Is the Mormon Church pushing a two party consent law to protect ecclesiastical leaders?

[rongo]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

They'll do more press conferences although I doubt anyone will pay attention to them. As you know I thought the press conference was a failure although I meant specific things by that. I think a lot of the divide is over rhetorical style with some people wanting people to speak in their style not older styles. But I wouldn't say the press conference was embarrassing. There were a few parts that bothered me that clearly didn't think through how things would appear on video. That seems a different matter though. So I think you're exaggerating a lot here. I think they just need to spend time prepping for such things. Where prepping involves people asking the obvious questions in different ways, videoing the response, and playing that back so they can adjust their words, facial expressions and so forth. i.e. media 101.

How about *less* preparation, and just having a real, traditional press conference where they simply answer questions that are put to them? The apostles are experienced and know a lot. I think it's the constant PR spin, fretting about word-parsing/wordsmithing, etc. that gets them into trouble. 

Be authentic and real! Don't use a teleprompter at all, and don't have prepared responses and known questions/questioners.

The "Face to Face" things are also contrived, scripted, canned things, and they come off that way.

[clarkgoble]

On 2/7/2018 at 4:25 PM, Investigator said:

There have been tens of thousands of child abusers, perpetrators of domestic abuse, rapists, drug dealers, abusive ecclesiastic leaders, and corrupt politicians and attorneys etc. who have been brought to justice because those who were being abused had the courage to record the abuse and brought it into the light. No one would have believed them had they not had that tool of being able to record what was going on without fear of recrimination and the ability to bring that evidence forward. The only people who will benefit from this proposed legislation are those who in power who seek to hide what they are doing and do not want the truth to be known. Additionally, judges and lawyers will benefit as those who do want to be able to record their conversations will have to get a court order to do so; thus, further lining the pockets of judges and lawyers “that they might get money according to the suits which [ are] brought before them”. Additionally, ecclesiastical leaders should not “seek deep to hide their counsel from the Lord” or anyone else. Law makers of Utah will be held accountable if they pass this legislation.  

States with two party consent laws like California almost always carve out exceptions for those types of situations. Plus do you really think a prosecutor would bring charges if an abuse victim recorded it?  Also my understanding was that the Utah law already had exceptions for these sorts of things.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

How about *less* preparation, and just having a real, traditional press conference where they simply answer questions that are put to them? The apostles are experienced and know a lot. I think it's the constant PR spin, fretting about word-parsing/wordsmithing, etc. that gets them into trouble. 

Be authentic and real! Don't use a teleprompter at all, and don't have prepared responses and known questions/questioners.

The "Face to Face" things are also contrived, scripted, canned things, and they come off that way.

Again the issue almost always is that when people say they want authenticity what they really mean is be like I want. So people judged "authentic" (oh how I hate that word) often aren't. Bill Clinton being the great example. Although Ronald Reagan fits on the right as well. People who are judged inauthentic like Mitt Romney are judged not because that's not who they are, but because they seem awkward and awkwardness even in authenticity is judged as the classic sign of inauthenticity.

Edited February 9, 2018 by clarkgoble
Primarily typo

[provoman]

43 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Huh. You're right. I was confusing it with the hidden camera law which all states have. But for audio alone there's not explicit bans, although often they're banned where there's an expectation of privacy. So hidden recording where there's an expectation of privacy is covered by eavesdropping laws and involves more than 11 states. For instance Arizona requires consent if there's an expectation that a conversation is private.

The law in Utah also does not allow for recording oral communication when there is a privacy expectation; so the proposed law was unnecessary.

[provoman]

Suppose this law passed. And suppose someone recording a discussion with a Church Official. That Church would either sue is request that felony charges - that is going overboard - be filed.

It is then left to the very likely predominately religious jury to determine if the defendant was “reasonable” in believing that the recording was permitted. What is the likelyhood that a jurours whose religious affiliation are same as the agrieved who was recorded, would find that it was reasonable for the defendant to record? 

[Michael Sudworth]

On 2/7/2018 at 1:40 AM, provoman said:

This bill is unnecessary.

I don't this claim is accurate as we saw both Runnels and Dehlin violate the privacy of their Church leaders by recording private meetings.

The Church deserves privacy just like anyone else does. And besides, the purpose of these recordings is to cause a stir and hit a news cycle. Let's not pretend that there are legitimate reasons to record a private meeting with your Bishop.

Those with integrity don't do secret recordings.  Both JD and JR need to get off their moral high horse and extend to Church leaders the same respect those Church leaders give them.

[Michael Sudworth]

17 minutes ago, provoman said:

Suppose this law passed. And suppose someone recording a discussion with a Church Official. That Church would either sue is request that felony charges - that is going overboard - be filed.

