Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Tim Ballard


Calm

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Teancum said:
Quote

Well, I can only speak to my experience and observations.  In the circles I observe or travel/interact with, most of the Latter-day Saints have their heads screwed on pretty straight.  Moreover, I have some acquaintances with folks who have first-hand experience with the General Authorities, which acquaintances tell me that the Brethren are very aware of the risks and pitfalls inherent in any one of them developing a "cult of personality," and that they work hard to mitigate and avoid such things.

Don't get me wrong, some GAs are more "popular" as speakers than others, but overall I think we're doing a pretty good job of tamping down on the "cult of celebrity/personality" thing.

GAs are like rock stars to active members. 

Well, that's just not my experience.  I am active, as are many of my family members, friends, neighbors, acquaintances, etc.  I think General Authorities are broadly admired and respected, but not in ways involving fawning adulation.  Frankly, this claim comes across as a caricature.

My sister's father-in-law was J. Devn Cornish.  He gave two talks in General Conference, one in 2011 and one in 2016.  He was a GA for about ten years (2011-2021), but I doubt very many people remember him.  He happened to be in town when my son gave a talk prior to serving a mission, and he attended the meeting (sitting on the stand, as he was obligated to do).  Nobody treated him like a rock star (few people in the ward knew who he was until he was acknowledged by the bishop as presiding at the meeting).  I have also interacted with him in a number of social gatherings (mostly extended family).  Again, no "rock star" treatment.

My father's cousin, Stanley G. Ellis, is currently a GA.  He has given three talks in General Conference (2006, 2013, 2017), and is is currently serving as a member of the Africa Southeast Area Presidency.  I've met him 2-3 times in a social environment, none of which involved any "rock star" treatment.  I suspect few active Latter-day Saints even recognize his name, let alone his face.

As a missionary we had Elder Maxwell visit.  That was pretty cool, but all we did was stand up when he entered the room and stand up when he left.  No "rock star" treatment.

My wife and I took part of our honeymoon in downtown SLC, including over a weekend.  We attended a church service in the Joseph Smith Memorial Building, which turned out to be Pres. Hinckley's home ward.  For my part, it was exciting to see him, but nobody behaved in any untoward or hysterical or fawning way.

7 minutes ago, Teancum said:

And the the protocols surrounding what is proper when a high ranking authority enters the room as well as the constant emphasis of follow the brethren elevates them to the level of a personality quote. 

I don't know what a "personality quote" is.  If you mean "personality cult," then I respectfully disagree.  I commented on this back in 2017:

Quote

Standing for a General Authority is, at most, a token.  A very simple and innocuous gesture.  A de minimis demonstration that those standing recognize and respect those in authority.

As an attorney, we have a very strong (mandatory?) custom for everyone in the courtroom to rise when the judge enters and takes the bench, to rise when addressing the court (unless excused to remain sitting by the judge), and to rise when the judge exits.  

As this attorney explains: "It is showing respect to the system, not to the particular judge. Being in a society does not excuse you from showing respect to the very system that allows you to live in a (mainly) peaceful and organized society."

And this one (same link):

Quote

This is tradition and courtroom decorum.

I’ve been in front of maybe a dozen judges and only a few of them insist on it.

I don’t recall ever seeing it in any of our rules of civil procedure or statutes, but I imagine its possible that in some States it is required.

And this one (same link):

Quote

Well it is not the judge rather the position, the seat that commands respect. Even in ancient times the authority that did justice between people was given respect. It is also a symbolic gesture that we trust the system to provide us justice.

There is a comparable custom of rising when the jury enters and exits the courtroom.  The gesture, I think, is intended to recognize that the jury members are in a position of authority, and that this position and the judicial process relating to it merit respect and recognition.

In other contexts, standing is not necessary.  Once the jury is released, standing when they enter a room is not necessary.  When a judge enters the room at a Continuing Legal Education seminar, standing up is not necessary.  These venues are different than the courtroom.  The propriety of this token demonstration is therefore specific not only to the position of the individual (a judge or jury), but the venue (in a formal, courtroom setting).

I think a corollary "token" demonstration is the refusal to observe this tradition.  It demonstrates a lack of respect, a lack of recognition of the authority of the person in question (a judge or, in this context, a General Authority).

I have attended several dozen disciplinary counsels over the past many years.  In each and every one, everyone in the room rises when the person under discipline enters.  While obviously not a demonstration of recognition of authority, I think this practice nevertheless carries a strong connotation, a demonstration that those involved in the disciplinary process respect and care about the person under discipline.

