The RCC's New Witchhunt

[Madeline]

All anyone, Catholic or not, who wants complete privacy about who got their vote needs to do is keep their mouth shut about who got their vote.

The nosey parkers are combing through campaign contribution records, Si.

Ah, I see what you mean. Don't get me started on the travesty of McCain-Feingold and the First Amendment.

As contributions are not private because of McCain-Feingold, the Church can't really be invading privacy.

You have a public record in various places, but if I gather that data and publish it, and thereby cause you to feel embarrassment, humiliation or outrage a person of ordinary sensibilities might feel, I may be liable.

 

[Si modo]

Looks to me like some people just venting their opinions, not a great purge. Just a "tempest in teapot" so to speak. The internet avails people a method to say what they want and to push their own agenda's as we have seen in other theaters over the years. The Catholic Church has a wide range of individuals with different views on how the church should be ran and they are voicing them.

I'd agree with you if these wingnuts were criticizing the RCC heirarchy, but they aren't. They are criticizing their fellow parishoners. It's a modern day public shaming, and IMO, it is very close -- if not in fact -- actionable as invasion of privacy, etc.

It is also about as "unchristian" a thing to do as I can imagine.

"Invasion of privacy"?

Yes, it is an intentional tort. Here's a link to more about it.....

Invasion of Privacy Torts: Violation of One's Right to be Left Alone

LMAO! And that has what to do with your desire to have some legal action against the Church for their use of public information?

 

[Si modo]

The nosey parkers are combing through campaign contribution records, Si.

Ah, I see what you mean. Don't get me started on the travesty of McCain-Feingold and the First Amendment.

As contributions are not private because of McCain-Feingold, the Church can't really be invading privacy.

You have a public record in various places, but if I gather that data and publish it, and thereby cause you to feel embarrassment, humiliation or outrage a person of ordinary sensibilities might feel, I may be liable.

Not for an invasion of privacy, you won't as the information is not private.

Hell, I don't even claim to be an attorney and I know that use of public information is not disclosure of any private information.






Some posters actually think, even just a bit, before typing.

 

[Madeline]

"Invasion of privacy"?

Yes, it is an intentional tort. Here's a link to more about it.....

Invasion of Privacy Torts: Violation of One's Right to be Left Alone

LMAO! And that has what to do with your desire to have some legal action against the Church for their use of public information?

This is not Church action, Si. It is parishoner-on-parishoner guerilla warfare. I don't like the way you come to Mass without a hat on, so I spend weeks finding out all I can about you and make a youtube video (or whatnot) denouncing you as a "lousy Catholic".

It is my feeling the RCC should condemn this, but it is all private action....they cannot prevent it.

 

[Si modo]

Yes, it is an intentional tort. Here's a link to more about it.....

Invasion of Privacy Torts: Violation of One's Right to be Left Alone

LMAO! And that has what to do with your desire to have some legal action against the Church for their use of public information?

This is not Church action, Si. It is parishoner-on-parishoner guerilla warfare. I don't like the way you come to Mass without a hat on, so I spend weeks finding out all I can about you and make a youtube video (or whatnot) denouncing you as a "lousy Catholic".

It is my feeling the RCC should condemn this, but it is all private action....they cannot prevent it.

OK. Another Catholic publishes public information about a fellow parishoner and you think there is legal action against them for invasion of the parishoner's privacy.


I'm still laughing my ass off.

 

[Madeline]

LMAO! And that has what to do with your desire to have some legal action against the Church for their use of public information?

This is not Church action, Si. It is parishoner-on-parishoner guerilla warfare. I don't like the way you come to Mass without a hat on, so I spend weeks finding out all I can about you and make a youtube video (or whatnot) denouncing you as a "lousy Catholic".

It is my feeling the RCC should condemn this, but it is all private action....they cannot prevent it.

OK. Another Catholic publishes public information about a fellow parishoner and you think there is legal action against them for invasion of the parishoner's privacy.

I'm still laughing my ass off.

It is possible, Si. First the information would have to be such that would cause a reasonable person embarrassment, humiliation or outrage. If that test is met, the law (usually) requires that I collected it in an unseemly manner (e.g., videotaping you in your back yard) or engaged in some other egregious conduct.

The salient fact is, the data you publish can be true and still the publication exposes you to liability.....entirely different tort from defamation.

 

[Si modo]

This is not Church action, Si. It is parishoner-on-parishoner guerilla warfare. I don't like the way you come to Mass without a hat on, so I spend weeks finding out all I can about you and make a youtube video (or whatnot) denouncing you as a "lousy Catholic".

It is my feeling the RCC should condemn this, but it is all private action....they cannot prevent it.

OK. Another Catholic publishes public information about a fellow parishoner and you think there is legal action against them for invasion of the parishoner's privacy.

I'm still laughing my ass off.

It is possible, Si. First the information would have to be such that would cause a reasonable person embarrassment, humiliation or outrage. If that test is met, the law (usually) requires that I collected it in an unseemly manner (e.g., videotaping you in your back yard) or engaged in some other egregious conduct.

The salient fact is, the data you publish can be true and still the publication exposes you to liability.....entirely different tort from defamation.

Well, if the law requires that you collected public information in an unseemly manner, you won't get out of the starting gate with this.

Contributions by private citizens are public record since McCain-Feingold.

Or, wait...do you think visiting the FEC website and/or the Huffington Post are unseemly acts?