Court Dismisses Bogus Charges Brought Against Nevada Man Who Pissed Off Local Cops By Using The Crosswalk

from the nothing-about-the-headline-is-metaphoric dept

We just covered cops getting all angry and sued as the result of their inability to not violate civil rights just because someone interrupted one of their sting operations. In that story, officers were upset a man had placed a cardboard sign dam in their revenue stream by warning drivers of a distracted driving sting a couple of blocks ahead.

It’s not a Connecticut thing. It’s a #CopThing. Techdirt reader John Mehaffey directs us to another civil rights lawsuit stemming from sting operation disruption, this time in Nevada. There, John Hunt saw Boulder City cops running a sting involving a pedestrian crosswalk on the main drag. He wasn’t impressed by their tactics.

The fracas started in 2016 on Boulder City’s main drag. Boulder City Police obtained federal funds to conduct a pedestrian sting operation, one designed to ticket motorists who fail to stop for pedestrians in this crosswalk on Nevada Way. A decoy in an orange shirt was assigned to walk back and forth across the road. There were problems from the start.

“This decoy was doing shady things. We have him on video walking extremely slow, walking into the crosswalk at one-fifth the speed a normal person would walk, and he’s stopping half-way and raising his hand,” Stubbs said.

Much like the Connecticut case we covered recently, this sting involved federal funds. The PD obviously didn’t want this funding to dry up, so it needed to ticket as many people as possible, even if it meant utilizing a faux pedestrian who didn’t behave like regular pedestrians.

John Hunt was one of those ticketed for failing to yield to the PD’s stunt walker. He went back to the scene of his crime and performed some pro se walking. The results were predictable.

[A]ter being cited, he returned to the scene of the ongoing sting and began a one man protest, by doing the same thing the decoy was doing. It took hunt just over a minute to walk across the street three times. That was enough for police Sgt. John Glenn, who whipped into action.

Sgt. John Glenn can be heard saying, “Come over here. Come over here. Because I said so.”

Within minutes, other officers converged, and the pedestrian protester was taken down, then taken to jail.

The cops lied in their arrest report, stating that Hunt had “caused a vehicle to slam on its brakes and skid to a stop.” (Even if true [it wasn’t], the pedestrian had the right of way in the crosswalk… so… the crime is what exactly?) Dash cam obtained by Hunt’s lawyer, Stephen Stubbs showed nothing like that ever happened.

This resulted in the city dropping the charges against Hunt. Then Hunt decided to sue the city and, magically, the charges — pushed by a new city attorney (and local religious leader) — reappeared. City Attorney and local Mormon church stake president Steve Morris rang Hunt up for the original charge plus a few more.

Hunt’s lawyer complained on Facebook about the bogus charges. This led the municipal judge (and good Mormon) Victor Miller to hand down a completely unconstitutional gag order forbidding Hunt’s lawyer from discussing the case anywhere but in court. This gag order was thrown out [PDF] by a district court judge who noted it seemed to be put in place solely to protect the judge from criticism. And it was so overbroad it could not possibly be viewed as Constitutional.

[A]s couched, the Order is so broad both Mr. Stubbs and Mr. Morris could violate the mandate if they disparage their adversary even in a private conversation with their spouses or friends within the sanctity of their homes.

The gag order was tossed in April. Six months later, Hunt has received another favorable ruling from a district court. A minute order [PDF] (one made orally prior to a written order) from district court judge Richard Scotti blasts the city for its vindictive prosecution and dismisses the bogus charges the city dumped on him after it found out it was being sued.

The Court finds that the City vindictively prosecuted Appellant John Hunt when they resurrected their 2016 complaint against Mr. Hunt containing 3 additional claims, only six (6) days after Mr. Hunt filed a Civil Rights lawsuit against the City. Additionally, the Court finds Appellant satisfies the requirements needed to establish a presumption of vindictive prosecution and the prosecution fails to prove that the increase in severity of the charge did not result from any vindictive motive.