For me, I appreciate the observance of such token gestures.  There is value in maintaining formalities in some contexts.  I have often worked on litigation involving a pro se litigant (someone who is representing himself, without an attorney) who is very mouthy and rude and whatnot outside of the courtroom (during settlement negotiations, etc.).  But then comes the day when we go to court for a hearing or some such.  There are armed sheriff's deputies at the door and a bailiff in the courtroom.  There is also a court clerk in the courtroom and cameras and microphones which record the proceedings.  There is a gallery for observers, and then a "bar" (a low partition between the gallery and the rest of the courtroom) where the litigants and their attorneys sit.  There is a jury box.  There is a lectern.  There is a witness seat.  And then there is "the bench," the raised platform where the judge sits.  He or she wears a black robe.  There is a gavel (though seldom used in my experience).  Behind the judge are the American and State of Utah flags, and the Great Seal of Utah on the wall.  There are formalities in practice (standing when the judge enters, etc.), in procedure (the judge runs the show, the moving party speaks first and last, etc.), in speech (the judge is referred to as "Your Honor"), and so on.  These formalities, in this venue, are intended to emphasize and reinforce the importance of the rule of law, and the need for deference and respect to those who have authority to speak and render binding decisions.  So the pro se guy who was a bit cocky and snotty in his communications usually quiets down and behaves reasonably and respectably.  And that's a good thing.

Similarly, I think there is some value in token gestures of respect to General Authorities.  We are not asked to kiss their feet.  Or bow down to them.  A shower them with adulation and praise.  Just stand up when they enter the room.  As a token of respect for the position of authority they temporarily hold.

Characterizing a very modest and token gesture of respect - standing up - as indicative of a "personality cult" is, in my view, pretty unserious.  

In a few years, Pres. Nelson will pass away.  His administration will likely go down in the history of the Church as one of the most "transformative" in the Church.  There will be a funeral, and obviously some news coverage.  There will be, amongst the members, fond memories shared, and some tears.  But at the next General Conference we will raise our arms to the square and sustain his successor as the "prophet, seer and revelator."  Not exactly a "personality cult."  

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment

I think we treat GAs like celebrities.  Maybe not as Taylor Swift celebs but more like oh I don’t know, like the drummer from U2 who’s name I don’t know but I’d turn my head if he walked by and brag to my friends that I saw him. 
 

ETA- maybe more like a SADE level celebrity.  She’s famous and amazing and some people probably swoon but most of us would let her eat in peace if we saw her in a restaurant.  

I remember years ago, saying President Ballard at the Golden Corral.  There was definitely a buzz in the restaurant about him.
 

IMO of course. 
 

 

Edited by MustardSeed
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Teancum said:

GAs are like rock stars to active members

To some, not to others…or maybe they are if being a rock star is just another job like many others that take talent and skill in their view.

However, I do think a significant portion of members would go out of their way to attend meetings if it was acceptable where some of the more prominent GAs are and like my grandmother did of the Osmonds, take pictures if they could without looking disrespectful.  If you compare our Sacrament Meetings to a rock concert, our “personality cult” probably similarly compares to the cults around rock stars….iow, much, much, much more subdued, but there is some music and movement. ;) 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Duncan said:

Did Greg Matson say what the Church said in his exclusive knowledge about a new release that he somehow knew about? My sense is they didn't release anything, he knows nothing and I wonder what his followers think now?

You are asking me to remember what I read a couple of days ago? I think not!

This is not a time where memories last much past clicking on a different thread.  I haven’t seen anything released, though I believe a couple of talks addressed this and other current hot topics.

If I were his follower, I might assume that conference delayed a release or leadership were waiting for a move by someone else to see if it was necessary or not.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Well, that's just not my experience.  I am active, as are many of my family members, friends, neighbors, acquaintances, etc.  I think General Authorities are broadly admired and respected, but not in ways involving fawning adulation.  Frankly, this claim comes across as a caricature.

My sister's father-in-law was J. Devn Cornish.  He gave two talks in General Conference, one in 2011 and one in 2016.  He was a GA for about ten years (2011-2021), but I doubt very many people remember him.  He happened to be in town when my son gave a talk prior to serving a mission, and he attended the meeting (sitting on the stand, as he was obligated to do).  Nobody treated him like a rock star (few people in the ward knew who he was until he was acknowledged by the bishop as presiding at the meeting).  I have also interacted with him in a number of social gatherings (mostly extended family).  Again, no "rock star" treatment.

