Current bill to make it illegal to record own conversation

[investigator]

There is a bill currently before the Utah House to make it illegal to record your own conversation. HB0330 changes the current law that allows you to record your own conversation without the permission of the person you are speaking with. The new proposal makes it a illegal to do so without a court order. There have been tens of thousands of criminals, corrupt law enforcement officials, politicians and attorneys who have been brought to justice because these individuals were recorded by those whom they prey upon while in the act of committing their offences. To take away this tool from the general public and require the courts to get involved is ludicrous. Please contact your representative to express your opposition to this bill.

https://le.utah.gov/~2018/bills/static/ ... l#77-23a-4

[investigator]

There have been tens of thousands of child abusers, perpetrators of domestic abuse, rapists, drug dealers, abusive ecclesiastic leaders, and corrupt politicians and attorneys etc. who have been brought to justice because those who were being abused had the courage to record the abuse and brought it into the light. No one would have believed them had they not had that tool of being able to record what was going on without fear of recrimination and the ability to bring that evidence forward. The only people who will benefit from this proposed legislation are those in power who seek to hide what they are doing and do not want the truth to be known. Additionally, judges and lawyers will benefit as those who do want to be able to record their conversations will have to get a court order to do so; thus, further lining the pockets of judges and lawyers “that they might get money according to the suits which [ are] brought before them”. Additionally, ecclesiastical leaders should not “seek deep to hide their counsel from the Lord” or anyone else. Law makers of Utah will be held accountable if they pass this legislation.

[David13]

What about threatening phone calls, death threats, etc?
This is a nonsense bill and should not be supported.
However, this is one of those instances where the church, rather than asking for divine inspiration, passes the buck to the so called "experts", the lawyers, and insurance companies.

Lawyers that actually seek to reduce the liability of the church for any misguided advice or other factors that may arise in a Bishop/member interview.

So from a technical aspect, it may well end up producing less, rather than more legal work for all concerned.

From the point of view of criminal cases, there would be less evidence and less prosecution, and thus less legal work.

And of course, less liability judgements to pay out for both the church and the insurance companies for the church.
But definitely not a good idea.
dc

[Lizzy60]

It is shameful that the Church is on the side of protecting those in power (the leadership) rather than those with little power. Just recently, a Bishop in Utah was convicted of sexual molestation. It's ridiculous to do MORE to keep interviews secret, when there is the real possibility of abuse by leaders.

[Joel]

I have heard of some horror stories about Bishops interviews. Elder Tanner's advice seems to be passe, that's the nature of continuing revelation I suppose.

If the bill passes I would encourage people to break the law.

[Lizzy60]

Bishop's interviews have hit the news with the resignation of Rob Porter.
It doesn't paint the church in a good light.

[Joel]

Utahns spoke loudly against recording bill supported by the Salt Lake Chamber and Mormon church, so lawmakers have dropped it

Citing a rapid public backlash against their bill, lawmakers are backing away from their pitch to make sweeping changes to the Utah law that allows people to record conversations without alerting others who are being recorded.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the predominant religion in Utah and among legislators, put its support behind the bill shortly after it was filed, saying HB330 would have protected conversations between church leaders and members. Business groups originally sought the law change.

But that’s about all the support the measure’s sponsors received for their idea.

Legislators were inundated with calls, emails, texts and posts on social media almost universally against the bill.

“It does appear that this original concept was universally hated,” said Sen. Todd Weiler, a Woods Cross Republican and Senate sponsor of the bill.

Rep. V. Lowry Snow, a St. George Republican who sponsored the bill, said he’s asked the chairman of the powerful House Rules Committee not to move the measure forward for now. He’s talking with the Salt Lake Chamber — the business group that Snow says asked for the bill — about whether to move ahead with a scaled-back version this session.

“There was a lot of negative input coming back,” Snow said. “A lot of it, not all of it, but a lot of it was misplaced. Because it was clear to me that they had also not read the exemptions that existed in the bill. Nevertheless, the feedback has been significant that has come back not in support.”

Weiler went so far as to express regret in agreeing to sign onto the bill. (He hadn’t read it when he agreed, he said.)