The only evidence that the prosecution provides this Court to rebut Appellants claim of vindictive prosecution is that City Attorney Mr. Olsen was preparing for retirement and did not have a paralegal. This evidence is not sufficient to indicate that the increased charges could not have been brought before the defendant exercised his right. Almost Eleven (11) months elapsed between when the City dismissed all charges and Mr. Hunt filed his civil rights lawsuit. The prosecution had ample time to prepare a complaint the eleven (11) months previous to Mr. Hunt filing his civil rights lawsuit.

The benchslap continues:

The filing of the criminal complaint only days after Mr. Hunt filed his civil rights lawsuit, coupled with the facts that the City of Boulder City previously dismissed the criminal case rising from June 8, 2016 and has not received any additional evidence, clearly indicates that the prosecution had a vindictive motive when they refiled their complaint on June 5, 2017.

Finally, the court notes Hunt’s one-minute traverse of the crosswalk was protected speech, which will add more ammo to Hunt’s civil rights lawsuit. And the judge points out a major flaw in the city’s bogus obstruction charge: Hunt’s use of the crosswalk during the sting operation was actually encouraged by the PD itself.

The City of Boulder knew that Mr. Hunt was protesting and still charged him with Obstruction even though the police previous to this incident sent out a press release asking people to use the crosswalk during the enforcement activity.

Hunt is now facing zero (0) criminal charges. The city is still facing one (1) civil rights lawsuit. And yet, the city just can’t stop digging. It’s going to lose the lawsuit and it’s decided the best thing to do is further destroy its own credibility. This bit of First Amendment stupidity comes directly from the city government.

Boulder City Communications Manager Lisa Laplante told the I-Team Tuesday afternoon that the city respectfully disagrees with the ruling, and said the pedestrian protest was the equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded theater. She also said that the city plans to appeal the decision.

God help me, I hope the city uses this “fire in a crowded theater” argument during its appeal of this dismissal. I hope it uses it when it defends itself against Hunt’s civil rights lawsuit. I can’t wait to see a couple of federal judges tee off on this misused trope during their rundown of every other stupid thing the city did in response to Hunt’s mild protest.

Filed Under: , , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Court Dismisses Bogus Charges Brought Against Nevada Man Who Pissed Off Local Cops By Using The Crosswalk”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
84 Comments
MathFox says:

Yelling Fire

Extending the Boulder City argument: while ordinary citizens are held accountable for their “yelling fire” actions; city or police officers can freely jell “fire” without regard for the mayhem they may cause.
Just like walking crosswalks should be prohibited for everyone without permission of the attending police officer.

Anon says:

Re: Re: Yelling Fire!

Yes. I blieve Justice Holmes said it was the worst decision of his career. It stemmed form the conviction of a group for passing out pamphlets urging men to dodge the draft during WWI. During the post-war hysteria following the Communist overthrow of the Russian government, courts were hard on dissent. Over the next decade, cooler heads prevailed. Equating dissent to yelling “Fire” is the ultimate McCarthyistic-level distraction.

David says:

Re: Yelling Fire!

Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre is skin to hitting yourself with a hammer on purpose: the government can’t prohibit the act itself but there will still be consequences that you are liable for and that no insurer will be bound to cover for you.

Now in this case, it was the government that was pissed and wanted him to stop using the crosswalk in a manner considerably safer than what their own effigy was doing. To be able to even charge him the first time round, they invented stuff that didn’t actually happen and were called on it. Now they are resuscitating the original charge, presumably without any actionable evidence to boot.

So yes, this "yelling fire in a crowded theatre" argument is going to backfire in a crowded court big time. And since they don’t have the chance of a snowflake in hell to even create a charge that is going to survive summary judgment, it is really hard to see how this can be anything but harrassment for the sake of it.

That One Guy (profile) says:

'No offloading this to the city, YOUR wallet's on the line.'

If the case is so blatantly, obviously corrupt that the court is willing to state flat out that it’s clearly vindictive, sure would be nice if any penalties levied out were levied personally, rather than just another case of ‘Let’s screw the taxpayers while the guilty party walks.’

Everyone involved, up to and including the judge, should be hit with a hefty financial penalty for their actions here, one directed at them personally. Anything less and the court will once again be making it clear that ‘personal responsibility’ and ‘penalties for abuse of power’ are for the little people, and don’t apply to those with badges or robes.

