Well, we wouldn't want anyone knowing what was said in those interviews now would we. Sounds like they're getting nervous, with all the exposure about the interviews, that someone will record them and they will have a PR nightmare.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/02/06/mormon-church-interested-in-bill-that-could-prevent-recording-bishop-interviews/

They claim that interviews are confidential in order to protect the individual. My experience is that they are only interested in protecting themselves.

I'm surprised NewNameNoah doesn't have anything like that on his channel yet.

Give it time, it's a new story.

Smudge Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm surprised NewNameNoah doesn't have anything
> like that on his channel yet.

I thought he recorded the SP interview for his TR. It measured the spiritual BS discernment as Mike gave lie after lie to secure the bar coded recommend.

I'll bet the police just love this one.

I don't think reporters are too happy about it.


"The bill doesn’t include protections for reporters, and “poses significant risks to legitimate, investigative reporting,” Reymann added.

“There are some stories that can only be obtained through investigative reporting … and this law has no exception for legitimate newsgathering by reporters,” he said. “It is a significant concern under the First Amendment when a law starts to criminalize legitimate activity that is necessary for reporters to do their jobs.”

Beyond that, he said, the bill risks a chilling effect for reporters who are trying to uncover information “because they’d be under constant threat of criminal prosecution or civil liability,” Reymann said."

I'm not opposed to this law.

We already have open record and sunshine laws that cover most of the government actions and recently courts have ruled that police officers acting in the public can be recorded by a third party. And third party recording, wiretapping, and eavesdropping by the government should be covered by separate and distinct laws.

So as long as this law doesn't try and usurp those protections I agree that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. It sucks that we cannot expose the nefarious but not criminal but I support laws that protect my privacy and this would do that.

You may not be opposed to this law, but, apparently, there is some concern from other reporters.


"The Utah Media Coalition, which includes The Tribune, plans to talk to Snow about its concerns with the legislation."

I understand that my desire to have a reasonable expectation of privacy might hinder the efforts of investigative journalists to expose nefarious actions.

I object. I was on a condo board in Utah. One of the board members was a troublemaker and prolific liar, I turned on the memo feature on my cell phone and placed it in a shirt or jacket pocket whenever I had a meeting with this person. It provided handy proof of what was actually said in board meetings.

Tip: recording through denim didn't work very well for me. Light cotton, no problem

This bill is very troubling for several reasons. First, the church asked for this bill to written. Once again the church has inserted itself into the political process. They always claim they do so for moral reasons. Recording isn’t a vice so where is their excuse of morality here? Also, it’s clear they want this to cover their own asses. No person or institution that has nothing to hide asks for something like this. Further, the church is selfishly wanting this for itself but the ramifications are profound. It’s crazy to think that someone that’s trying to protect itself by recording a conversation with their bishop will make that person a felon.

"confidentiality?" We all know that Mormon clergy is not "ordained" in the proper sense, and that they have never observed the kind of confidentiality that other religious denominations routinely observe.

But if conversations with bishops or Stake Presidents are recorded to be sure that the Mormon authority figure stays within bounds, what happens to the poor schmuck who is there, trying to ease his conscience? That seems kind of unfair to me.

Confidentiality is right, catnip

The bishop/ church record them.
The 'interviewee' expects privacy but Mormonism is only interested in its own privacy, NOT the members'.

This is all about Mike Norton. He poked those jerks good.

Yea, it makes them madder than (where they're going) hell.

M@t

There is an exception if you suspect abuse. I'd consider all bishop interviews to be abusive.

They don't want another Ron Jeremy court if love incident.

They do relish doing evil deeds in darkness.

I'd love to see them taje a bishop interview to court where the whole workd could hear whar they out the kids through.

Let me try this again without juggling my granddaughter.

I'd love to see the church challenge a recording of a bishop interview in court. I'd love for the whole world to hear just how vile they are and what they put the kids through.

Juggling your granddaughter(s)?

Your must be an acrobat.

M@t

"There is an exception if you suspect abuse. I'd consider all bishop interviews to be abusive."


Well, there's the rub. If you are surrounded by TBMs it would be very risky to take a case like this to court, at the risk of being a felon, if they decided you shouldn't have recorded the conversation you were in with the bishop. I'd venture a guess that most mormons wouldn't consider these interviews abuse. At the very least, it's a scare tactic to prevent people from taking them to court.



"The wording of the exceptions — that it’s legal if someone “reasonably believes” there is a threat — is vague enough that it presents a challenge that would have to be settled by a court, according to media attorney David Reymann.

If someone recorded, for example, a bishop’s interview out of a concern of possible harassment, they could be sued. It would then be up to a court to decide whether that person’s concern was a reasonable belief or not, Reymann said Tuesday.

And that might deter people from recording, rather than risk breaking the law, he said.

“What is a reasonable belief may vary from one person to another.”"