|
|
Post by jaimedrift on Nov 3, 2019 15:28:52 GMT -5
The recording outlines workers Mildred Lindquist and Brenda Tschetter and their beliefs on the church and the bible. I do not believe what they told me is true, or representative of the church's true nature, and hope that members of the church, workers, and all can be aware of the inconsistency of their words. The workers were, of course, unaware that they were being recorded, until I told them right after the discussion. If this thread actually stays up, I'll update it with a link to the recording that will likely be hosted on Youtube.
|
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on Nov 3, 2019 17:05:42 GMT -5
Just wondering why make an announcement that you will be making an announcement instead of waiting until you get all your ducks in a row and then come at us with the meat?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2019 22:18:23 GMT -5
its more than a little deceptive(unless your law enforcement)to record someone without their knowledge...
|
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 3, 2019 22:46:14 GMT -5
its more than a little deceptive(unless your law enforcement)to record someone without their knowledge...
However, if someone is speaking in a public gathering isn't it legal to record their speech?
I am really not sure.
Does anyone else here know whether it is legal or not?
|
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Nov 4, 2019 1:02:04 GMT -5
its more than a little deceptive(unless your law enforcement)to record someone without their knowledge... What could the workers possibly be afraid of. Surely they want their beliefs widely disseminated. |
|
|
|
Post by snow on Nov 4, 2019 13:22:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by xna on Nov 4, 2019 18:46:29 GMT -5
In the 70’s, when the micro cassette recorders came into common use in business, I know some recorded the convention sermons for those who could not attend. I doubt the workers knew they were being recorded.
|
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Nov 4, 2019 20:20:27 GMT -5
its more than a little deceptive(unless your law enforcement)to record someone without their knowledge...
However, if someone is speaking in a public gathering isn't it legal to record their speech?
I am really not sure.
Does anyone else here know whether it is legal or not?
It is legal. |
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Nov 4, 2019 20:21:39 GMT -5
its more than a little deceptive(unless your law enforcement)to record someone without their knowledge... What could the workers possibly be afraid of. Surely they want their beliefs widely disseminated. One worker was asked that, and she said it's because they might change their minds. (She forgot to add, "Depending on who is involved.") |
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Nov 4, 2019 20:28:23 GMT -5
its more than a little deceptive(unless your law enforcement)to record someone without their knowledge... It's only deceptive if you tell the other person that you're NOT recording your conversation. I've recorded conversations I've had with people -- because I have written about the conversation and I prefer to have proof that I quoted the person correctly. He said she said needs a third person "recorder" to witness the event. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2019 21:49:16 GMT -5
its more than a little deceptive(unless your law enforcement)to record someone without their knowledge... It's only deceptive if you tell the other person that you're NOT recording your conversation. its explanations like this that show the world is going into the sh1t can.... |
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Nov 5, 2019 1:15:31 GMT -5
It's only deceptive if you tell the other person that you're NOT recording your conversation. its explanations like this that show the world is going into the sh1t can.... Sure - protect the liar and discredit the truth teller. Pffff. |
|
|
|
Post by Annan on Nov 5, 2019 10:40:58 GMT -5
So if I am sitting at a table in a restaurant and can hear the people next to me talking, am I allowed to tape them? What about anywhere in public?
|
|
|
|
Post by xna on Nov 5, 2019 11:09:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by openingact34 on Nov 5, 2019 11:23:49 GMT -5
Aren't these Canadian workers? |
|
|
|
Post by xna on Nov 5, 2019 12:46:02 GMT -5
Aren't these Canadian workers? Not sure about the Canadian law(s), or if the workers are in Canada. |
|
|
|
Post by Dennis J on Nov 5, 2019 13:51:09 GMT -5
Personally, I go by the assumption every word is or maybe recorded. Believe it wisest if others thought accordingly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Annan on Nov 5, 2019 14:52:33 GMT -5
Personally, I go by the assumption every word is or maybe recorded. Believe it wisest if others thought accordingly. My dad always told me that if I wouldn't write and sign it, don't say it. |
|
|
|
Post by vanillagorilla on Nov 5, 2019 18:13:14 GMT -5
Well, if they are sharing what they believe is the only true way and the only method to save one's soul, then certainly they should not be upset if it's taped. Why on earth would anyone be upset with having the message of salvation be withheld from anyone? They should be elated. They have less walking to do by going 2x2 from door to door. Although this sounds sarcastic, it has legitimacy.