James Burkhardt (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: What point are you trying to make

Not so much that they are church buddies, but that a local stake President (bishop) got a blatenly unconstitutional order from a judge who is a member of his Stake (diocese). The catholic terms are based on my understanding of the equivalencies, though there are 3 stake presidents, all members of the larger stake presidency, because the Mormon church is built on a more community run model.

jameshogg (profile) says:

If you yell fire in a crowded theatre when there is no fire, and people get injured trying to escape in panic, that’s a safety issue regarding the building itself.

Yelling fire when there really is a fire can cause the same injuries in said burning crowded theatre, and I think injured people in this situation would be quite ready to blame the design of the building and lack of crowd control first and foremost, and not really be ready to entertain the possibility of shifting the blame had the yelling been false.

Point is, when you’ve got a powder keg, any random spark that sets it off is nowhere near as important or dangerous as the powder keg itself. Would we also ban fire drills on the basis that they too are falsely shouting fire using their sirens, and people get hurt leaving the building? No, you’d blame something else that deserves it.

AricTheRed says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Mr. Anonymous Coward,

While Mormons are my favorite American Religious Cult, please be ‘effing respectful and call it by the name the leaders of the church want it to be called;

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Because Mormon has so many negative connotations these days.

Thank you,

AricTheRed
(a devout Atheist)

AricTheRed says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

I would not necessarily complain, although I have not this time.

I think “It” is called Satire.

Also, not quite clear how you arrived at that position either.

Although I do think it was a appropriate that a particular religious sect was called out in the commentary, especially if the particular sect, of the particular church, if not the entire church, are known for their very controlling nature and doctrine regarding their adherents.

If they, the judge and city attorney, were both of the same sect of any religion, IT COULD BE RELEVANT. Just imagine if they were both Members of the Westboro Baptist Church. You’d be sure that’d be mentioned.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

You mean all two references, stating factual information?

Then Hunt decided to sue the city and, magically, the charges — pushed by a new city attorney (and local religious leader) — reappeared. City Attorney and local Mormon church stake president Steve Morris rang Hunt up for the original charge plus a few more.

Hunt’s lawyer complained on Facebook about the bogus charges. This led the municipal judge (and good Mormon) Victor Miller to hand down a completely unconstitutional gag order forbidding Hunt’s lawyer from discussing the case anywhere but in court.

It’s ‘relevant’ because the fact that both of them were members of the same religion, and more to the point the one bringing charges was in a position of authority in the religion, raises the question of whether the judge who issued the gag order did so because of that connection. Swap out mormon for ‘catholic’, ‘hindu’, or hell ‘members of the local bowling league’ and the idea would be the same, members of the same group, one of them an authority figure within that group, who seem to be (ab)using their power to support each other.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re:

A religious leader may have used his position to influence how the wheels of justice would turn. Whether he did so is a matter of debate, but the proposition is one worth raising as a point of argument. That argument, however, cannot be made without establishing the potential link between the city attorney and the municipal judge: their mutual membership in a specific religious sect.

Cdaragorn (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

The mutual membership is meaningless. They are also likely both purveyors of similar places like Walmart. That doesn’t have anything to do with what they chose to do.

This can only be a jab at a religion the author has chosen to dislike. It’s a pointless and baseless one especially when you actually take a minute to understand the religion in question and realize that these actions go against the most basic teachings of said religion.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

these actions go against the most basic teachings of said religion.

Irrelevant. Most practitioners of any religion regularly violate the tenets of said religion. In other words, most religious people are hypocrites. Preach to your face then break a rule when you’re not looking.

And mutual membership is not meaningless. Those who share something in common, particularly something like a church and especially the mormon church, tend to support one another in whatever they do. Go ahead and lie to dispute that, it will only prove my point.

James Burkhardt (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Actually, in general, a follower of a faith (the magistrate judge) listening to a leader of the faith (the city attorney) is not that odd. Having a city attorney who is also the stake president for the area, an elder leading multiple ‘branches’, ie individual churches, and is considered a ‘high priest’ in the faith by holding this office, can be considered a conflict of interest, given his significant religious position, when the judge is a member of his church. The attorney can be considered to have pull with his followers.