The Church should sue for defamation.

Without source recordings there is no way to tell that the audio wasn't altered etc...

Those who willfully violate the privacy of others deserve to be sued.  In fact, didn't that slimy outfit Project Veritas lose a case like this recently?  

[clarkgoble]

12 minutes ago, Michael Sudworth said:

I don't this claim is accurate as we saw both Runnels and Dehlin violate the privacy of their Church leaders by recording private meetings.

The Church deserves privacy just like anyone else does. And besides, the purpose of these recordings is to cause a stir and hit a news cycle. Let's not pretend that there are legitimate reasons to record a private meeting with your Bishop.

Those with integrity don't do secret recordings.  Both JD and JR need to get off their moral high horse and extend to Church leaders the same respect those Church leaders give them.

Something can frequently be illegal yet not prosecuted. The idea that even if this law passed that there would be charges brought against people taping their Bishop is pretty dubious. 

That said I confess I hadn't heard what Provoman said. I looked up the statute (77-23a-4) and it seems a bit more ambiguous than he suggests. The relevant part is this (emphasis mine).

"A person not acting under color of law may intercept a wire, electronic, or oral communication if that person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception, unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of state or federal laws."

"Tortious act" seems vague since it's not clear what counts as legitimate harm versus illegitimate harm. If someone tapes a Bishop's interview they don't like, releasing the tape doesn't appear to be prevented since it's hard to see it as a tortious act. Presumably Provoman's argument is that "tortious act" includes any release where there's an expectation of privacy. And there may well be case precedence for that. But it doesn't appear explicit in the current law. Further as others noted, we already have surreptitious recordings of Bishops, temple rites and so forth where there hasn't been any prosecution. So tightening up law to prevent that seems like a reasonable thing to want. 

Hopefully Provoman chimes in as I'm really curious as the basis for his claim. If the law is unnecessary I'm very curious as to why it's not enforced.

 

8 minutes ago, Michael Sudworth said:

Those who willfully violate the privacy of others deserve to be sued.  In fact, didn't that slimy outfit Project Veritas lose a case like this recently?  

That was in California which has extremely tight privacy laws.

Edited February 9, 2018 by clarkgoble

[provoman]

34 minutes ago, Michael Sudworth said:

I don't this claim is accurate as we saw both Runnels and Dehlin violate the privacy of their Church leaders by recording private meetings.

The Church deserves privacy just like anyone else does. And besides, the purpose of these recordings is to cause a stir and hit a news cycle. Let's not pretend that there are legitimate reasons to record a private meeting with your Bishop.

Those with integrity don't do secret recordings.  Both JD and JR need to get off their moral high horse and extend to Church leaders the same respect those Church leaders give them.

The parties recorded could have sought recourse under existing law.

[provoman]

cloarkgoble here is part of existing law

 

 

"Oral communication" means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that the communication is not subject to interception, under circumstances justifying that expectation, but does not include any electronic communication.

[clarkgoble]

It seems ambiguous how that would interact with the other statute.

[provoman]

10 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

It seems ambiguous how that would interact with the other statute.

It is the definition or “oral communication” used throughout 77-23a

 

https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title77/Chapter23A/77-23a.html

[clarkgoble]

I think you miss my point. While "oral communication" says "not subject to interception, under circumstances justifying that expectation" it's not clear how that interacts with "may intercept a wire, electronic, or oral communication if that person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent."

I'm not an attorney but "oral communication" seem to assume no interception then we have a statute specifying what's allowed interception. So I'm assuming the statute allowing recording overrides the definition. Do you know of case law on this?

[sunstoned]

It looks like this bill is not going to be pushed by law makers after all:

 

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/02/06/mormon-church-interested-in-bill-that-could-prevent-recording-bishop-interviews/

[Jeanne]

If this bill doesn't pass...does anyone think the Mormon Church will have some sort of non-disclosure statements/paperwork for interviews??

[Investigator]

Right now in the state of Utah I have the FREEDOM to record any conversation that I am a party to. The proposed revisions seek to take away those FREEDOMS. The only ones who stand to gain from the revisions are those who would be harmed were the TRUTH of the conversations recorded to be made know. It you are for FREEDOM and TRUTH you should stand against these revisions. If politicians, lawyers and ecclesiastical leaders do not want what they say to be made public they should watch what they say or keep their mouths shut.

[Jeanne]

1 minute ago, Investigator said:

Right now in the state of Utah I have the FREEDOM to record any conversation that I am a party to. The proposed revisions seek to take away those FREEDOMS. The only ones who stand to gain from the revisions are those who would be harmed were the TRUTH of the conversations recorded to be made know. It you are for FREEDOM and TRUTH you should stand against these revisions. If politicians, lawyers and ecclesiastical leaders do not want what they say to be made public they should watch what they say or keep their mouths shut.