My father's cousin, Stanley G. Ellis, is currently a GA.  He has given three talks in General Conference (2006, 2013, 2017), and is is currently serving as a member of the Africa Southeast Area Presidency.  I've met him 2-3 times in a social environment, none of which involved any "rock star" treatment.  I suspect few active Latter-day Saints even recognize his name, let alone his face.

As a missionary we had Elder Maxwell visit.  That was pretty cool, but all we did was stand up when he entered the room and stand up when he left.  No "rock star" treatment.

My wife and I took part of our honeymoon in downtown SLC, including over a weekend.  We attended a church service in the Joseph Smith Memorial Building, which turned out to be Pres. Hinckley's home ward.  For my part, it was exciting to see him, but nobody behaved in any untoward or hysterical or fawning way.

I don't know what a "personality quote" is.  If you mean "personality cult," then I respectfully disagree.  I commented on this back in 2017:

Characterizing a very modest and token gesture of respect - standing up - as indicative of a "personality cult" is, in my view, pretty unserious.  

In a few years, Pres. Nelson will pass away.  His administration will likely go down in the history of the Church as one of the most "transformative" in the Church.  There will be a funeral, and obviously some news coverage.  There will be, amongst the members, fond memories shared, and some tears.  But at the next General Conference we will raise our arms to the square and sustain his successor as the "prophet, seer and revelator."  Not exactly a "personality cult."  

Thanks,

-Smac

You know my typo was personality cult so don't play coy.

As for the rest. meh.  Not worth it.  Your position is farcical.

Link to comment
28 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I'll be seeing U2 at the Sphere one week from tomorrow. Now THEY are rockstars!

Ooh, that’s a hot ticket!  I don’t know what I’d be more excited to see, U2 or the Sphere.  That’s no dis to U2.

Link to comment
37 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I'll be seeing U2 at the Sphere one week from tomorrow. Now THEY are rockstars!

 

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

Ooh, that’s a hot ticket!  I don’t know what I’d be more excited to see, U2 or the Sphere.  That’s no dis to U2.

Ok, I’ll be that hippie. I’ve seen some recent footage from the sphere with U2. Meh (music and visuals). Now, Phish..? They could totally do It right!!

Link to comment

I think the apostles are rockstars in the fact that they are in it for the long haul. They are in it for a lifetime and my heart goes out to the twelve because they have no choice, no retirement really. They are always going to be scrutinized or even idolized in a way, wherever they go there will be a feeling of always having to be on or having to be like a fish in a fish bowl. I really dislike that any human needs to go through that. A rockstar has a choice to tone down their careers or retire completely. But not the apostles. I feel for them and wish they didn't have to do it. And their families miss a good portion of their time together but have to share them. Or I'm making a mountain out of a molehill, but have had an experience of being in a gospel doctrine class where one of the class members mentioned how he felt when an apostle was in the same restaurant he was and he said there was a feeling in the room where you knew he was an apostle of the Lord. 

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

 

Ok, I’ll be that hippie. I’ve seen some recent footage from the sphere with U2. Meh (music and visuals). Now, Phish..? They could totally do It right!!

Bite. Your. Tongue. Heretic!

Link to comment
1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

 

Ok, I’ll be that hippie. I’ve seen some recent footage from the sphere with U2. Meh (music and visuals). Now, Phish..? They could totally do It right!!

It is the immersive HOLOPLOT sound system that I’d be most excited about experiencing.  I imagine it being similar to the revelation of going from standard concert technology at the time, then experiencing the Wall of Sound for the first time.  

Phish would do that place well!

While I’d choose Trey over the Edge any day of the week, it would be cool to hear the dynamics of the Edge’s obsessive attention to sound/effects on that system, but Trey’s far more dynamic and expressive playing (and facial grimacing), along with the band, more then makes up for that.  Not to mention the onstage antics and crowd experience.

Based on sound alone, what band would you want to hear the most from the clarity and immersive experience of that sound system?  Besides the Grateful Dead. Sorry, I cant let you off that easy.

Your choice doesn’t have to be limited to those two options.

You can all return to regular Ballard programming after this important question is answered?

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
3 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I’ve met and worked with a number of general authorities. With few exceptions, they have been good, competent, humble men. A few appeared to have a sense of entitlement and demanded deference. And the way they are treated by members varied wildly. Definitely some members treat them like royalty, but most don’t  

A very close relative of mine is a general authority, and a better man you’ll never meet. At my father’s funeral, he had to sit on the stand as the “presiding authority,” and his wife told me that still makes him feel weird, as he considers himself a typical church member.

