Remove the Facebook posts

[_Eric]

Did I miss the part where Dan logged into Facebook under duress? Someone forced him to create a Facebook page and bless the Internet with his public postings and self-promotion?

The idea that you can somehow censor the Internet when you publish things, so that only people you really like can see, is absolutely idiotic. Don't watch penis videos on a SOCIAL NETWORKING web site if you want to keep it a secret.
And didn't the Dehlin hit-piece cite his Facebook wall? So who does this new rule apply to? The 40 regular posters on this message board? This is so dumb.

[_Dr. Shades]

But this is a board about discussing a religion, and that religion is, well, Mormonism. Part of that discussion necessarily involves certain people - of whom DCP is the chief - who have well-known and deliberately cultivated public personas, and effectively, work for church institutions. Their behavior, and its alignment (or lack of it) with the standards they proclaim is an essential part of the discussion that takes place here[.]

Trust me, I understand where you're coming from. I really do. That's the reason I simply deleted the images and didn't hide or otherwise delete the discussions about the incident. Without the images it simply becomes Internet hearsay for Google search purposes, yet the discussion of standards vs. behavior may continue if necessary.

They could be fired for a whole variety of reasons, some of which might include sheer professional incompetence, and some of which may include arbitrary acts of moral panic or oppression on the church's part. If any criticism that might put possibly put their continued employment in jeopardy is forbidden, where does it end? May we no longer point out Gee's dubious scholarship and (shall we say) dexterity with ink colors, for instance?

Gee put his dubious scholarship out there for all the world to see. Therefore, it's FAIR game. DCP's misclick, on the other hand, is an embarrassing gaffe that might have repercussions far, far beyond what it merits. . . and was never meant for public consumption in the first place.

I don't think a rule of this kind can be enforced predictably enough, given the nature of the employer, and given the central importance to this board of discussion of hypocritical behavior in and by church-dominated institutions.

How's this for a litmus test: If it was published or posted by the person him- or herself, in print or on the Internet (and it's not personal information such as a real first or last name), then it's FAIR game here. If it's something private, like a Facebook status update, then it shouldn't be posted if there's a chance, however slight, that it could get someone in trouble with his or her employer, spouse, or ecclesiastical authorities.

Sound good?

God, the douche bag even has his own separate Facebook page so people can "Like" him.

In FAIRness, I think someone else created that page, not him.

I have to respect you Shades because it is your board and your rules. But DCP in this regard, this image, and most of his images which are posted all over the Internet just make DCP a public - targetable figure. Something that he loves.

You know what? I truly understand where you're coming from. What you're saying makes sense. Even so, I'm simply not comfortable with the idea of potentially or partially being responsible for someone losing his employment, reputation, or standing within an organization that is important to him or her.

Hence the reason why I think the morally correct option is to delete only the proof-positive image of bootygate (so that there will be less of a chance of it showing up on a Google image search) but nevertheless leave conversations about bootygate untampered with so as to preserve free speech for the reasons that Chap and you outlined.

And didn't the Dehlin hit-piece cite his Facebook wall?

Hmm, now there's a curveball. None of us have seen the actual hit piece, so can we be absolutely sure it quoted Dehlin's Facebook wall?

So who does this new rule apply to? The 40 regular posters on this message board? This is so dumb.

It applies to everyone. If Facebook had automatically made a status update regarding you about something that you didn't necessarily want public, and then someone did a screen capture and posted it here, I would delete it, too.

[_Yong Xi]

Certainly Dan is aware of this thread. If he wants anything removed, I am sure Shades would do it on his request. Let Dan decide.

How would everyone feel had this been Schryver?

[_LDSToronto]

Are you guys kidding me? Dan *has* leaked his in real life information all over the place on this site. Why does he get special treatment? No rule was broken.

Good god, liz - I mean, I know you have a crush on Dan and all, but seriously, do your girl bits have to do all the thinking?

Jesus...

H.

That's pretty rude, LDST.

Not half as rude as what deserves to be said.

H.

[_LDSToronto]

Are you guys kidding me? Dan *has* leaked his in real life information all over the place on this site.

Right, but not that particular bit of information.

Why does he get special treatment? No rule was broken.

Believe it or not, it's not special treatment. I would extend to you the same treatment if it ever became necessary. And I wouldn't hesitate for a moment to do so, either.

BS. *I* haven't posted my in real life information on this site. *I* am a registered member of this site. Two stark differences between myself and Porno Peterson.

H.

[_Doctor Scratch]

And didn't the Dehlin hit-piece cite his Facebook wall? So who does this new rule apply to? The 40 regular posters on this message board? This is so dumb.

You are probably thinking of the FAIR Wiki entry on Dehlin. But Greg Smith is a major player on the FAIR Wiki team, so I think we can be fairly certain that he would have used that material.

[_sock puppet]

DCP's misclick, on the other hand, is an embarrassing gaffe that might have repercussions far, far beyond what it merits. . .

Reason #1277 why I am no longer a Mormon, the LDS Church overacts to even the slightest of indulgences. Scratch that. ...to even the slightest normal behavior.

[_Shulem]

stark differences between myself and Porno Peterson.

H.

OMG! For the love of the holy ghost, I've never thought about Dan looking at porn. I wonder how much porn he has clicked on in the past, say, 5 years? Surely with all the time he spends on the Internet his eyes have seen some nasty things.

I'll bet Dan wouldn't be able to say he has not intentionally taken a peek.

Paul O

[_Kishkumen]

Not half as rude as what deserves to be said.

H.

So, despite what you have been told by both Shades and Liz about what they did and why, you prefer to insult Liz because you are peeved over the removal of this material?

I really don't get it. Shades made the call. His reasons are fairly good: he doesn't want to risk contributing to the serious harm that could be visited on someone's cherished association or employment by the gratuitous proliferation of an embarrassing error.

[_LDSToronto]

Not half as rude as what deserves to be said.

H.

So, despite what you have been told by both Shades and Liz about what they did and why, you prefer to insult Liz because you are peeved over the removal of this material?

I really don't get it. Shades made the call. His reasons are fairly good: he doesn't want to risk contributing to the serious harm that could be visited on someone's cherished association or employment by the gratuitous proliferation of an embarrassing error.

Either we have censorship or we don't. I believe Liz's friendship with Dan has influenced her judgment. No, I don't believe the story as it's being told. Liz, in my books, is untrustworthy when it comes to moderation and her intents.

I'd really like to hear how posting a picture of Dan's 'mistake' can do serious harm to his career. I mean, this pic is now floating around Facebook, for god's sake, as is Dan's response.

I have little sympathy for a man who engages in or supports ad hominem attacks on those he deems critics of the Church. If this misstep damages his ability to be taken seriously in that regard, the world is better for it. At least he might think twice about saying crap that damages the reputation of others.

H.