“I’ve rarely seen a bill that has had so much opposition so quickly,” Weiler said Thursday. “Obviously, this idea is hitting a nerve with the public, and not in a good way.”

The bill would have made Utah one of about a dozen states with so-called two-party recording consent laws that effectively require all parties of a conversation to consent to being recorded.

The Mormon church offered its support in a statement shortly after the bill was filed. A former legislator said he’d been told the church was supporting it because the Salt Lake City-based faith was upset over recently released, surreptitious recordings.

“Church representatives have spoken with legislators to express support for House Bill 330, which is intended to protect the confidentiality of sensitive private conversations, including those between ecclesiastical leaders and their members,” spokesman Eric Hawkins said Tuesday.

Hawkins didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment Thursday on the negative public backlash and the sponsors’ hitting brakes on the bill.

Lane Beattie, the outgoing president and CEO of the Salt Lake Chamber, said he was talking with Snow about how and whether to press forward with the bill this session.

“There were a lot of questions that came up that justifiably slowed the bill down,” Beattie said. “We’re very sensitive about” the public opinion.

The HB330 that Snow asked to have stalled in its introductory committee reverses the state’s recording law and provides certain scenarios when people could surreptitiously record.

Beattie said one possibility is drastically narrowing the bill, keeping Utah a one-party recording consent state and adding exemptions or scenarios into the existing law when people would need permission to record.

“We’re going to go back to the drawing board,” he said, adding that he recognized the 45-day session was nearly halfway through and he’d avoid a late push to pass a bill that appeared to “short-circuit public input.”

Whatever happens, Weiler said, the bill will either not pass or be scaled back.

“I’m confident it will not get out of the House in its current form, so I won’t have to worry about it,” he added. “It will either be significantly amended or it will just die for this session.”

[JohnnyL]

Read the exceptions.

[harakim]

What about threatening phone calls, death threats, etc?
This is a nonsense bill and should not be supported.
However, this is one of those instances where the church, rather than asking for divine inspiration, passes the buck to the so called "experts", the lawyers, and insurance companies.

Lawyers that actually seek to reduce the liability of the church for any misguided advice or other factors that may arise in a Bishop/member interview.

So from a technical aspect, it may well end up producing less, rather than more legal work for all concerned.

From the point of view of criminal cases, there would be less evidence and less prosecution, and thus less legal work.

And of course, less liability judgements to pay out for both the church and the insurance companies for the church.
But definitely not a good idea.
dc

As someone just mentioned, this is covered in the exceptions.

[skmo]

I disagree with this bill with an absolute finality unwavering. I would support a law which said it would be illegal to lie about recording a conversation, so if I ask you "Are you recording this conversation" and you say no when you actually are, then you've violate the law, but I have every right to protect myself with a recording of things happening to me with a full proof. As a teacher I've almost always had at least an audio recorder make a record of every single second I've ever been in my classroom, whether I was alone, with a student, or a whole class.

[David13]

I didn't read the exceptions covered in the proposed bill. But I would probably question how those would work, if they did work at all.
dc

[JohnnyL]

It would be simple to say that unless there were criminal misconduct, illegal recordings are ... illegal.

[investigator]

Right now in the state of Utah I have the FREEDOM to record any conversation that I am a party to. The proposed revisions seek to take away those FREEDOMS. The only ones who stand to gain from the revisions are those who would be harmed were the TRUTH of the conversations recorded to be made know. It you are for FREEDOM and TRUTH you should stand against these revisions. If politicians, lawyers and ecclesiastical leaders do not want what they say to be made public they should watch what they say or keep their mouths shut.

[mounty476]

I don't live in Utah, but in Ohio. But I did attend the Y and graduated with my degrees in Ohio. I have been in law enforcement for 40 years and, sadly, have encountered a lot of less than reputable cops and prosecutors, let alone the seedy defense attorneys I've had to deal with. There have been too many situations to list where I have secretly recorded conversations to cover my own back. You need to fight this bill with all you have.

[tribrac]

what are they afraid of?

This protects people in power who have things to hide, and makes little people vulnerable. This is a terrible bill.

Edit: I should have read the above comments more closely. I didn't know the Church supported the bill. I see why they would like that, but man the PR hit they took for supporting it hurts.