I always wonder about the sitting on the stand thing.  My husband's coworker was a prophet's bishop for awhile.  When attending his own ward that prophet almost always sat in the congregation (usually even on the back row!) with his wife.  From what I understand his wife wasn't doing well so maybe it was just a thing about that, but I've often wondered if it can be done sometimes then why do we need to do it at all, except in special circumstances? They always announce who is presiding so it's not like you have to be sitting there to be recognized as presiding.

3 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

In short, it depends on the person how they are treated, in my experience. 

 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Rain said:

I always wonder about the sitting on the stand thing.  My husband's coworker was a prophet's bishop for awhile.  When attending his own ward that prophet almost always sat in the congregation (usually even on the back row!) with his wife.  From what I understand his wife wasn't doing well so maybe it was just a thing about that, but I've often wondered if it can be done sometimes then why do we need to do it at all, except in special circumstances? They always announce who is presiding so it's not like you have to be sitting there to be recognized as presiding.

 

I think it’s one of those unwritten rules, though maybe it’s in the general handbook 

Link to comment
13 hours ago, pogi said:

Based on sound alone, what band would you want to hear the most from the clarity and immersive experience of that sound system?  Besides the Grateful Dead. Sorry, I cant let you off that easy.

Well, if I can't put down the Grateful Dead, I guess it'll just have to be the Jerry Garcia Band ;)

I'd love to see 1990 Jane's Addiction. Three Days > Then She Did would be awesome! Their showmanship would probably match the sphere nicely, too.

A current band? Tedeschi Trucks Band. Hot dang, they would sound so good. I'm also thinking an electronic jam band, like Lotus. They could really make good use of all the options offered by that sound system.

Ok, back to Ballard!

Link to comment
1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:
Quote

I always wonder about the sitting on the stand thing.  My husband's coworker was a prophet's bishop for awhile.  When attending his own ward that prophet almost always sat in the congregation (usually even on the back row!) with his wife.  From what I understand his wife wasn't doing well so maybe it was just a thing about that, but I've often wondered if it can be done sometimes then why do we need to do it at all, except in special circumstances? They always announce who is presiding so it's not like you have to be sitting there to be recognized as presiding.

I think it’s one of those unwritten rules, though maybe it’s in the general handbook 

My understanding is that the "GAs sitting on the stand" thing only applies when they are attending meetings other than in their own ward.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

My understanding is that the "GAs sitting on the stand" thing only applies when they are attending meetings other than in their own ward.  

Thanks,

-Smac

It is usually this. Our ward has a Seventy who is related to several families in the ward. About once a year the Bishop gets a call saying he will be in town and presiding. He usually chats with the Bishopric briefly to see how things are going afterwards and then leaves.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

My understanding is that the "GAs sitting on the stand" thing only applies when they are attending meetings other than in their own ward.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Before we were married my wife belonged to Elder Haight's ward.  He was there one time when I attended with her and he sat in the congregation. 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Well, if I can't put down the Grateful Dead, I guess it'll just have to be the Jerry Garcia Band ;)

I'd love to see 1990 Jane's Addiction. Three Days > Then She Did would be awesome! Their showmanship would probably match the sphere nicely, too.

A current band? Tedeschi Trucks Band. Hot dang, they would sound so good. I'm also thinking an electronic jam band, like Lotus. They could really make good use of all the options offered by that sound system.

Ok, back to Ballard!

Dude, I kid you not, I was going to say the Dereck Trucks Band!  We have got to meet up for a show sometime.  While I like Susan Tedeschi, I would go with Solom Burke's vocals ala the Songline album.  Solomon Burke's rich vocals over Dereck Trucks tasteful styling is something ethereal.    Jane's addiction is a good choice.  I was a Primus kid in that generation. Tom Morello with Rage Against the Machine on that sound system would be pretty sweet! 

Edit: It is actually Mike Mattison's lead vocals on the Songline album.  I love his voice!  Solom Burke was on Joyful Noise - Like Anyone Else.  This is a great song lyric for this forum:

 

 

 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment

Attorney representing Tim Ballard accusers preparing a lawsuit

Quote

SALT LAKE CITY — The attorney representing several women accusing Operation Underground Railroad founder and former CEO Tim Ballard of sexual misconduct says she’s preparing a lawsuit on their behalf.

