in the background.  Nicely done!

Link to comment

If the fireside was in a chapel, visual recordings are not to be made according to the Handbook, I believe. That would be a violation of private property at the least surely.

I don't know what the rules are for the rest of the building, it is not in the handbook but another manual.

From a satellite photo of the American Fork 5th Ward building (the building is shaped like a "cross, with a quasi Russian Orthodox flare - thought Mike Reed would like this tid-bit) and based on the video, it is readily apparent, to me, that the meeting was not held in the Chapel. Daniel Peterson is standing a podium, behind him is a chalk board, a pin-board, and a small framed item with flowers over it - my guess is Relief Society room, or Young Women room.

Link to comment

Did she leave because she is opposed in principle to someone defending himself and his friends against mob brutality?

 

Or did she leave because she hadn't heard about it before?

 

That gun is still displayed and identified at the Church History Museum, the Church's flagship museum, in downtown Salt Lake City. (Yep, I was there less than two weeks ago.)

 

So nobody can credibly say the Church tries to cover it up.

 

She is a gun control advocate.

Link to comment

I have not agreed with 100% of Dr Peterson's prodigious output but these sorts of informal gatherings he does are so helpful. I brought an entire family to one of his doings in Westwood and they joined the church shortly thereafter, crediting Dr Peterson. All he did was discuss some interesting developments in Book of Mormon research.

So, his influence on the personal level is great.

We had a similar experience with a DCP fireside in Arizona a few years ago. Very well-received, and Dan did a great job in Q&A with a struggling doubter. I learned afterwards that he had been brought by my second counselor's brother specifically because of his doubts. We were also able to prevail upon Dan to take the third hour for a combined PH/RS + YM/YW the next day . . . :)  

 

It was very well-received by the members.

Link to comment

Did she leave because she is opposed in principle to someone defending himself and his friends against mob brutality?

 

Or did she leave because she hadn't heard about it before?

 

That gun is still displayed and identified at the Church History Museum, the Church's flagship museum, in downtown Salt Lake City. (Yep, I was there less than two weeks ago.)

 

So nobody can credibly say the Church tries to cover it up.

Yeah. The only reason I keep bringing up the gun is because I am amazed that some seriously consider it an issue. So it is an easy one to poke fun at. I understand that what was brought up in the video are serious for others and that some have indeed left because of those issues.

Edited by Mola Ram Suda Ram
Link to comment

One of the respondents to the videos claimed that Peterson's body language was indicative of deception. I am not sure if the respondent had the exasperating sigh in mind or not.

 

But, putting the response into perspective and context, it was in relation to a video that was clandestinely taped, uploaded under anonymity, by an interloper, using his mother as a foil for asking loaded question that are really the video taper's own, which the taper had previously posed and received answers to on numerous occasion, and yet the respondent thought Peterson was the one being deceptive. Simply stunning!

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Well, they seem to be bearing out the verity of Novak's Rule #1.

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment

It was in the Relief Society room.

 

Just a small, informal weekday fireside.  I went in without any notes or pre-formed agenda, thinking that I would just make a few remarks to prime the pump and then open it up for questions.

 

I wasn't expecting two fairly hostile adult ex-Mormons to be there.  One was local, and he was, far and away, the more mild of the two.  The other, who turned out to be Mike Norton, was completely unknown to the locals.  I don't know how he heard of the event, nor why he would have chosen that one, particularly, to attend.  I often give public talks along the Wasatch Front -- tomorrow evening up in Sandy, for example -- and I wonder why he happened to show up for a tiny and unpublicized youth fireside in American Fork.

Link to comment

Have the youth of that ward been told they've seen an anti in action? It would be an interesting lesson on the lengths some are willing to go to in order to destroy others' testimonies.

Link to comment

It was in the Relief Society room.

 

Just a small, informal weekday fireside.  I went in without any notes or pre-formed agenda, thinking that I would just make a few remarks to prime the pump and then open it up for questions.

 

I wasn't expecting two fairly hostile adult ex-Mormons to be there.  One was local, and he was, far and away, the more mild of the two.  The other, who turned out to be Mike Norton, was completely unknown to the locals.  I don't know how he heard of the event, nor why he would have chosen that one, particularly, to attend.  I often give public talks along the Wasatch Front -- tomorrow evening up in Sandy, for example -- and I wonder why he happened to show up for a tiny and unpublicized youth fireside in American Fork.

It's possible that his mom told him? Just sayin'.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...