 This is true...so true...until it happens to me!!  I hear you.

[Stargazer]

On 2/6/2018 at 9:44 PM, juliann said:

CA has had a 2 party law for as long as I'm aware of and nary one Mormon has been called out on it.  People who are going on alert because they hear the M word haven't read the bill. It excepts every situation they are lamenting.  What about abuse victims!  Well, it allows for recordings. What about crime! Well, it exempts that...

It even exempts recording solicitors. LOL   

But back in the real world, in CA I have protection that  an off hand comment that may not be PC won't be recorded and blasted all over the internet so I'll lose my job. 

Most of all, isn't it interesting that the Trib didn't want its readers to see the bill? Where is a link? Could that be because it doesn't really prevent recording if you "reasonably believe" that even psychological abuse is going to occur.  I'm not shy to call out things I think are harmful in church culture, but this one is a made-up crisis that is about as dishonest as it gets.

https://le.utah.gov/~2018/bills/static/HB0330.html

The interesting (to me) part of this is that Washington state has had this law (very similarly worded) on the books for many years -- with the same exception.

Of course, however, since the Mormons are in favor of a law it must necessarily be for nefarious reasons.  That goes without saying in certain quarters.

[Stargazer]

On 2/7/2018 at 6:21 AM, HappyJackWagon said:

I think the story spoke specifically about the "reasonably believe" clause. But what does that mean? I suspect it means something different to each of us.

But yes, the church's support of this bill is absolutely designed to protect itself from being embarrassed by recordings of GA's as well as local leaders. It's a protective move which makes a lot of sense from the church's perspective.

However, imagine this relates to a school instead of the church. Imagine a school had a policy in which children and youth were called to have conversations about personal sxual beliefs and behaviors behind closed doors. Imagine that policy was being challenged by parents and that there had been a number of recordings that brought the problem to light. These recordings were embarrassing to the school and its teachers. Then imagine a new bill is introduced and supported by the teacher's union preventing the types of recordings that made the teachers accountable for things they said and did. Would that be acceptable? Or would it feel like the school and its teachers were trying to hide something and protect themselves, even at the possible harm to the students?

 

 

For what it's worth, I believe most states have a similar law already on the books, with the same exception.  Washington state's law:

Revised Code of Washington 9.73.030
Intercepting, recording, or divulging private communication—Consent required—Exceptions.
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, it shall be unlawful for any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or the state of Washington, its agencies, and political subdivisions to intercept, or record any:
(a) Private communication transmitted by telephone, telegraph, radio, or other device between two or more individuals between points within or without the state by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record and/or transmit said communication regardless how such device is powered or actuated, without first obtaining the consent of all the participants in the communication;
(b) Private conversation, by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record or transmit such conversation regardless how the device is powered or actuated without first obtaining the consent of all the persons engaged in the conversation.
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, wire communications or conversations (a) of an emergency nature, such as the reporting of a fire, medical emergency, crime, or disaster, or (b) which convey threats of extortion, blackmail, bodily harm, or other unlawful requests or demands, or (c) which occur anonymously or repeatedly or at an extremely inconvenient hour, or (d) which relate to communications by a hostage holder or barricaded person as defined in RCW 70.85.100, whether or not conversation ensues, may be recorded with the consent of one party to the conversation.

Note that on subjects of general interest, where the concern is common between jurisdictions, one state's law might get enacted by other states almost word-for-word.  This is why traffic "rules of the road" are almost the same from state to state in the USA.  Note the similarity of wording in the WA state law, elements of which have been on the books since 1967.  This not something new, nor is it unique to Utah.  Those of you who reflexively react to anything the LDS Church proposes as an in se evil should possibly check themselves for the lingering scent of prejudice.

Edited February 13, 2018 by Stargazer

[Amulek]

On 2/11/2018 at 3:55 PM, Investigator said:

The only ones who stand to gain from the revisions are those who would be harmed were the TRUTH of the conversations recorded to be made know[n].

I prefer one-party consent, but let's not pretend that recordings always represent the 'truth.'

Recordings can be manipulated, edited to take statements out of context, etc. all in ways that misrepresent the 'truth.' 

 

[Stargazer]

On 2/11/2018 at 1:55 PM, Investigator said:

Right now in the state of Utah I have the FREEDOM to record any conversation that I am a party to. The proposed revisions seek to take away those FREEDOMS. The only ones who stand to gain from the revisions are those who would be harmed were the TRUTH of the conversations recorded to be made know. It you are for FREEDOM and TRUTH you should stand against these revisions. If politicians, lawyers and ecclesiastical leaders do not want what they say to be made public they should watch what they say or keep their mouths shut.

