Xenophon wrote:He appears to be a pretty successful defender of first amendment rights...
That First Amendment stuff is not going to fly in Utah courts, especially if the Church is involved.
Xenophon wrote:He appears to be a pretty successful defender of first amendment rights...
I have a question wrote:The Church has propagated far more profile for this PowerPoint slide by sending that take down letter than it would have otherwise received. It's response also legitimized the slide as being genuine, removing doubt for those who were so inclined.
If it pursues this further, again legitimizing the slide as genuine, it has opened itself up (probably) to some form of litigation from those individuals named as "Enemies Of The Church". Is it slanderous? Libellous? That's without considering the obvious conclusion for people that perhaps Dehlin and Snuffer are on to something if the Q15 rank them up there with pornography and member laziness as reasons people stop paying tithing....
The Church is becoming very adept at taking something a little bit embarrassing and turning it into a full blow press frenzy.
LinkThe release of a new book by an important, official LDS Church press is a signal that a current era of bold transparency about the church's history is still in full swing.
Sanctorian wrote:After thinking more about it, I think this attorney is merely showing the church what type of fight this will be if they pursue it. This will be a fight in the media more than anything. Everything in the letter was designed to get the media talking. This letter was not designed to be a back and forth jab between attorneys. Not only does he want to get the PowerPoint more media coverage, but also the Book of Mormon musical. This attorney will continue to reference other things the church would rather not add more publicity to. If they pursue the case, they now know they have an attorney that will constantly do things and say things to get airtime. That's probably not the sort of legal case the church wants to pursue. And guess which Utah news outlet didn't want to give it airtime... KSL.
Round one goes to mormonleaks.
IHAQ wrote:.
If it pursues this further, again legitimizing the slide as genuine, it has opened itself up (probably) to some form of litigation from those individuals named as "Enemies Of The Church". Is it slanderous? Libellous? That's without considering the obvious conclusion for people that perhaps Dehlin and Snuffer are on to something if the Q15 rank them up there with pornography and member laziness as reasons people stop paying tithing....
The Church is becoming very adept at taking something a little bit embarrassing and turning it into a full blow press frenzy.
sock puppet wrote:.
The skin on the corporate sole is very thin, indeed.
They are afraid of the fact that somebody hack into their system and stole from them either internally or externally. Regardless of the corporation, all should be concerned with this. For example: How would it be somebody hacked into a studio system and took a film and posted it? Or what would you say if somebody hacked your computer and took your private information. Or the governments hacking into your system and monitoring it. Constitutionally, that is wrong. On principle, this is not good, regardless how one feels about "the church".
moksha wrote:Xenophon wrote:He appears to be a pretty successful defender of first amendment rights...
That First Amendment stuff is not going to fly in Utah courts, especially if the Church is involved.