FAIR, McCue, and the Law

[_Nightingale]

1. McCue can't spell libelous, can he?

Actually, he can, which you might expect of a lawyer.

From The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language:

li·bel·ous also li·bel·lous

adj.: Involving or constituting a libel; defamatory.

I was going to say that as he is Canadian it looks like Bob is using Canadian spelling but it appears that even in America, one is free to spell it with either one 'l' or two. Up here in Canada, where we still go with British spelling, consonants are usually doubled when a word becomes an adjective (i.e., travelling, snorkelling, snivelling).

2. Harmony ins't a member of the church at all, so quit swallowing her posts hook line and sinker. She is a troll, a good one, pretending to be "on the edge."

How could anyone possibly tell for sure, unless they know her in real life and even then, is it their business? Perhaps this goes to illustrate, again, how difficult it is for a person to stay within Mormonism if they have questions or opinions and don't just toe the line, contrary to what apologists say about how "free" every member is.

3. An apology or retraction doesn't remove the sting of libel; McCue can still sue.

Yes, but it does serve to mitigate the offence to a considerable degree. As to whether it is a meaningful, heartfelt apology in a positive way, that part would be hard to tell and isn't the point in the legal arena anyway. More, as I understand it, an apology by the offending party (in this case, FAIR) is meant to acknowledge that an error was made, the fault is theirs, etc. It seems to me that as the article in question was removed seemingly quite soon after FAIR people were made aware there was a problem with it, they have taken a step towards reclaiming the situation. Of course, it remains to be seen if they are "reworking" the article or will decide to just leave it alone altogether.

4. U.S. libel laws are much more difficult for the plaintiff in the U.S. than in Canada. FAIR will probably be able to say that he is a public figure and, hence, certain First Amendment protections apply.

It would be interesting to see, in this new world of the Internet (faster, wider distribution of information and potentially, libel), how the judgment would go and what the reasoning would be.

[_rcrocket]

It's not a matter of "can't", Crock. It's a matter of "won't". I much prefer to see you twist in the wind as you flail about, trying desperately to find something concrete, something usable to call my SP with.

That is not something I would ever do, even though folks on this board's predecessor have stated that they will and have contacted MY stake president and managing partner. I take satisfaction in knowning that right-thinking people see you for who you are -- an anonymous poster who claims insider status to attack the institution. As does Rollo.

3. An apology or retraction doesn't remove the sting of libel; McCue can still sue.

Even if it would, they won't. Humility is in short supply at FAIR. One must feel remorse, seek to make recompense, and repent in order to apologize. FAIR has none of that either.

I care nothing about that point. I just cite the law to you.

[

quote]4. U.S. libel laws are much more difficult for the plaintiff in the U.S. than in Canada. FAIR will probably be able to say that he is a public figure and, hence, certain First Amendment protections apply.

He's a public figure? How?

I'm not saying I agree that he is a public figure. I'm saying that FAIR will likely be able to put on a successful defense that he is a public figure. There's lots of law on that point, but basically a newsorthy person -- especially one who volunteers to be newsworthy, giving interviews, appearing in the media, seeking out publicity -- is likely to be a public figure. In such a case, a libelor has to also be guilty of a particular form of malice in order to be found responsible. I could count on 50 fingers the times somebody's been successful in the entire U.S.

5. FAIR is not the Church.

Finally, we agree on something! FAIR is definitely NOT the church. Which is why the church requires that disclaimer on FAIR's website. They want no confusion when FAIR does stupid things...like write unsubstantiated bullshaloney in a WIKI.

I suppose, but I just don't think you are a worthy critic. For gosh sakes, you had never heard of David Whitmer's "An Address to All Believers in Christ" and thought it was a speech or something.

[_charity]

I'm also suprised that McCue was on The List of Big Time Anti-Mormons they are working out articles on (ok the list wasn't called that specifically).

Is FAIR working on articles about other "Big Time Anti-Mormons"?

As I mentioned in the OP, I think this tactic may open a door that FAIR may not really want to go through.

I could see this fight getting REALLY nasty....

~dancer~

Coule get really nasty? You mean if FAIR starts fighting back in kind? If they take the boxing gloves off and start give back as good as they get?

I'm in favor of the truth. But in many ways, FAIR and other apologetic groups have been trying to turn the other cheek and be nice. Maybe it is time for the gloves to oome off.

[_truth dancer]

Coule get really nasty? You mean if FAIR starts fighting back in kind? If they take the boxing gloves off and start give back as good as they get?

For the third time, please link to those WIKI articles written by critics claiming apologists have committed adultery.

~dancer~

[_skippy the dead]

Apparently folks at MAD have no problem with the original article. Cksalmon started a thread over there (http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... opic=32291) to discuss whether "someone's personal life should be apologetic fodder on either side of the divide."

So far people have opined that it's his fault that the article was written ("if it comes back to bite him later on who's fault is that?"), that he's "the closest thing to the plague", "a horrible man" and that his wife should have left him.

I guess the FAIR Wiki was just writing to its intended audience.