Most other states require consent from all participants. Are you saying that all those states are at war with freedom and truth?

Well, I'll admit that I haven't read all the privacy laws in the all the states, but Washington state is fairly typical, and it's a two-party consent state, as is California to the best of my knowledge.

6 hours ago, Amulek said:

I prefer one-party consent, but let's not pretend that recordings always represent the 'truth.'

Recordings can be manipulated, edited to take statements out of context, etc. all in ways that misrepresent the 'truth.' 

 

There are plenty of YouTube channels that take advantage of cut and paste to create amusing montages.  And it would be easy to cut and paste to create "truth" that is "false".

Edited February 13, 2018 by Stargazer

[kiwi57]

On 2/11/2018 at 9:18 AM, Jeanne said:

If this bill doesn't pass...does anyone think the Mormon Church will have some sort of non-disclosure statements/paperwork for interviews??

No.

[HappyJackWagon]

12 hours ago, Stargazer said:

For what it's worth, I believe most states have a similar law already on the books, with the same exception.  Washington state's law:

Revised Code of Washington 9.73.030
Intercepting, recording, or divulging private communication—Consent required—Exceptions.
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, it shall be unlawful for any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or the state of Washington, its agencies, and political subdivisions to intercept, or record any:
(a) Private communication transmitted by telephone, telegraph, radio, or other device between two or more individuals between points within or without the state by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record and/or transmit said communication regardless how such device is powered or actuated, without first obtaining the consent of all the participants in the communication;
(b) Private conversation, by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record or transmit such conversation regardless how the device is powered or actuated without first obtaining the consent of all the persons engaged in the conversation.
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, wire communications or conversations (a) of an emergency nature, such as the reporting of a fire, medical emergency, crime, or disaster, or (b) which convey threats of extortion, blackmail, bodily harm, or other unlawful requests or demands, or (c) which occur anonymously or repeatedly or at an extremely inconvenient hour, or (d) which relate to communications by a hostage holder or barricaded person as defined in RCW 70.85.100, whether or not conversation ensues, may be recorded with the consent of one party to the conversation.

Note that on subjects of general interest, where the concern is common between jurisdictions, one state's law might get enacted by other states almost word-for-word.  This is why traffic "rules of the road" are almost the same from state to state in the USA.  Note the similarity of wording in the WA state law, elements of which have been on the books since 1967.  This not something new, nor is it unique to Utah.  Those of you who reflexively react to anything the LDS Church proposes as an in se evil should possibly check themselves for the lingering scent of prejudice.

IIRC- 12 other states have similar laws. That means there are 38 states which do not have two party consent.

Quote

Stargazer said-

The interesting (to me) part of this is that Washington state has had this law (very similarly worded) on the books for many years -- with the same exception.

Of course, however, since the Mormons are in favor of a law it must necessarily be for nefarious reasons.  That goes without saying in certain quarters.

I'm not sure there are many people who think the church's support of the (now withdrawn) bill is "nefarious", but it does seem clear that they had an interest in it passing. What would that interest be? It seems clear that they were wanting to limit recordings that could be embarrassing to the church. Seems reasonable from their POV. But the backlash on the bill was so swift and broad that lawmakers withdrew the bill from consideration. This backlash obviously isn't only aimed at the church's involvement but I think it demonstrates the public's distaste for laws that protect big corporations against the little guy.

[Jeanne]

12 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

No.

Okie Dokey....

[Stargazer]

14 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

IIRC- 12 other states have similar laws. That means there are 38 states which do not have two party consent.

I'm not sure there are many people who think the church's support of the (now withdrawn) bill is "nefarious", but it does seem clear that they had an interest in it passing. What would that interest be? It seems clear that they were wanting to limit recordings that could be embarrassing to the church. Seems reasonable from their POV. But the backlash on the bill was so swift and broad that lawmakers withdrew the bill from consideration. This backlash obviously isn't only aimed at the church's involvement but I think it demonstrates the public's distaste for laws that protect big corporations against the little guy.

I understand. 

However, could it not be that the Church was purely interested in the privacy preservation aspects?

The funny thing is, the law would have prevented Church leaders from recording private conversations, too, wouldn't it have?  So as it stands, your bishop can continue to record his interviews with you legally without your consent.  But if the law had passed, he could not.  It seems that the protecting would have gone both ways, and wouldn't have protected just the "big corporation" against the little guy.

I think it demonstrates that the public sometimes doesn't know what is good for it, and reacts irrationally.