 

Attorney Suzette Rasmussen says that they are gathering evidence and anticipate filing a lawsuit once the information is properly evaluated. She tells KSL NewsRadio she has gained additional clients since she spoke out on their behalf.

I will be interested to see if this lawsuit is filed with the plaintiffs as "Jane Does" (that is, their identities are kept anonymous).

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Attorney representing Tim Ballard accusers preparing a lawsuit

I will be interested to see if this lawsuit is filed with the plaintiffs as "Jane Does" (that is, their identities are kept anonymous).

Thanks,

-Smac

 

How would that make you think regarding truthfulness about their complaint? 
 

Women who squeal are often maligned.  I believe most women remain silent. 

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

How would that make you think regarding truthfulness about their complaint? 

I think allegations that are heavily contingent on the credibility of a witness tend to be strengthened when the identity of the witness is known.  I am concerned there is a greater likelihood of embellishment/fabrication/perjury when the accuser gets to accuse anonymously.

Rule 10(a)(2) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure requires that "{i}n the complaint, the title of the action must include the names of all the parties."  

Regarding the federal courts in Utah, see here:

Quote

Under Rule 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “{t}he title of the complaint must name all the parties.”  Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a), see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(a).  No provision in the Federal Rules permits “suits by persons using fictitious names” or “anonymous plaintiffs.”  Nat’l Commodity & Barter ***’n, Nat’l Commodity Exch. v. Gibbs, 886 F.2d 1240, 1245 (10th Cir. 1989).  However, “exceptional circumstances” may warrant “some form of anonymity in judicial proceedings.”  Femedeer v. Haun, 227 F.3d 1244, 1246 (10th Cir. 2000).  Exceptional circumstances include those “involving matters of a highly sensitive and personal nature, real danger of physical harm, or where the injury litigated against would be incurred as a result of the disclosure of the plaintiff’s identity.”  Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).  In deciding whether to preserve anonymity, the court weighs these exceptional circumstances against the public’s interest in access to legal proceedings.  Id.  If a court grants permission for plaintiffs to proceed anonymously, “it is often with the requirement that the real names of the plaintiffs be disclosed to the defense and the court but kept under seal thereafter.”  W.N.J. v. Yocom, 257 F.3d 1171, 1172 (10th Cir. 2001). 
...
Sexual abuse of a minor is a matter of a “highly sensitive and personal nature” such that it may justify allowing plaintiffs alleging they were victims of such acts to proceed under pseudonyms.  See Doe v. U.S. Olympic Comm., No. 19-cv-00737, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113590, at *4 (D. Colo. July 9, 2019) (unpublished) (collecting cases).  Even where parties who were sexually abused as minors have reached the age of majority, courts have found it appropriate to preserve their anonymity.  E.g., Doe v. USD No. 237, No. 16-cv-2801-JWL-TJJ, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142435, at *30–32 (D. Kan. Sept. 1, 2017) (unpublished).  The same holds true for conservators and next friends whose identities could expose the victim’s identity (thereby exposing the victim to further harm).  M.T. v. Olathe Pub. Sch. USD 233, No. 17-2710JAR-GEB, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21515, at *6–7 (D. Kan. Feb. 9, 2018) (unpublished).   

The plaintiffs in the above case were the adult victims of child sexual abuse.  Proceeding pseudonymously is, I think, more common as compared to adults seeking to proceed in that way.  On that point, see this excellent 2022 article by Prof. Eugene Volokh: The Law of Pseudonymous Litigation

Some excerpts:

Quote

A strong presumption against party pseudonymity is generally well settled.

This presumption might be strengthened to the extent that, “because of the subject matter of this litigation, the status of the litigant as a public figure, or otherwise, there is a particularly strong interest in knowing the litigant’s identities, beyond the public’s interest which is normally obtained.”  But even ordinary litigation must generally be carried on in the parties’ names—as everyday practice indeed reflects—based on “the universal level of public interest in access to the identities of litigants.”
...
Pseudonymity can also create a “risk of unfairness to the opposing party,”128 even when—as I generally assume in this Article—the defendant knows the plaintiff’s identity. This is often articulated in general terms that would apply to most pseudonymity requests (except perhaps those in lawsuits against the government):

Quote

{F}undamental fairness suggests that defendants are prejudiced when required to defend themselves publicly before a jury while plaintiffs make accusations from behind a cloak of anonymity. C.D. actively has pursued this lawsuit— including by recruiting his co-plaintiff. He seeks over $40 million in damages. He makes serious charges and, as a result, has put his credibility in issue. Fairness requires that he be prepared to stand behind his charges publicly.