[_rcrocket]

I understand. Feeling that one’s statements and behavior has been taken out of context and twisted on internet boards is not unusual, although this particular topic was unusual for obvious reasons. But I understand your feelings, I do. Now imagine that someone had posted these old posts of yours from a board without any archived material. This would mean that someone had targeted you years ago and started carefully watching for, copying, and filing your posts for just such a future use. Maybe it’s just me, but I think this escalates the creepy factor geometrically.

I don't think you are qualified to call somebody else a creep. It seems to me that someone who engages in board stalking, and vulgar references to another posters' little children and wife -- in a context totally unrelated to the topic of discussion -- is a creep. Why, really, are you here? You've descended so far into the bowels of the netherworld that your productivity and credibility is in shards. Who are you to criticize these folks?


I musta got you really mad over those horse proofs -- particularly C.Ray, which you dismissed without reading.

rcrocket

[_charity]

On the contrary, charity, I am fringe, still clinging to the edge, doing my best to live the gospel of Jesus Christ with the tools I've been given, helping my neighbor and the stranger, being kind to others, forgiving those who have maligned me, loving and caring for my family, fulfilling my callings, sustaining my leaders. You and Coggins are the ones who will be called to repent, for Christ had little use for people who chastize others without first perfecting themselves. when you cast that stone, charity, you're the one who will have to answer for it, not me.

Remember, charity... the first law of the gospel: love God, and the second is like unto it: love thy neighbor as thyself. You, and all others who take upon themselves the name of Christ, are commanded to cast your bread upon the waters (which is what we do here), do good to those that despise you, turn the other cheek, and treat others as you would treated... if you have done it unto the least of these (that would be me. I am definitely the least), you have done it unto Christ himself. Treat me, and people like me, and everyone whoever comes into contact with you as if we were Christ himself, and you will have succeeded in living a Christ-like life. Do anything less, and you will have failed. No matter how much tithing you pay, no matter how many sessons you take in the temple, no matter how many times you raise your hand to sustain our leaders, if you treat anyone anyone differently than you would treat Christ, you have failed. Procrastinate not the day of your repentence. I care about you, I wouldn't want to lose you, but only you can repent. No one can do it for you.

Thanks for the sermon. We all need to be reminded that we need to repent. It is a constant process.

By their fruits we shall know them. You constantly criticize your leaders, you do not believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet, you don't attend sacrament meeting except to partake of the sacrament. . . . This is a person who has fallen off the edge. If you want to get back in the Church you need to do t hose things which will bring you back. You keep telling us that you aren't. Unless you portray yourself differently here than you really are. You might just all be pulling our legs on this one.

[_harmony]

Thanks for the sermon. We all need to be reminded that we need to repent. It is a constant process.

Agreed.

By their fruits we shall know them.

Yup, and I've got 27 fruits by which I can be evaluated. I won some, I lost some, and some were a draw. All of them are gainfully employed, all of them have a college education, all of them are active in the church, all of them are good citizens. I must have done something right.

You constantly criticize your leaders,

Only when they deserve it. When they get it right, I pat them on the back.

...you do not believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet,

Whoa, back, charity. Joseph Smith was a prophet, right up until he took Fanny to his bed. I've said this repeatedly, so I don't know where you get off telling lies about me. That he was a liar and a cheat after bedding Fanny is not my fault. He's the one who lost the mantle; no one took it from him.

...you don't attend sacrament meeting except to partake of the sacrament. . . .

What other reason is there to attend SM? Taking the sacrament is the only reason to go. So now I'm being criticized for taking the sacrament? Holy Moses, charity. You need to repent of that one.

This is a person who has fallen off the edge.

You are in no position to judge, charity. I am outside your stewardship. I've been on the fringe for years. I'm sure you'd rather I stopped going to church entirely, but I don't live my life to please the church's apologists. I live my life to please God and myself. And I finally figured out how to do both.

If you want to get back in the Church you need to do t hose things which will bring you back.

I don't need to "get back in the church". I never left. I realize that's a sticky point for some apologists, but nonetheless, it is true.

You keep telling us that you aren't. Unless you portray yourself differently here than you really are. You might just all be pulling our legs on this one.

You lost me. I have no idea what these sentences mean.

[_beastie]

C. Ray reference, totally debunked here:

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... c&start=42

[_beastie]

by the way, Greg Smith is listed as the "wiki manager" here:

http://www.fairlds.org/contact.php

Questions (for the FAIR apologists)
President (Scott Gordon)
Secretary (Renee Olson)
Journal Editor (Paul McNabb)
Meridian Article Editor (Carolyn Wright)
Topical Guide Manager (Mike Ash)
Wiki Manager (Greg Smith)
Bookstore Manager
Webmaster (Allen Wyatt)

In bob's latest post on this subject at postmormon, he indicated he is going to pursue a lawsuit. He's said nothing about involving the Mormon church per se, but rather has specifically cited FAIR.

http://www.postmormon.org/exp_e/index.p ... read/5457/