FAIR, McCue, and the Law

[_beastie]

Bob started a thread at postmormon, and has categorically denied the slanderous accusations made against him regarding his marriage.

Yes, I would say this is a sign he is really a burr in their side. I would also say this is a "new low", but it's obviously a low defenders of the faith have descended to already in the past.

You know what's funny. One of the lines of defense of apologists regarding Joseph Smith' past behavior is to point at the Bible and all the outrageous behavior God apparently doesn't mind in his spokesman. Even if Joseph Smith had sex with a fourteen year old, that doesn't mean he wasn't a real prophet, because God uses flawed men as his prophets, etc etc....

and yet it seems that apologists seem to believe that they can discredit the message of critics if they discredit the critic and accuse him/her of immoral behavior. So I guess critics are held to a higher standard than prophets of god. A prophet of god can be seriously flawed and yet his message still be true, but apparently, that's not the case with critics.

[_charity]

TD: And, Harmony is correct. Neighborhood women who got together on their own to discuss scriptures were told to stop meeting. No relief society involvement. No church involvement. No advertising or association with the church. Just a bunch of ladies trying to help and support each other.

Harmony, Ray, and I are responding to YOUR assertion that the church won't get involved in non LDS sponsored groups of women meeting together to study the scriptures. They most certainly did.

My assertion was that the Church wouldn't step in and clamp down on FAIR. That was the topic. Harmony merely threw in the neighboorhood group thing as an example. Then you jumped and switched tracks. I repeat the only assertion I made. The Church isn't going to jump in and tell FAIR what to do. You and Ray and Harmony can have that discussion. I will stay out of it. It isn't important to this issue.

We only have one side of the discussion BECAUSE FAIR REMOVED THE ARTICLE.

Let me recap for you. FAIR published an article. I thought it would make an interesting discussion. FAIR REMOVED THE ARTICLE. And critics are at fault for only wanting one side to come out? You have got to be kidding me.

AGAIN in case you missed it. FAIR published the WIKI article online.

Hope this helps.

Let me recap for you.

1. I don't need help from you on keeping the discussion straight. I wasn't the one sidetracking it.
2. FAIR published a wiki which took some fire so they have removed it for reworking.
3. You are complaining that they removed it.
4. I am quite sure if it had stayed up you would be complaining about that.
5. What # of double standards/double speaking is this on the part of critics? I have lost count.

[_Blixa]

It just reflects, beastie, the knee-jerk dismissal that the only reason anyone would ever leave Mormonism is over sin (which like "morality" is only associated with sex in Mormon culture). The need to morally condemn or vilify former-members-turned-critics has a long and venerable tradition within Mormonism. I think the goal is to creat fear: in members and non members alike.

Frankly, this is not a practice that has served Mormonism well---case in point, the Mormon experience in Missouri. The draconic policing and punishing of their own members was one of the things that alarmed other settlers in Missouri and contributed to the bad reputation of the Mormon arrivistes.

[_truth dancer]

Let me recap for you.

1. I don't need help from you on keeping the discussion straight. I wasn't the one sidetracking it.
2. FAIR published a wiki which took some fire so they have removed it for reworking.
3. You are complaining that they removed it.
4. I am quite sure if it had stayed up you would be complaining about that.
5. What # of double standards/double speaking is this on the part of critics? I have lost count.

Yes, you do need help to stay with the discussion.

I am not complaining that FAIR removed the article. I am VERY glad they did. I'm glad because I do not like slanderous lies about anyone. And I think it was a smart move on the part of FAIR.

AGAIN, I am GLAD the article was removed.

My point was... to suggest CRITICS only want one side of the story to be told is ridiculous since it was FAIR that removed the article, hence eliminating their side.

Hope that helps.

See, you sort of make stuff up... then get all nasty about something that no one said. It is weird.

Harmony, Ray and I were responding to another one of your false assertions that the church doesn't step in and tell folks what to do. The point being, the church has a record of stepping in when members get out of line.

The church could very easily tell FAIR to stop the slander and lies.

Regardless, I think FAIR did the church a service by letting go of this nonsense. We'll see what happens.