Given the magistrate judge made such a ridiculous and unconstitutional call, it presents the appearance of bad faith and corruption. Therefore, it is appropriate to call it out.

Thad (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

The mutual membership is meaningless. They are also likely both purveyors of similar places like Walmart.

Your analogy is bad and you should feel bad.

Are you religious? Do you go to church?

If so, would you appreciate it if somebody compared your church affiliation to the place you by groceries, as though the two things held similar importance to your life choices?

btr1701 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

They are also likely both purveyors of similar places
> like Walmart.

That’s silly. Shopping at the same department store doesn’t give one of them authority over the other.

The judge being a member of the city attorney’s stake does give the city attorney substantial influence over the judge. In the LDS religion going against one’s stake president is seen as an affront to god.

Thad (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Can you even imagine the (fully justified) shitstorm that would be unleashed if they were both Jewish and that was mentioned?

I think it would indeed be out of line to mention both men were Jewish in a similar story.

It would, however, be appropriate to mention whether one of them was a leader at the synagogue that the other one regularly attended.

I gathered that Tim’s intention was something more akin to the latter — these two men both belong to the same church and that may have played a role in their decision — than the former.

I do think it came across sounding like a blanket condemnation of Mormons, though, regardless of how he intended it.

Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

If they both attended the same house of worship and one of them was in a leadership role, I think it would still remain relevant, even if they were both Jewish. That ones trickier because it could be taken as racially-biased, even if it only referred to practitioners of Judaism.

It would seem as problematic as pointing out they attended the same mosque, but sometimes social bonds like this need to be noted, even if it may be taken by some as evidence of religious bigotry.

I could have taken a little more care lining up the connection, but it was not written with the intent of slurring Mormons or their beliefs.

bob says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Would be better to look at which ward/branch the judge attends and see if it is under the same stake that the prosecutor is over. Otherwise he wouldn’t be considered his ecclesiastical leader.

With how big the Church of Jesus Christ of latter day Saints is people may affiliate with the same religion but have different leaders going up the chain. Also abuse of one’s position is not tolerated in the church so if it was a matter of misusing his authority and a complaint is made it will be dealt with by the church.

Remember, people are not perfect never will be, and usually falter. The best anyone can do is repent and try better the next day. Regardless, you will still need to pay the consequence of whatever you did.

James Burkhardt (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Well, as one of the local stake presidents, the city attorney was likely in the chain for any follower whose church was in the area. The stake will include a minimum of 5 churches all located in geographical proximity.

The church dealing with an abuse of his authority doesn’t resolve the results of the abuse, such as the intended wrongful conviction as a result of vindictive prosecution. Given that Vindictive prosecution is already an abuse of secular authority and his oaths of office (generally sworn to god or upon the sacred text), I do not find it a stretch to assume abuse of sacred authority as well.

R ogs U Serious? says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re he Church of Jesus Christ of latter day Saint

Dude: You ate the bait, and the beginning and the end of speech policing is when they get their religious hook in your mouth.

Just because some bunch of desert incestuous tribal nutjobs demand you use their speech conventions, doesnt mean you have to do it.

See here http://m.newser.com/story/263437/church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints-dont-call-us-mormons.html

Ill stick with Mormons, thank you.

In the meantime, I belong to the Church of Fuck Every Last One of These Incestuous Religious Nutjobs Who Seek To Control Speech By Using Huge Ass Names for Deviously Irrational Crappy Churches.

Please, if you respond, use the proper name for my church,ok?

Thad (profile) says:

Re: Re:

I think it was inartfully handled but I agree with Stephen: I think Tim’s intention was to indicate that the judge may have been influenced by the attorney’s role as a church leader.

I did a bit of a double-take when I first read it too; it felt gratuitous. It took a second reading to get Tim’s point; I think he should have done a better job of explaining why he felt the two men’s religion was relevant to the story.

Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Hi, gratuitous religious bigot here. My intention was to show the judge and prosecutor attended the same church and the prosecutor was the head of that church, which possibly played some part in the judge’s ridiculous decision. It wasn’t intended to be a slight of their mutual religious beliefs, but I can see how it could be taken that way. My apologies to those I’ve offended.

Christenson says:

Re: Re: Re:

Dear Lion Tamer….

