FAIR, McCue, and the Law

[_harmony]

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.

FAIR, over a barrel, having to apologize to McCue, is just so uplifting.

Not that I'm a McCue fan, mind you. I'm just glad to see our FAIR folk get some comeuppance. Hoist with their own petard!

[_beastie]

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.

Absolutely, and as I've stated many times, unless and until the LDS church stops teaching their own myths about apostates, bad blood will continue.

There's another interesting aspect of this. If I understand this correctly, it appears the FAIR article used quotations from bob mccue's past posts on RFM to build their "case". Since RFM does not archive their posts, this must mean that they were keeping some sort of file on Bob over time, and saving his posts as time went on, in the hopes of using them against him one day. A special little version of Strengthening Church Members committee. :O

I wonder who else they're keeping files on. Of course steve benson and tal bachman are givens. How about Randy J, with his long history of accumulating damaging historical facts about the church? Any other guesses on whom they would target in particular?

[_Nightingale]

beastie:
"...it appears the FAIR article used quotations from bob mccue's past posts on RFM to build their "case". Since RFM does not archive their posts, this must mean that they were keeping some sort of file on Bob over time, and saving his posts as time went on..."

Yes, the article stated that the McCue posts were made in 2003 and 2004 ("unless stated otherwise"). Their footnotes also showed this, referencing McCue posts as well as others' and the Health Canada report as well as some excerpts from some of Bob's essays (either from his own website or elsewhere on the Net).

Now, in 2008, they drag out four/five year old posts, made while he was in the process of extricating his life from Mormonism, and dissect them, with the apparent help of "FAIR physicians" to blacken his character.

It is a spectacle.

Good point about the apparent dossier/s. Weird. Scary. Sad. Amateurish.

[_Ray A]

Now, in 2008, they drag out four/five year old posts, made while he was in the process of extricating his life from Mormonism, and dissect them, with the apparent help of "FAIR physicians" to blacken his character.

That rings a bell.

[_charity]

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.

Wow, call a press conference! Every enterprise that a member owns belongs to the Church!

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!

Knowing the views you have expressed on this board, and having read where you say you have told your bishop just how far off base you are, you own statement that you stay for the sacrament and then skip out, I would personally shut down any "discussion" group you had anything to do with. Orignal thought? Don't you realize that every idea you have ever said on this board critical of the Church has already be said for years and years and years by other apostates?

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.

A disclaimer is nothing like a "shut up" order. It is heads up to anyone wanting to sue FAIR that if they go after the Church they are crazy or greedy or both.

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.

I thought the way you were so freely offering your opinion on suing and not suing that you at least thought you were. Skippy actually did post in. Maybe you didn't read that.

[_Ray A]

I wonder who else they're keeping files on. Of course steve benson and tal bachman are givens. How about Randy J, with his long history of accumulating damaging historical facts about the church? Any other guesses on whom they would target in particular?

Would you agree that there's "file keeping" on both sides?

[_Mister Scratch]

There's another interesting aspect of this. If I understand this correctly, it appears the FAIR article used quotations from bob mccue's past posts on RFM to build their "case". Since RFM does not archive their posts, this must mean that they were keeping some sort of file on Bob over time, and saving his posts as time went on, in the hopes of using them against him one day. A special little version of Strengthening Church Members committee. :O

This is absolutely correct. We know, too, that DCP maintains his own personal set of "files" on various posters from RfM (and that he has lied about this archive), and, that he saves practically every email he has ever received.

I wonder who else they're keeping files on. Of course steve benson and tal bachman are givens. How about Randy J, with his long history of accumulating damaging historical facts about the church? Any other guesses on whom they would target in particular?

I'm sure they've got material on many of us who post here.

[_Mister Scratch]

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.

One quasi-instance of an apology taking place would be Dan Peterson's "boring clarification," which he issued after it came to light that he'd been engaging in gossipmongering/smear tactics against Mike Quinn.

[_harmony]

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.

Wow, call a press conference! Every enterprise that a member owns belongs to the Church!

Obviously you've never been through the temple or you'd not say this with a straight face. Actually, yes. Every enterprise owned by a member who is endowed is the church's. I know that's not what you meant, but you really need to put a governor on your fingers. They're writing checks you can't cash.

Knowing the views you have expressed on this board, and having read where you say you have told your bishop just how far off base you are, you own statement that you stay for the sacrament and then skip out, I would personally shut down any "discussion" group you had anything to do with. Orignal thought? Don't you realize that every idea you have ever said on this board critical of the Church has already be said for years and years and years by other apostates?

Sweetie, back then I was as Molly as they come. I knew nothing about any of the church's dirty laundry. I was busy raising a family and trying to keep ahead of my bills. It wasn't until 20+ years later that I learned of Joseph's extramarital activities, and that set me on a path to finding out some of the hidden truths about the church. And those who've known me know how devastated I was at Joseph's perfidy, and how I've struggled to maintain some semblance of a positive attitude about the church that hid so much from me. The only thing that keeps me from kicking it all to the curb is my relationship with Father. When he tells me to bail, I'll bail. Until then, I'll stick around.

A disclaimer is nothing like a "shut up" order. It is heads up to anyone wanting to sue FAIR that if they go after the Church they are crazy or greedy or both.

The hell it's not. It's a notice to all and sundry that whatever FAIR is saying is not in any way, shape, or form connected to the LDS church. The only thing that's needed is the dusting of the feet, and this little episode might just be the catalyst for that action.

I thought the way you were so freely offering your opinion on suing and not suing that you at least thought you were. Skippy actually did post in. Maybe you didn't read that.

Skippy's a lawyer. Maybe you missed that.

[_beastie]

Would you agree that there's "file keeping" on both sides?

There are certainly individuals on both sides that "keep files" to some degree. However, what makes this unusual is the fact that RFM keeps no archives, so there is a very deliberate saving of posts that must be occurring, which is qualitatively different than, say, going on MAD and searching in archives. So if I want to find incriminating posts of some sort by author X at MAD, I just search for author X. But knowing that RFM has no archives, a decision must be made at some point that this individual merits a "file" that is ongoing. See the difference? It's a sort of premeditation and long-term planning that seems somewhat unusual to me.