[_harmony]

Doesn't do what? Shut down neighborhood discussion groups? Oh, yes, it does. Or rather, it did back in the early 80's. I was in one that was summarily shut down by the High Council of our stake.

If something is done as a Church discussion group, with the Church's name on it, then yes. If some "enrichment" group was causing problems, then they could be shut down today. Of course, that would not stop any woman from starting her own whatever group, just not associating it with Relief Society, announcing it in the Relief Society Chatter, or putting it in the ward bulletin. FAIR does not belong to the Church. You keep forgetting that.

What? FAIR doesn't belong to the church? You mean the FAIR folks are not Mormon? Charity, I think you need to check your hole card. It's a deuce.

We had a discussion group here that was unceremoniously disbanded once the SP got wind of it. We were "unauthorized", not "called", not "set apart", and the church was afraid we were going to go off the deep end, I guess. We thought it was pretty pathetic. We were just a bunch of neighbors who got together once a month for punch and cookies and some gospel discussion, but oh no! We had to stop that, lest someone in that group actually have an original thought!

And only an idiot would name the Church in any suit against FAIR. I take that back. Only the greedy would. And just like what happened when the Tanners sued the Church and FAIR for that domain thing, the Church was released immediately from the suit. And I would hate to see the Church have to spend a penny agaisnt an apostate who, as a lawyer, will know that the Church has no responsbility in anything he sues for. The only reason a lawyer brings a frivolous suit is in the hopes of getting an out of court settlement. Which didn't the Tanners a whole lot of good since neither the Church nor FAIR would roll over and play dead.

Well, since I agree that I don't want the church to pay out my hard-earned tithing money on a lawsuit, personally I hope McCue only sues FAIR. That would make my day. :-)

And incidently, I think you're wrong about that. Seems to me like Daniel made mention of something similiar, but I may be misattributing that comment. I'm sure Scratch could look it up in his extensive collection of Daniel quotes, if he was so inclined.

Wrong about what?

Wrong about the church telling FAIR to shut the hell up. Politely, of course. I think that's why the disclaimer is there, because the church made them put it there.

Nope. Not my area of expertise.

Nice sidestep. YOu don't need to be a lawyer. Ever watch "Law and Order?" or Court TV?

[/quote]

I'm not a lawyer, but we have several posters here who are. If you want an answer to your question, I suggest you ask someone who knows... in this case that would not be me. Interesting how you take me to task because I won't play your game. Not nice, charity.

edited to fix quote

[_Nightingale]

charity:
"So if personal and family issues are used in the attack kon the Church, then anyone who wishes to question the attack may respond to personal and family issues."

On its surface I would tend to agree with this. However, the discussion would have to be restricted to the facts of what had been stated by the ex-member and not any interpretation that is not based in reality and is untrue.

charity:
"Truth is always a defense against the charge of slander and libel."

Yes. But if what was stated in the FAIR Wiki article was not true, then ...?? One example of this is that the author/s referred to Bob's "unfaithfulness" to his wife. (The way I read this section, it seems that perhaps the author/s misunderstood some of Bob's statements or else made a big assumption and misinterpreted what was said. This is just my impression of what was going on with this point. However, it is also possible that the writer/s meant to indicate that Bob has engaged in adultery, which is the only meaning of the term "unfaithful" when referring to a marital relationship).

charity:
"And only an idiot would name the Church in any suit against FAIR. I take that back. Only the greedy would. And just like what happened when the Tanners sued the Church and FAIR for that domain thing, the Church was released immediately from the suit. And I would hate to see the Church have to spend a penny agaisnt an apostate who, as a lawyer, will know that the Church has no responsbility in anything he sues for. The only reason a lawyer brings a frivolous suit is in the hopes of getting an out of court settlement. Which didn't the Tanners a whole lot of good since neither the Church nor FAIR would roll over and play dead."

