by Psychdigg 22 Replies latest social current
Psycho and YouKnow really should be concerned about recorded telephone conversations. Brother and Sister Gossip are gonna find out they are fraternizing with "apostates" on the Web and pretty soon, You Know and Psycho will be recorded over the telephone by elders in their local, friendly, gosh-darn wonderful congregations.
Banshee
This topic is a little bit to hot for me to handle for too long so i'll have drop it quickly.
I really doubt that the legal department was notified conversation was being recorded. Do any of you really think that they were? After all if what was said ever became available for public consumption reproach may be brought upon the Watchtower's, err.. ummm, I mean Jehovah's name.
You Know's comment was extremly biased i'll tell you why. Apparently he dosent know that there are times that you sometimes have to break certain rules for the benefit of the grater good. Thats why you can injure someone even kill in self defence. It is ethically wrong to kill but under certain conditions it is viewed as ok to protect your own life. Then there are those who would still disagree that people should ever kill under any circumsances anyway. Example think about the death peanlity? My point simply is that any time you break certain codes of ethics or values there will always be those who do not agree that you should have.
I think You Know only reacted the way he did because the dateline programme indirectly made him personally look bad so he had to find every possible fault within it to defend his stance. You know would have never reacted the way he did had he got wind of a situation when one of his fellow brothers was listening in secretly on a telephone conversation as a second Witness so that the person could be disfelloshipped or lying in court to protect organisations public reputation.
As usual he uses two sets of scales.
One for the Watchtower and one for those who seek reform.
On a more contrversial note:
Just because they were right over all in trying to protect the children dosent mean that they dident do anything along the way that was questionable.
And recording a telephone conversation without notifying the other person was at least questionable because it isnt something that would usually be accepted under normal circumstances. If someone had recorded a private conversation involving you and released it to your those whom you associate with inorder to suit their own agenda you would very likely be crying fowl.
This is the very reason why you cannot post private e-mails. It violates confedentiality.
I think what psych was probally refering to was, the fact that the Watchtower considers itself to be above any secular law and above anyother code of values or ethics, which has lent itself lead way to do anything which it desires without reprocussions. Posters are always complaining about elders who constantly abuse their authority, lord over the flock and think that they can get away with almost anything. As psych said this is whats wrong with the Waatchtower Society to day. They arent enough checks and balances to prevent abuse of power and authority.
What Bill did served to protect the children (we all know that) but it can be said that the way he obtained the conversation was "questionable."
This is where I drop the issue because its gotten way too hot for me to handle. So someone else can pick it up now.
jerome
HOTT
Jerome, I disagree.
I don't think it is illegal or even a little bit wrong for Bill to have recorded the conversation. It is not normally something that would be done, but that's because it is not normally something that would NEED to be done.
But it is something that is done when someone needs to expose wrongdoing, and knows the wrongdoers will lie about it.
I think it's like all those hidden camera reports the news shows do on restaurant conditions and such. Nothing wrong whatsoever, IMO.
Hmmm
Thats why I dropped it.
jerome
There was nothing illegal about the recorded phone call Bill made to Bethel. Which was why dateline filmed it and aired it.
May I suggest that someone look up the telephone recording laws in Kentucky, where I assume the call originated?
Just curious.
BEFORE YOU TRY AND REMOVE THE STICK FROM MY ARSE, REMOVE THE TELEPHONE POLE FROM YOUR OWN ARSE.
Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 526.010 (1998): It is a felony to overhear or record, through use of an electronic or mechanical device, a wire or oral communication without the consent of at least one party to that communication. Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 526.020 (1998).
The same law is applicable in New York State as well. As long as one person consents to the taping of a telephone call, it is legal.
There are twelve states that require all party consent. They are:
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Illinois
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Montana
New Hampshire
Pennsylvania
Washington
There are 38 states that permit one party consent. They are:
Alaska
Arkansas
Colorado
District of Columbia
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Nebraska
Nevada
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
In all 50 states and through federal law, it's considered illegal to record telephone conversations outside of one party consent. There are a couple of exceptions. In the state of California, one party consent can be applied only under circumstances in which one party is involved in criminal activity which would include extortion or blackmail. In the state of Arizona, the subscriber to a telephone service can record telephone conversations with no party consent when criminal activity is involved. Other than those two known exceptions, all other recordings outside of those states that permit one party consent are a violation of state and federal law.
BEFORE YOU TRY AND REMOVE THE STICK FROM MY ARSE, REMOVE THE TELEPHONE POLE FROM YOUR OWN ARSE.
THIS IS RONIN1:
HAVE YOU EVER CALLED ANYONE IN THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT?
THEY (THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT) DO NOT IDENTIFY THEMSELVES BY THEIR
NAME.
-----------------------------------
Could you take the caps lock off?
None of that stuff is relevant or proves anything about anything.
It is Common practice for people to not identify themselves during conversation with the exception that you make a personal request to speak to someone specific.
Not even the Utility Company’s identify themselves beyond a first name.
Besides asuming Bill made the call from his house there would be a record of it.
The only way out of that conversation would be for the WTS to accuse someone on the inside of conspireing with Bill.
No one on this board is in a position to dispute anything about it.
[email protected]http://ourworld.cs.com/Pwmkwzy/PAGE+1+home.html