What struck me in both yours and the mainstream coverage of this situation was the failure to mention some other important things about Colorado City — namely that Colorado City is where Warren Jeffs was leading his FLDS church/cult before he was arrested.

These mormons are very likely members or former members of that cult. The power of the church leader over the parishoner in this case is very likely much stronger than that of the local priest/biship/rabbi over an ordinary observant catholic or jewish person in their congregation.

Hopefully you will be able to state this point better than I have.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

They don’t give a damn about wasting taxpayer money. Law enforcement acts with total disregard to law and taxpayers knowing they are effectively immune from prosecution and protected by the courts and their unions, now also the “president” and his lapdogs.

And they wonder why the public no longer trusts or respects them.

Cdaragorn (profile) says:

Exactly what was the point in bringing up the religious affiliation of the individuals here? It added nothing to your otherwise excellent points and only seemed like an attempt to discredit something you’ve personally chosen to dislike without any basis in fact.
Especially considering a basic study of said religious organization would reveal that said actions clearly go against the basic teachings of that organization.
Every group has individuals who pretend to follow the groups principles while ignoring them everywhere they go. Pretending that has anything to do with the group is petty and disappointing to see coming from an otherwise decent article. Please refrain from it in the future.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Exactly what was the point in bringing up the religious affiliation of the individuals here?

To show that the local Mormon church stake president is a vindictive asshole, and probably shouldn’t be in a position of "moral authority."

In other words, this dick is the last person I’d expect to have something to say about morality. If you take that as offensive, feel free to add on "…but I’m sure some are good people…"

ShadowNinja (profile) says:

The really ironic part about this sting is how police officers in other states have given tickets to people for crossing the streets too slowly.

One of the most infamous cases was a ticket to an elderly grandmother with a walker who couldn’t go any faster. But there was one major problem with said intersection she was crossing, the crossing light was so short so that even some college athletes running at full speed couldn’t get across in time.

So What.... says:

Us old timers...

When I was a young chappy the police department bought this new fangled device called radar. It was big and heavy and they always operated around a curve where they could park the van needed to haul it around. A motorcycle “Evel Knievel” would pull you over. So someone starting putting up a sign on a tree saying speed trap ahead… It was always written on a paper plate. City got pissed..finally caught the guy doing it and wrote him up for some obstruction style thing.

He went back to doing it..even when they moved the speed trap..his paper plates were so ubitiquous that he didnt need to write on them any more, thus not repeating his “crime”. The city gave up the speed trap for I think 20 years.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: SETTLE...

NO. This is more like dealing with a settlement troll.

This police-operated, and court aided-and-abetted, scam needs to have the living excrement sued out of it.

That these law officers are from the same religion puts the onus on THEM to behave morally in the first place. WWJD?

Reaching a settlement is not going to prevent further abuses. Scorched-earth troll smashing is what needs to happen every time, but most people don’t have the resources to do that. Fortunately here, a higher court does have those resources to effect the same outcome.

Never settle with trolls. Never let the law system operate like this scam does.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Prior restraint, Fire in a crowded theater, civil rights violations, retaliatory litigation to silence a critic.

We need like a group of people charged with upholding justice some sort of branch or unit of the government who would see things like this as undermining people’s faith in their government & the enforcement of law being improper in their community & punish those who have been doing wrong… Instead we have a Keebler elf look-a-like who is wasting time & effort on trying to scare people into not protesting the president by exercising their rights….

Fully Jewish says:

re: Relijins must be called out

Um, scuse me, but yeah-atheists/secular/human beings are the slimmest and most actual minority in America,and we endure chronic assaults from all the relgious majoritarian nutjobs Who hide in law and culture,and especially in institutions,in re:

~City Attorney and local Mormon church stake president Steve Morris rang Hunt up~

So,yeah, f@ck em all.

America is a religious/cult/sectarian cesspool, and yeah, that includes whacky sectarian Jews too, who routinely violate minorities with waffling superstitious abstractions read into the laws(like hate speech) to pervert democracy and equitable treatment,and perversions of law and due process, as we have seen since 2001.

R ogs U Serious? says:

Re he Church of Jesus Christ of latter day Saint

ok.

