Church supports bill to keep Bishops interviews secret

[_toon]

[quote="CameronMO"][quote="Fence Sitter"]Additionally, will the cops just arrest someone for this 'crime' if there is no one there to accuse?[/quote]Yes. It happens all the time. Take speeding, for example. Or pretty much any other criminal violation. Who's the accuser in a drug deal, for another example?

[quote="Fence Sitter"]People record other people all the time without their permission and no conversation to record other people in the conversation without their permission, so . . .

[quote="Fence Sitter"]Seems to me the church would actually have to press charges in this case to have the police take any action.[/quote] Again, see above. The person being arrested has put one is arrested.[/quote] Well, in Utah, for now, it's not a crime for a person involved in the the recording out into the public. No witness is necessary. But do you think in Utah, some bishop, stake president, AA, or GA can't find 1 endowed, temple-covenant keeping, give-all-I-have-to-the-Church-of-Jesus-Christ-of-Latter-Day-Saints law enforcement officer who will do them a favor?[/quote]

How would a witness not be necessary? Speeding or other traffic infractions aren't examples, there still must be a witness. Even if it is a traffic camera, there still needs to be someone to testify to the set up, standards, chain of custody of records, etc.

California has had a two-party consent for years, where violation is a misdemeanor. I suspect people violate the law all the time -- I've seen it. Yet prosecutions are extremely rare, almost nonexistent.

I actually prefer the enhanced privacy by a two party consent law. While there's potential for abuse, much of that risk can be eliminated through exceptions and prosecutorial discretion. To the extent that it can't, I think it's outweighed by the benefits of encouraging free and honest communication between parties, especially in a social media age where the consequences of a politically incorrect (or something similar) statement going viral can reach absurd levels.

[_Gadianton]

Additionally, will the cops just arrest someone for this 'crime' if there is no one there to accuse? People record other people all the time without their permission and no one is arrested.

people record and put on youtube without consent and with audio all the time. In my little excursion to figure this one out I didn't run across any cases where cops go out and arrest for making a recording. As large and draconian as California is, this should be all over the news if it's happening. The complaint from the Law Review article was that the recording was brought up (under oath) by the person recording, and (under oath) the person recorded denies giving consent, and the recording is forbidden from being used as evidence. But the person who made the recording was not arrested or indicted afterward or anything like that. It appears to be a pretty murky law. There was one case that came up where the recorder did get screwed and paid 100K in criminal penalties but I can't remember the details other than the recording came out in a courtroom setting.

It would be terrible for PR if the Church supported legislation that resulted in Mormon cops arresting people in Utah who make a recording of a church leader.

if I had to take a stab at it, I'd say that the reason why it's so murky is 1) its one of those vintage laws (like homosexuality being illegal) that makes no sense in modern times given technology back in Dino Oaks's time was so much different than in modern times. 2) as Res Ipsa also said, there are provisions that allow a person to do it, and so it's not totally black and white that an arrest can be made.

To give an idea on how dumb and antiquated these laws are and would never have been made if modern technology would have been anticipated, and therefore, how old and lame and not with the times Mormon leaders are, consider this situation:

You've got your cellphone on recording audio and video and holding it up in the air as you're walking down a street in a commercial area to narrate your vacation and nothing more. Some guy runs up to you and says "F U M F S O B and a bunch of other insults". Well, he didn't consent to being recorded, intended the comments to you even though the area is public, did not threaten to kill you nor did he commit a felony, and so technically, even if you erase the file afterward, you've just committed a felony yourself. (which is why if you buy a home security system that includes audio there are big red-letter warnings about it). HOWEVER: had you left the audio off and had only video recording him giving you the bird and angry gestures and the spit flying from his mouth such that someone could lip read clearly, and ten witnesses around you took out their phones and typed what the guy was saying to you, then no problem at all. Now this guy has a potential civil issue and potential minor criminal issue depending on the circumstances.

As you can see, it makes no sense in modern times and can't be consistently enforced or enforced with any real logic behind it.

Only such a bizarre and disruptive law to fairness and equity in society could be pushed by a greedy corporation or church.

[_Mormonicious]

Good luck on that one.

Do my porch cameras now need to ask for permission to record my entry way?
Does my dash mounted camera now need to ask permission to record as I drive?
Do all operators of security cameras at public and private places of business now have to get consent of record?
Do people taking selfies recordings have to get permission from background individuals?

[_I have a question]

And once again, we see Church Leaders are completely out of touch with the members...

Utahns spoke loudly against recording bill supported by the Salt Lake Chamber and Mormon church, so lawmakers have dropped it

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/02/06/ ... nterviews/

Citing a rapid public backlash against their bill, lawmakers are backing away from their pitch to make sweeping changes to the Utah law that allows people to record conversations without alerting others who are being recorded.

“I’ve rarely seen a bill that has had so much opposition so quickly,” Weiler said Thursday. “Obviously, this idea is hitting a nerve with the public, and not in a good way.”

“Church representatives have spoken with legislators to express support for House Bill 330, which is intended to protect the confidentiality of sensitive private conversations, including those between ecclesiastical leaders and their members,” spokesman Eric Hawkins said Tuesday.
Hawkins didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment Thursday on the negative public backlash and the sponsors’ hitting brakes on the bill.

The FP not picking up Eric?