Beaverton Grace Bible Church, in a press release about this suit wrote:There is another side to the story. Beaverton Grace Bible Church wants to present its side of the story before anyone rushes to judgment.

Aha, I think you'll find we're not interested in hearing other sides of the story around here.

Now where did I leave my pitchfork?

Strontium Dog wrote:

Beaverton Grace Bible Church, in a press release about this suit wrote:There is another side to the story. Beaverton Grace Bible Church wants to present its side of the story before anyone rushes to judgment.

Aha, I think you'll find we're not interested in hearing other sides of the story around here.

Now where did I leave my pitchfork?

Clearly were not interested - otherwise why would The_Metatron bother posting his response?

Strontium Dog wrote:

Beaverton Grace Bible Church, in a press release about this suit wrote:There is another side to the story. Beaverton Grace Bible Church wants to present its side of the story before anyone rushes to judgment.

Aha, I think you'll find we're not interested in hearing other sides of the story around here.

Now where did I leave my pitchfork?

To be clear, I admit I'm in no position to know whose claims are true in this case. It just seems really stupid to issue press releases publicizing the fact that you've been accused of aiding and abetting child molestation when no one else has been talking about that, and then complaining that the media is slandering you. And whether or not the woman who runs the blog had made slanderous accusations against them elsewhere, I don't think that means any unrelated claims she makes on her blog are also slanderous.

Shrunk wrote:

Strontium Dog wrote:

Beaverton Grace Bible Church, in a press release about this suit wrote:There is another side to the story. Beaverton Grace Bible Church wants to present its side of the story before anyone rushes to judgment.

Aha, I think you'll find we're not interested in hearing other sides of the story around here.

Now where did I leave my pitchfork?

To be clear, I admit I'm in no position to know whose claims are true in this case. It just seems really stupid to issue press releases publicizing the fact that you've been accused of aiding and abetting child molestation when no one else has been talking about that, and then complaining that the media is slandering you. And whether or not the woman who runs the blog had made slanderous accusations against them elsewhere, I don't think that means any unrelated claims she makes on her blog are also slanderous.

We'd have to know the content of the slander suit. It might not even cite the particular blog we've read in this thread. The accusations we're now hearing about might also be well out in the public square in the area where those people live.

And to be frank, if accusations of aiding and abetting child molestation have been made and disseminated, I don't see why a person shouldn't have recourse to legal action whether he/she is a pastor or not. If the accusations are false, it's an appalling thing to say and people have to take responsibility for their actions.

I'd be very surprised if the blog I read by the woman would be part of the action (unless it's included as some sort of intended evidence of a continued and massive campaign). Nothing in that specific blog appears to be slanderous/libelous on its own.

The photos showing up in the church's Google reviews are hilarious:

amok wrote:We'd have to know the content of the slander suit. It might not even cite the particular blog we've read in this thread. The accusations we're now hearing about might also be well out in the public square in the area where those people live.

And to be frank, if accusations of aiding and abetting child molestation have been made and disseminated, I don't see why a person shouldn't have recourse to legal action whether he/she is a pastor or not. If the accusations are false, it's an appalling thing to say and people have to take responsibility for their actions.

I'd be very surprised if the blog I read by the woman would be part of the action (unless it's included as some sort of intended evidence of a continued and massive campaign). Nothing in that specific blog appears to be slanderous/libelous on its own.

Agreed.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVUfe97K7HU[/youtube]

DoctorE wrote:[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVUfe97K7HU[/youtube]

That kinda clarifies things, and kinda muddies them further. So it does in fact appear that the issue in question is the accusations that the pastor allowed a child molestor to work in the day care. If those accusations were in fact made, and were untrue, then he's obviously justified in suing.

The part that remains unclear to me is where those accusations were made. I haven't re-read the blog, but when this thread initiallly appeared I was unable to find any references to this particular accusaton there. So were the accusations made elsewhere? Or did she remove them from the blog? In either case, it's then unfortunate that so many have been jumping to the blogger's defence (myself included) based on an inaccurate presentation of the case. The impression given was that she was being sued solely for expressing critical personal opinions on her blog. That's much different from the kind of accusation that the pastor is claiming was made.

Erm. First Amendment anyone?

Simon_Gardner wrote:Erm. First Amendment anyone?

It doesn't allow someone to commit slander.

Shrunk wrote:

Simon_Gardner wrote:Erm. First Amendment anyone?

It doesn't allow someone to commit slander.

Oh I thought it did.

If the church is claiming that they were specifically accused of knowingly putting children at risk, then I guess that they are following the right course. Such accusations must be answered, and it puts them in a better light if that is what they are doing.

However, since they are the ones now accusing the blogger of such actions, it means the burden of proof is now on them, and since when did churches ever properly understand the concept of burden of proof?

Simon_Gardner wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

Simon_Gardner wrote:Erm. First Amendment anyone?

It doesn't allow someone to commit slander.

Oh I thought it did.

No, but the burden of proof for libel and slander charges is much higher here than, say, in the UK.

zulumoose wrote:If the church is claiming that they were specifically accused of knowingly putting children at risk, then I guess that they are following the right course. Such accusations must be answered, and it puts them in a better light if that is what they are doing.

However, since they are the ones now accusing the blogger of such actions, it means the burden of proof is now on them, and since when did churches ever properly understand the concept of burden of proof?

Yeah, I'm still trying to make sense of the various accounts of this case, and failing. One possibility: Some disgruntled former church-member actually did make a malicious accusation of child endangerment to the police, and the church is assuming that the blogger was part of this and therefore is guilty of making this accusation in her blog, even though her blog makes no mention of it. The response that Metatron received includes passages that are supposed to be direct quotes from the blog, but which do not come up in a search.