More specifically, in a case where the plaintiff accused the defendant of having distributed revenge porn of plaintiff: 

Quote

{Plaintiff} has denied {defendant} Smith the shelter of anonymity—yet it is Smith, and not the plaintiff, who faces disgrace if the complaint’s allegations can be substantiated. And if the complaint’s allegations are false, then anonymity provides a shield behind which defamatory charges may be launched without shame or liability.

...

Plaintiffs’ pseudonymity may also make it hard for defendants to defend themselves in public...
...
Allowing one side to be pseudonymous can change the settlement value of the case. Courts recognize this, and sometimes give it as a justification against pseudonymity...
...
Pseudonymity can also cause difficulties in the judicial process, especially as the case gets closer to trial. 

1.  Encouraging Party Honesty in Testimony or Affidavits 

A named witness, including a party witness, “may feel more inhibited than a pseudonymous witness from fabricating or embellishing an account.”

Quote

It is one thing to accuse someone of something anonymously; it is quite another to do so out in the open. Anonymity makes people feel less restrained in what they say. See, e.g., The Internet. Speaking behind a curtain can create a false sense of security, tempting whoever-they-are to say things that they wouldn’t say if everyone knew who was talking. People tend to be a little more careful about what they say and write when they have to put their name to it. (Judges are no exception.)

“‘Public access creates a critical audience and hence encourages truthful exposition of facts, an essential function of a trial.’”

And if the party witness is not telling the truth, “there is certainly a countervailing public interest in knowing the {witness’s} identity.”146 It’s hard to tell the extent of this tendency, but it probably exists in some measure. 

So the deck is stacked against filing suit anonymously, and a big reason for that is unfairness to the defendant (here, Ballard).  However, the above article lays out ways to rebut the presumption against pseudonymity:

Quote

A. REASONABLE FEAR OF PHYSICAL HARM OR OTHER EXTRAORDINARY RETALIATION
B. REASONABLE FEAR OF MENTAL, EMOTIONAL, OR  PSYCHOLOGICAL HARM
C. AVOIDING SELF-INCRIMINATION IN FACIAL CHALLENGES TO GOVERNMENT ACTION
D. PROTECTING MINORS (AND NEAR-MINORS?) .
E. PRIVACY AS TO “SENSITIVE AND HIGHLY PERSONAL” “STIGMATIZED” MATTERS
F. REPUTATIONAL HARM / RISK OF ECONOMIC RETALIATION

I think items A-D above will not be applicable to the suit against Ballard.  Items E and F, on the other hand, may apply:

Quote

E.  PRIVACY AS TO “SENSITIVE AND HIGHLY PERSONAL” “STIGMATIZED” MATTERS
-1.  Consensual Sex and Related Matters
--a.  Abortion
--b.  Stigmatized Sexual Minorities
--c.  Sexual Behavior
-2. Victimization
--a.  Sexual Assault Victimization
--b.  Sexual Assault Victimization: Pseudonymizing Alleged Victimizer to Protect Alleged Victim
--c.  Sexual Harassment Victimization
--d.  Non-Sexual Victimization
-3.  Illness
--a.  Communicable Disease
--b.  Mental Illness or Disorder
--c.  Nonmental, Noncommunicable Illness or Disability 
-4.  Beliefs
--a.  Religious Beliefs
--b.  Political Beliefs
-5. Crime and Addiction
--a.  Drug or Alcohol Abuse or Addiction
--b.  Criminal Record or Behavior

F.  REPUTATIONAL HARM / RISK OF ECONOMIC RETALIATION 
-1.  Risks of Reputational Harm
--a.  Defendants Accused (Perhaps Wrongly) of Serious Misconduct
--b.  Employees and Others Fearful of Getting Reputations  for Litigiousness
--c.  Plaintiffs Fearful of Public Hostility Stemming from  the Nature of Their Claim
--d.  Parties Fearful of Revealing Conditions that Might  Lead to Future Discrimination
--e.  Libel Plaintiffs Fearful of Amplifying the Allegedly  False Statements
--f.  Other Plaintiffs Fearful of Amplifying Allegedly False Allegations
-2.  Courts Generally Do Not Allow Pseudonymity Simply to  Protect Reputation and Professional Prospects
-3.  The Special Case of University Student Lawsuits

As you can see, there are a lot of factors in play here.

2 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Women who squeal are often maligned.  I believe most women remain silent. 

I appreciate that, but there are a lot of additional factors in play.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...