- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 10/15/14 at 4:44 pm to genro
quote:
You should've said, "Did you have a reasonable expectation that your words would not be subpoena'd by the city government if some of your coworkers sued the city?"
The answer is, of course, yes.
Ah, the ole I never thought I would have to tell someone what I said defense. That works every time.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 5:43 pm to cwill
quote:
Could they have instructed their congregants from the pulpit while sermonizing on how to acquire signatures?
That does not matter one bit. A church, a pastor, a congregation has a right to come together and talk about issues like this and how to fight against things like this. They may not can support a person or party and say VOTE FOR THAT PARSON OR PARTY, but they can be proactive!
Posted on 10/15/14 at 5:50 pm to darkhorse
quote:
That does not matter one bit. A church, a pastor, a congregation has a right to come together and talk about issues like this and how to fight against things like this. They may not can support a person or party and say VOTE FOR THAT PARSON OR PARTY, but they can be proactive!
Of course they can, but if they get involved in a petition signature drive and that ends up in litigation, the subject of which is the legitimacy of the signatures, well they can expect a subpoena regarding their participation in the acquisition of the said sigs. I'm afraid that's how the ball bounces G. But I do think the sermons will ultimately be excluded from the discovery, in fact, I think the city has indicated it may amend the subpoena to remove it.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 6:41 pm to cwill
cwill...
almost to 25,000...let'er rip!
almost to 25,000...let'er rip!
This post was edited on 10/15/14 at 6:41 pm
Posted on 10/15/14 at 7:18 pm to FalseProphet
quote:
But all this presupposes that the information in the subpoenaed sermons really is substantially relevant to a case or an investigation. I don’t quite see how “all speeches, presentations, or sermons related to HERO, the Petition, Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuality, or gender identity prepared by, delivered by, revised by, or approved by you or in your possession” would be relevant to the litigation about the validity of the referendum petitions.
At the very least, the subpoena seems vastly overbroad. And the fact that it seeks the contents of religious speeches does counsel in favor of making the subpoena as narrow as possible (which would likewise be the case if it sought the contents of political speeches). I’m not sure what sort of legally relevant information might be contained in the subpoenaed sermons. But the subpoena ought to be narrowed to that legally relevant information, not to all things about homosexuality, gender identity, the mayor, or even the petition or the ordinance.
From your link (emphasis added).
Posted on 10/15/14 at 7:22 pm to FalseProphet
quote:
Replacing “newsman” with “minister” (and making related changes) should provide a helpful guide to this case. And while sermons are generally not intended to be as confidential as the names of journalists’ sources, there is still good reason to limit demands for the text of sermons when the text is irrelevant and therefore unnecessary to any legal decisionmaking. Such demands create a feeling of surveillance that may indeed deter or dampen some kinds of religious speech. And while such deterrence or dampening is constitutional when relevant information is subpoenaed (just as it’s constitutional as to subpoenas related to editorial meetings and tenure reviews), it should be avoided and minimized in cases where the subpoenaed information is entirely or largely legally irrelevant.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 7:29 pm to BigJim
If you go back to one of my first posts, I stated they had to relevant from the outset. the burden is on the City to show relevance.
The war I waged in here was against the notion that sermons are somehow protected from discovery.
The war I waged in here was against the notion that sermons are somehow protected from discovery.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 8:21 pm to BigJim
He's basically stated what I've provided...the subpoena is going to be narrowed...but perhaps parts of the sermons related to the petition drive will be discoverable. They cast to wide of a net.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 8:29 pm to the808bass
quote:I love when internet lawyers get on me for NOT BEING A LAWYER, then a real, actual, well-known lawyer comes along and says the exact same thing I've been saying.
there is still good reason to limit demands for the text of sermons when the text is irrelevant and therefore unnecessary to any legal decisionmaking. Such demands create a feeling of surveillance that may indeed deter or dampen some kinds of religious speech. And while such deterrence or dampening is constitutional when relevant information is subpoenaed (just as it’s constitutional as to subpoenas related to editorial meetings and tenure reviews), it should be avoided and minimized in cases where the subpoenaed information is entirely or largely legally irrelevant.
That's the second time that's happened ITT
Posted on 10/15/14 at 8:41 pm to genro
No, you weren't. You argued that the sermons were constitutionally protected private speech. There is no constitutional protection for sermons barring their discovery. The City just had to show relevance, which they have now conceded they can't.
If they were relevant and the City could show it, they would have gotten them.
If they were relevant and the City could show it, they would have gotten them.
This post was edited on 10/15/14 at 8:43 pm
Posted on 10/15/14 at 8:43 pm to FalseProphet
You really look stupid. All you have to do is read the quoted section.
ETA: correction, you also have to understand it.
ETA: correction, you also have to understand it.
This post was edited on 10/15/14 at 8:44 pm
Posted on 10/15/14 at 8:46 pm to genro
I was the one who posted the article jackass. The quoted portion says nothing about a constitutional privilege.
It even says that relevant items are discoverable.
It even says that relevant items are discoverable.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 8:49 pm to genro
It's amazing to me how people cherry pick the entire article for their purpose. The article does not support your POV genro.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 8:50 pm to darkhorse
Exactly, a church can advocate positions, not candidates. They can pass out THE POSITION of both candidates.
Abbott has now got involved I bet these perverts cease and desist their intimidation tactics.
Abbott has now got involved I bet these perverts cease and desist their intimidation tactics.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 8:51 pm to FalseProphet
quote:Correct. It also doesn't say they have none. You are cherry-picking one small part of my argument (privacy privilege), and acting like it was disproven simply because it wasn't addressed
The quoted portion says nothing about a constitutional privilege.
quote:And specifically explains why when irrelevant religious items (such as these!) are considered discoverable, it can trample on religious freedom. His reasoning? My main fricking argument throughout this thread.
It even says that relevant items are discoverable.
You lose.
This post was edited on 10/15/14 at 8:52 pm
Posted on 10/15/14 at 8:52 pm to S.E.C. Crazy
Are you Harvey updyke?
Posted on 10/15/14 at 8:54 pm to genro
No one showed why they aren't relevant. You assume they are. The City may have conceded that now, but you didn't know that when you got on your high horse about a non-existent privacy privilege.
And, the article did address, and wholesale rejected, that there was a constitutional privilege.
In fact, your quoted portion still doesn't say that the issuance of a subpoena for irrelevant information is unconstitutional. It says only that it should be minimized and avoided. Issuing subpoenas is not unconstitutional.
And, the article did address, and wholesale rejected, that there was a constitutional privilege.
In fact, your quoted portion still doesn't say that the issuance of a subpoena for irrelevant information is unconstitutional. It says only that it should be minimized and avoided. Issuing subpoenas is not unconstitutional.
This post was edited on 10/15/14 at 8:58 pm
Posted on 10/15/14 at 8:58 pm to FalseProphet
That's all well and good. It is a lawyer's opinion.
The section I quoted is practically verbatim what I have said ad nauseum throughout this thread regarding intimidation. And at a certain point several posters were telling me I was wrong on that simply because I wasn't a lawyer. So I was enjoying that. DWI
The section I quoted is practically verbatim what I have said ad nauseum throughout this thread regarding intimidation. And at a certain point several posters were telling me I was wrong on that simply because I wasn't a lawyer. So I was enjoying that. DWI
Page 20 of 23
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News