|
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Nov 6, 2019 16:19:43 GMT -5
Personally, I go by the assumption every word is or maybe recorded. Believe it wisest if others thought accordingly. My dad always told me that if I wouldn't write and sign it, don't say it. Ultimately, it is pretty simple, isn't it? Overall. (But, watching political discourse these days, context is so important.) This is why hours+ of podcast/youtube discussion are becoming more popular, rather than the 1 - 6 minute hits on mainstream media. Far easier to communicate both the big ideas and nuance. |
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 6, 2019 17:54:38 GMT -5
My dad always told me that if I wouldn't write and sign it, don't say it. Ultimately, it is pretty simple, isn't it? Overall. (But, watching political discourse these days, context is so important.) This is why hours+ of podcast/youtube discussion are becoming more popular, rather than the 1 - 6 minute hits on mainstream media. Far easier to communicate both the big ideas and nuance. |
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Nov 13, 2019 6:46:39 GMT -5
Ultimately, it is pretty simple, isn't it? Overall. (But, watching political discourse these days, context is so important.) This is why hours+ of podcast/youtube discussion are becoming more popular, rather than the 1 - 6 minute hits on mainstream media. Far easier to communicate both the big ideas and nuance. Probably not if they are watching YouTube. It suggests content closely related to whatever you are currently watching. The more you click the narrower the content gets. That's simply annoying if you want a wide variety of music, but when it comes to extremist views that annoying can turn dangerous. It's easy, perhaps even automatic to spiral to more and more radical videos. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 13, 2019 16:58:43 GMT -5
However, if someone is speaking in a public gathering isn't it legal to record their speech?
I am really not sure.
Does anyone else here know whether it is legal or not?
It is legal. The phrase “an expectation of privacy" in addition to local laws is a good guideline. That only addresses the legal side. What about the moral/ethical side? Did you inform them that you were recording them to put it out on the internet? The next question is why record the conversation. The last one is why post it anywhere? |
|
|
|
Post by snow on Nov 13, 2019 18:34:33 GMT -5
Well it seems that the OP has decided not to post it. That's probably a wise decision.
|
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Nov 14, 2019 1:52:51 GMT -5
The phrase “an expectation of privacy" in addition to local laws is a good guideline. That only addresses the legal side. What about the moral/ethical side? Did you inform them that you were recording them to put it out on the internet? The next question is why record the conversation. The last one is why post it anywhere? On the moral side -- it's really just as important WHAT YOU RECORD. "Records" of all kinds of egregious events are not worthy of any expectation of privacy. If you are going to inform your abuser that you are recording it, you defeat the very purpose for making a recording. Recording events constitutes proof that they happened. You post it to counter the spin of liars. Libel laws protect such postings Very few places have laws making it illegal to publish recordings of legitimate activities involving expectation of privacy -- California does have such a law now. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 14, 2019 6:20:35 GMT -5
The phrase “an expectation of privacy" in addition to local laws is a good guideline. That only addresses the legal side. What about the moral/ethical side? Did you inform them that you were recording them to put it out on the internet? The next question is why record the conversation. The last one is why post it anywhere? On the moral side -- it's really just as important WHAT YOU RECORD. "Records" of all kinds of egregious events are not worthy of any expectation of privacy. The expectation of privacy has to do with whether the average person would believe that the situation was one where they would expect privacy. Perhaps vague but if I were having a conversation with you in your home I would not expect the conversation to be recorded and then made public unless previously informed of that possibility. I am still uncertain of the purpose. And in a trial this is important. Or if you are building a civil suite. Is there an ongoing situation that required proof of wrong doing? In about 1/ 4 of the states all parties involved in the conversation must be aware that they are being recorded. I was trying to understand why you would invite people into your home, record a 2-hour conversation without their knowledge, and then decide to publish it on the internet. |
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Nov 14, 2019 16:04:47 GMT -5
On the moral side -- it's really just as important WHAT YOU RECORD. "Records" of all kinds of egregious events are not worthy of any expectation of privacy. The expectation of privacy has to do with whether the average person would believe that the situation was one where they would expect privacy. Perhaps vague but if I were having a conversation with you in your home I would not expect the conversation to be recorded and then made public unless previously informed of that possibility. I am still uncertain of the purpose. And in a trial this is important. Or if you are building a civil suite. Is there an ongoing situation that required proof of wrong doing? In about 1/ 4 of the states all parties involved in the conversation must be aware that they are being recorded. I was trying to understand why you would invite people into your home, record a 2-hour conversation without their knowledge, and then decide to publish it on the internet. I'm thinking you're not all that familiar with some of the in home recordings that have been made of worker visits in North America. I had one overseer tell me personally that unless he'd heard a recording of another worker's conversation he'd never have believed in all his life that it had ever been taken place. Would it me moral for me to defend my wife with a recording of a sister worker telling me that my wife and I had a perverted private relationship. People who lie at someone else's expense are fair game. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 14, 2019 21:49:39 GMT -5
I'm thinking you're not all that familiar with some of the in home recordings that have been made of worker visits in North America. I had one overseer tell me personally that unless he'd heard a recording of another worker's conversation he'd never have believed in all his life that it had ever been taken place. Would it me moral for me to defend my wife with a recording of a sister worker telling me that my wife and I had a perverted private relationship. People who lie at someone else's expense are fair game. Oh, I am familiar. But I am not all that concerned with what people say/think about me. Dragging other people in is another thing but I have found that direct confrontation works really well. Personally, I would have gone on to embellish the the perverted relationship and then asked the sister worker if that was the story she had heard. |
|