But see:

for us atheists and sec-humanists/pagans/etc,we tolerate entire lives riddled with religious discrimination BY the religious,so much so that your tyranny of majoritarian rule, aka organized religion which enacts itself in law and culture,is itself true bigotry.

Maybe address how knee-jerky you majoritarians are,..huh,every time one of us from the true, and ACTUAL minority speaks against majoritarianism, and religious insanity.

John Pack Lambert says:

Anti-members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

This article reeks of anti-members of The Church of Jesus Christ hatred. It is written by conspiracy theory haters who spew dislike for a religion they avoid understanding and hate for a city that has a right not to be destroyed by the irresponsible tourist who inflict Nevada.

Tanner Andrews (profile) says:

Re: Anti-members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

a city that has a right not to be destroyed by the irresponsible tourist who inflict Nevada

I have never heard of tourists inflicting Nevada upon people. I admit that it would be harsh if they did so, and the locals would have a right to object.

On the other hand, if the city atty is a religious superior to the municipal judge wrongly deciding issues in his favor, it is certainly fair game to mention that as a possible explanation for the patently wrong rulings by that municipal judge. I am glad that the appeals court did not go that route, but commentary by the public (for our purposes, non-parties) may reasonably go beyond the bounds of the appellate review.

I have no real knowledge of the relevant church hierarchy. However, I have seen tourists, as my state is badly infested with them. I have not, to date, seen them inflict Nevada upon the locals. A fair number of them do come downtown to inflict an odd form of hard-shell Baptist religion upon us.

RyanNerd (profile) says:

If it were two "Baptists" instead of "Mormons"...

I was happy to see in the comments people calling out Techdirt on framing a religious group in a negative light due to the actions of individuals who happen to be members of that group.
I’m disappointed in Techdirt with this sort of shoddy reporting.

To drive this point home here is the article framing it against a different group:

This resulted in the city dropping the charges against Hunt. Then Hunt decided to sue the city and, magically, the charges — pushed by a new city attorney (and local black leader) — reappeared. City Attorney and local black man Steve Morris rang Hunt up for the original charge plus a few more.

Hunt’s lawyer complained on Facebook about the bogus charges. This led the municipal judge (and "good" negro) Victor Miller to hand down a completely unconstitutional gag order forbidding Hunt’s lawyer from discussing the case anywhere but in court.

Now again just to drive the point further home:

This resulted in the city dropping the charges against Hunt. Then Hunt decided to sue the city and, magically, the charges — pushed by a new city attorney (and local gay leader) — reappeared. City Attorney and local homosexual Steve Morris rang Hunt up for the original charge plus a few more.

Hunt’s lawyer complained on Facebook about the bogus charges. This led the municipal judge (and good homo) Victor Miller to hand down a completely unconstitutional gag order forbidding Hunt’s lawyer from discussing the case anywhere but in court.

The Wanderer (profile) says:

Re: If it were two "Baptists" instead of "Mormons"...

Leaving aside any other problems with your characterization of the matter, I’ll just note that I’m pretty sure the description of the municipal judge as a “good Mormon” was meant to refer to him as being a good, loyal adherent to the teachings of Mormonism, and thus presumably considering himself subject (in some degree and scope) to the authority of the church’s leaders.

Neither of the groups you substituted in for the Mormons have any such teachings/authority principle, so the analogy breaks down there at the very least.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: ... the underlying idea would not have changed one bit.

Your examples are so bad I can’t help but wonder if you did it on purpose. I’m also left scratching my head in that you seem to suggest that you read the comments, yet apparently completely missed the author of the gorram article explaining his reasons for that line, which had nothing to do with the specific religion, mormon or otherwise. Someone even made it the Last Word in fact, such that there’s no excuse for you to not have seen it.

You choose your religion, you do not choose your race or sexual orientation. In neither case is there a similar position of authority as a religious leader has either, unless perhaps there’s a group out there that considers the leader of their racial/sexual community so amazing that they are speakers for god and hold authority on that level.

Might just be me, but personally the kneejerk reactions I’ve seen so far to those two mentions have painted a worse light on the members of(or perhaps only defenders of) the religion than the article could have possibly done.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...