Well, it seems that, in this case at least, Bob is neither an idiot nor greedy. In his response, which was briefly posted at RfM today, he did not mention naming the Church in a lawsuit. He mentioned only FAIR. As he did not say he was going to bring a suit but only that it is a possibility, I highly doubt that $$$ is a big motivation for him.


skippy the dead:
"...it doesn't matter if McCue uses his family stories; FAIR has no right as a result to make claims about him being an abuser or the like."

Exactly.

The most potentially harmful sections of the article would seem to me to be the allegation of being unfaithful to his wife, the mention of "FAIR physicians" who have analyzed Bob's posts and found them to show evidence of "emotional abuse" (towards his wife/family) and the intertwining of some of Bob's (out-of-context) comments with a Health Canada report on domestic abuse, claiming that Bob's posts show him to be unfaithful and emotionally abusive towards his wife.

The article further postulates that it is possible that Bob's wife "...has suffered in ways we don't appreciate [know]".

I, frankly, was shocked to see such a diatribe at FAIR and am not surprised that the article has been removed ("for reworking" apparently).

I think it is unfortunate that they would single Bob out for such gross misrepresentation. However, their action of removing the article within hours of the link being published on RfM seems prudent, if only to limit their own liability and not out of respect for Bob or at least his family. At that point, what else can they be expected to do, other than apologize, which would be nice to see, even if it's only for their own protection.

Bob has stated that he has never been unfaithful to his wife and FAIR would have to prove that he is not truthful about that and also they would have to prove that Bob is "emotionally abusive" or else they cannot escape from the libelous statements that were distributed in one of their articles.

It is very unfortunate that they apparently could not find a different way to refute Bob's articles about Mormonism. It is also too bad that many people who leave the church appear to have to suffer the same fate, of their character and actions being smeared. It is quite incomprehensible to me. When I wanted to leave one MB congregation for another (smaller and closer to home) nobody in leadership or membership even raised an eyebrow. When I left MB to try out the Anglican (Episcopalian) church, again, it didn't cause a stir. Whichever church or congregation you choose in the non-LDS world is fine and not a problem. You are still considered to be part of the "body" of "the church". Leaving Mormonism, however, doesn't always go that smoothly.

[_harmony]

I, frankly, was shocked to see such a diatribe at FAIR and am not surprised that the article has been removed ("for reworking" apparently).

Clearly you need to read more of FAIR's "rebuttals" to the critics. They are known for their diatribes.

I think it is unfortunate that they would single Bob out for such gross misrepresentation. However, their action of removing the article within hours of the link being published on RfM seems prudent, if only to limit their own liability and not out of respect for Bob or at least his family. At that point, what else can they be expected to do, other than apologize, which would be nice to see, even if it's only for their own protection.

FAIR? Apologize for what? Being wrong? Being jerks? Being unmitigated scoundrels? If such a thing ever shows up on the net, we'll see it enshrined here, pinned to the top of the message board.

Bob has stated that he has never been unfaithful to his wife and FAIR would have to prove that he is not truthful about that and also they would have to prove that Bob is "emotionally abusive" or else they cannot escape from the libelous statements that were distributed in one of their articles.

Normal FAIR tactics.

It is very unfortunate that they apparently could not find a different way to refute Bob's articles about Mormonism. It is also too bad that many people who leave the church appear to have to suffer the same fate, of their character and actions being smeared. It is quite incomprehensible to me. When I wanted to leave one MB congregation for another (smaller and closer to home) nobody in leadership or membership even raised an eyebrow. When I left MB to try out the Anglican (Episcopalian) church, again, it didn't cause a stir. Whichever church or congregation you choose in the non-LDS world is fine and not a problem. You are still considered to be part of the "body" of "the church". Leaving Mormonism, however, doesn't always go that smoothly.

Mormonism is like the Hotel California. You can check in, but you can never leave.

[_Nightingale]

I, frankly, was shocked to see such a diatribe at FAIR and am not surprised that the article has been removed ("for reworking" apparently).

Clearly you need to read more of FAIR's "rebuttals" to the critics. They are known for their diatribes.

Haha. You are correct. I haven't read much there. I guess "shocked" in a general way. I'm accustomed to debaters on opposite sides sticking to the issues. I do keep expecting that, sometimes in vain.


