DiscussMormonism.com

Anyone catch the latest goings on?

FAIR WIKI pages had a very slanderous article on Bob McCue. (I briefly skimmed it but read enough to know it stated/implied things that were not true, and FAIR would most likely be brought to court).

Seems FAIR removed the article, probably don't want to go to court.

http://www.exmormon.org/boards/w-agora/ ... b_recovery (Original thread at RFM)

http://www.exmormon.org/boards/w-agora/ ... b_recovery (Bob's response)


Bob:

However, I can tell you why the article was probably taken down -- it is libellous. FAIR has exposed itself to a lawsuit by allowing that article to be published. Since we know that the FAIR folks are virtually certain to read this, I will save them some legal fees by outlining how slander and libel law works.

It brings up a couple of issues.

While the official church may not want to get into the nastiness, seems some apologists are willing to defame, lie, distort, and otherwise slander those who speak out against the church.

Does this leave the door open for angry non-believers to use the same tactics? I'm not one for this sort of thing and do NOT support the eye for an eye idea, but it seems likely that if FAIR starts using these sorts of tactics they open the door for some pretty nasty things to come forth about their individual/personal lives as well. It seems likely that the church will be open to even more criticism as this tactic gets out, as law suits get in the press. Do they want to go down this road?

Hmmm... What do you think?

~dancer~

I had read this, TD, and of course noted the irony that one of the first points made is that this is not an "ad hominem attack." Oh no. It's nothing like that!

I think its a classic example of what the job of "official" and "nonofficial" Mormon apologists seems to be: it's all about swaying opinion and creating doubt about the "other side," not the production of useful information and the enlargement of human knowledge. The goal is obsfucation not enlightenment, a morally petty attempt to bully critics into shutting up or facing malicious and nasty personal attacks.

(by the way, TD, your links just go to RfM's first page, not the actual threads)

edited: looks like the RfM threads are gone and the FAIR wiki page is no longer available to non participants.

I hope that a "participant" can go and get a copy of the article and print it here or email it to interested parties. I managed to get the "view source" copy but the format is messy.

I have read a lot of Bob McCue posts. I don't claim to have a perfect memory but cannot recall a time when he said (or meant) some of the comments attributed to him. As for the other FAIR analysis of his posts, a lot of it seems very biased and close-minded. (For instance, of course Bob did not set out to literally "terrify" his wife to get her out of Mormonism, as the author/s claim). My strongest recollection of Bob's marriage situation is that he said his wife had asked him not to discuss it publicly and he had honoured that request.

It is interesting to dissect the article and see the "Mormon mindset" at work but very time-consuming. I can see how with some of the preconceptions under which they labour they cannot even see that Mormon teachings can be equally criticized with the same criticisms they level at Bob.

I note that Bob, a lawyer, has confirmed that the article is libelous.

This could get very interesting.

I am sorry, though, that Bob and his wife and family have to put up with personal criticism about family things, splashed across the Net. He has a thicker hide than I.

truth dancer wrote:Anyone catch the latest goings on?

FAIR WIKI pages had a very slanderous article on Bob McCue. (I briefly skimmed it but read enough to know it stated/implied things that were not true, and FAIR would most likely be brought to court).

Seems FAIR removed the article, probably don't want to go to court.

http://www.exmormon.org/boards/w-agora/ ... b_recovery (Original thread at RFM)

http://www.exmormon.org/boards/w-agora/ ... b_recovery (Bob's response)


Bob:

However, I can tell you why the article was probably taken down -- it is libellous. FAIR has exposed itself to a lawsuit by allowing that article to be published. Since we know that the FAIR folks are virtually certain to read this, I will save them some legal fees by outlining how slander and libel law works.

It brings up a couple of issues.

While the official church may not want to get into the nastiness, seems some apologists are willing to defame, lie, distort, and otherwise slander those who speak out against the church.

Does this leave the door open for angry non-believers to use the same tactics? I'm not one for this sort of thing and do NOT support the eye for an eye idea, but it seems likely that if FAIR starts using these sorts of tactics they open the door for some pretty nasty things to come forth about their individual/personal lives as well. It seems likely that the church will be open to even more criticism as this tactic gets out, as law suits get in the press. Do they want to go down this road?

Hmmm... What do you think?

~dancer~

TD, how long ago was this and does anybody have a link to the original article? Was it removed from RFM, too?

RFM notoriously deletes things that may potentially tread legal waters. But Bob kindly reposted his response on NOM so you can at least see his response. The Wiki article is gone.

Bob's response:

My friends at the ironically named "FAIR" apparently think that I am worthy of the effort someone has made to keep track of my posts, perform research related to them, and put the result up for public consumption. This means that I am a much greater thorn in their sides that I thought was the case, and for that reason I am honored. See http://www.exmormon.org/boards/w-agora/ ... 1201432996 or http://www.exmormon.org/boards/w-agora/ ... replies=19 for reference.