[quote NG]I think it is unfortunate that they would single Bob out for such gross misrepresentation. However, their action of removing the article within hours of the link being published on RfM seems prudent, if only to limit their own liability and not out of respect for Bob or at least his family. At that point, what else can they be expected to do, other than apologize, which would be nice to see, even if it's only for their own protection.

[quote harmony]FAIR? Apologize for what? Being wrong? Being jerks? Being unmitigated scoundrels? If such a thing ever shows up on the net, we'll see it enshrined here, pinned to the top of the message board.

What I meant was that in law, as far as I understand it, they could mitigate their fault by publishing an apology as widely as their article was published. This is a good way to lessen their culpability for the offence of committing libel. If they did make untruthful personal statements that could harm Bob's reputation then they are, indeed, guilty of libel. They must seek to make amends as quickly as possible as a show that they recognize their error. A published apology is a good way to do that.

Believing that an apology would actually be unselfish and heartfelt - that is another thing.

(Sorry for messing up the quotes. It seems beyond my area of expertise to get things in the right little boxes and places).

[_harmony]

I, frankly, was shocked to see such a diatribe at FAIR and am not surprised that the article has been removed ("for reworking" apparently).

Clearly you need to read more of FAIR's "rebuttals" to the critics. They are known for their diatribes.

Haha. You are correct. I haven't read much there. I guess "shocked" in a general way. I'm accustomed to debaters on opposite sides sticking to the issues. I do keep expecting that, sometimes in vain.

Where FAIR and a number of LDS apologists are concerned, you will continue to expect that, in vain. When it's difficult or impossible to attack the issue (because the critic is right), they usually revert to personal attacks. Hence, FAIR's reputation for being unfair and unable to address the issue.

FAIR? Apologize for what? Being wrong? Being jerks? Being unmitigated scoundrels? If such a thing ever shows up on the net, we'll see it enshrined here, pinned to the top of the message board.

What I meant was that in law, as far as I understand it, they could mitigate their fault by publishing an apology as widely as their article was published. This is a good way to lessen their culpability for the offence of committing libel. If they did make untruthful personal statements that could harm Bob's reputation then they are, indeed, guilty of libel. They must seek to make amends as quickly as possible as a show that they recognize their error. A published apology is a good way to do that.

This will not happen. To apologize would be to admit they were wrong. Admitting they are wrong is something our FAIR apologists are unable to do. I'm trying to remember when this last happened, and I'm pulling a blank. Rarely they admit someone else is right (thinking some of Bokovoy's stuff here), but admit they are wrong? Never. I'm willing to be corrected about this, because I'd really like to see it, but I'm not holding my breath.

Believing that an apology would actually be unselfish and heartfelt - that is another thing.

That would be totally out of character, and would imply a humility that is simply not present in that group. Again, it would so refreshing to see it, but I really doubt it will happen.

(Sorry for messing up the quotes. It seems beyond my area of expertise to get things in the right little boxes and places).

It's okay. Nothing that can't be fixed.

[_Nightingale]

harmony:
"To apologize would be to admit they were wrong. Admitting they are wrong is something our FAIR apologists are unable to do."

I think that to mitigate potential damages the one who commits libel HAS to apologize, as publicly as the offending article was public. Meaning the apology at a personal level is something else.

It would seem that FAIR acknowledges there was something wrong or they would not have so apparently hastily pulled the entire article. To limit any damages that a person could potentially claim in an instance like this, the offender must publish a retraction/apology.

So, if they consult their legal counsel and are given this good advice, you will yet see such a phenomenon, I would think. If they act quickly to limit the distribution of the libelous comments, which it appears they did, and if they admit they can't prove their statements, which it seems they have as they have taken them down, and if they furthermore apologize for the publication, which they may well need to do, then they have acted quickly to limit the potential damage to Bob's reputation and that would serve them well in any court action.

I am a bit slow to recognize the dynamics of the mopologist world but I do not expect a heartfelt apology in that they are sorry for any pain they may have caused Bob and his family and friends. However, an apology as a necessary action to avoid potential legal trouble - that I have full expectation of seeing, at least.