My response to much of the FAIR article was much like my response to the sometimes angry Mormon charge that I am an apostate. I smile, and say “Yes, and I am proud of that.” The idea, for example, that powerful emotional forces like those exerted by Mormonism are best countered by other powerful emotional forces is well established in the literature related to cult deprogramming, as well as elsewhere. As I have often said, intellectual rowboats do not fare well against emotional battleships. The quotes also attributed to me an understanding of the difficult nature of the choices faced by those who may fight emotion with emotion, or abandon loved ones to the tender mercies of the Mormon institution. They also indicate that I was concerned not to engage in emotional abuse in that regard.

However, I can tell you why the article was probably taken down -- it is libellous. FAIR has exposed itself to a lawsuit by allowing that article to be published. Since we know that the FAIR folks are virtually certain to read this, I will save them some legal fees by outlining how slander and libel law works.

A libellous statement is one which tends to lower a person, "in the estimation of right-thinking members of society." The FAIR article certainly passes that test. There are a variety of defenses to a libel action. The one on which FAIR is likely to rely is "truth". That is, if the statements made are accurate, then the person in question deserves to have his reputation tarnished and the statements are therefore not libellous. Internet defamation cases illustrate how quickly damage can be done. The fact that the article was taken down with relative speed has not prevented it from wide circulation due to the way the electronic world now works. The quicker a full retraction and apology is published so as to reach the same audience as the libellous statement, the greater the mitigating effect on damages.

I do not keep all of my RFM and other posts, and so cannot quickly verify the accuracy of the quotes contained in the FAIR article. Most of them sound familiar. A few do not. In particular, the quote in which I purport to indicate that I was unfaithful to my wife was either taken so radically out of context that I don't recognize it, or is not something I wrote. The allegation that I acknowledged infidelity is false. I did not say I have been unfaithful, nor have I been. This alone is solid grounds for a defamation action.

However, the accuracy of the quotes is not so much the point as the manner in which they have been taken out of context and then linked with literature related to spousal abuse. The damages are worsened by the various references to FAIR’s “physician consultants”, which give the impression that medical experts have pronounced me an abuser after having done the research necessary to do so.

FAIR is engaged in cultural warfare. That is its reason for existence. There is nothing new in this. It is the Mormon apologists’ way, and has been the way of countless other defenders of different religious and social faiths. FAIR’s desire to harm the reputations of people who disagree with Mormonism is hence predictable. The disclaimer of ad hominem at the article’s beginning is laughable.

FAIR is an extension of Mormon congregations within which the knee jerk reaction to apostasy is often gossip about alleged infidelity, pornography addiction, etc., as occurred in my case. All who gossip are constrained by the law, including libel law. Most of us tend to laugh off naïve, misinformed Mormon neighbors in this regard. Organizations like FAIR that use the Internet are another matter, and are held to a higher legal standard when their morals fail.

The idea of teaching FAIR a lesson, and costing them a considerable amount of money, appeals to me. What I need to think about is whether I want to spend the time and emotional energy necessary to do that. Money is not an adequate motivator for me.

I don't have time to think about this issue now, but after things calm down at work and a couple of other commitments have been taken care of, I will come back to it.

best,
bob

http://forum.newordermormon.org/viewtop ... 0&start=15



_________________

I hope Bob finds it in his heart to sue them. This minority group of apologist mean-streaked yokels need to learn they can't do this stuff.

truth dancer wrote:
It brings up a couple of issues.

While the official church may not want to get into the nastiness, seems some apologists are willing to defame, lie, distort, and otherwise slander those who speak out against the church.

Since we can't see the original article, we can just take the word of a very partisan crowd that any libelous, etc. happened? Color me skeptical. Truth is always a defense against libel, slander, etc.

truth dancer wrote:Does this leave the door open for angry non-believers to use the same tactics?

You don't think this hasn't been the strategy of angry non-believers from the beginning? Where have you been?

truth dancer wrote: I'm not one for this sort of thing and do NOT support the eye for an eye idea, but it seems likely that if FAIR starts using these sorts of tactics they open the door for some pretty nasty things to come forth about their individual/personal lives as well. It seems likely that the church will be open to even more criticism as this tactic gets out, as law suits get in the press. Do they want to go down this road?

This is really funny. After all the personal attacks on the big name apologists, you say "open the door?" Siince I didn't see the article, I can't comment on what it said. But if you think there was something slanderous there, and that only now could there be attacks aimed at the LDS apologists, you have been asleep at the switch.

truth dancer wrote:Hmmm... What do you think?

~dancer~

I think it's a crock.

charity wrote:I think it's a crock.

I'm thinking if someone published an article stating that you had committed adultery, Charity, you would think it less of a crock.

Trinity wrote:

charity wrote:I think it's a crock.

I'm thinking if someone published an article stating that you had committed adultery, Charity, you would think it less of a crock.

I told you I was not commenting on the artilce, but on the statements I referenced in TD's original post, about an eye for an eye. The whole, "Gee whiz, now are we going to START attacking apologists" question is the crock here. And that is what I said, if you read my post.

Charity, I think there may be a difference in an individual defaming someone and an organization defaming someone.

There have been individual defamations going on forever. But an organization doing it is a different story.