Mormon Discussion’s podcast production is certainly not connected to The Mormon Church aka The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It also is most assuredly not approved or endorsed by Intellectual Reserve, Inc or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Any of the awesome content or the solid opinions expressed, implied or included in Mormon Discussion Inc’s awesome podcast lineup and production are solely those of Mormon Discussion Inc. and/or its program hosts and not those of Intellectual Reserve, Inc. or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Mormon Discussion Inc is a 501(c)(3) and is in the arena of journalistic work and is part of a free press. A free press is fundamental to a democratic society. It seeks out and circulates news, information, ideas, comment and opinion and holds those in authority to account. The press provides the platform for a multiplicity of voices to be heard. At national, regional and local level, it is the public’s watchdog, activist and guardian as well as educator, entertainer and contemporary chronicler. Under the “fair use” defense, however, another author may make limited use of the original author’s work without asking permission. Fair use is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism.
The fair use privilege is perhaps the most significant limitation on a copyright owner’s exclusive rights.
Subject to some general limitations discussed later in this article, the following types of uses are usually deemed fair uses:
- Criticism and commentary: for example, quoting or excerpting a work in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment. A book reviewer would be permitted to quote passages from a book in a newspaper column, for example, as part of an examination of the book.
- News reporting: such as summarizing an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report. A journalist would be permitted to quote from a political speech’s text without the politician’s permission.
- Research and scholarship: perhaps quoting a short passage in a scholarly, scientific, or technical work for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations. An art historian would be able to use an image of a painting in an academic article that analyzes the painting.
- Nonprofit educational uses: for example, when teachers photocopy limited portions of written works for classroom use. An English teacher would be permitted to copy a few pages of a book to show to the class as part of a lesson plan.
- Parody: that is, a work that ridicules another, usually well-known, work by imitating it in a comic way. A comedian could quote from a movie star’s speech in order to make fun of that star.
I realize I may be going a bit off topic with my comment here, but I’m surprised with how far the new cultural expectation of erasing systematic racism is going with all this. Many places they are going after historical monuments and statues saying “Oh, Sir John A. McDonald has a checkered past… we can’t honor someone who was inhumane towards the native Indians”.
Now Salt Lake Tribune is running this article that maybe we should rename BYU, because obviously Brigham Young was a questionable character… and so we might as well bring a spot light to Joseph Smith questionable practices as well.
When it comes to historical figures, we can either focus on the light side or their shadow side. We all have a shadow side, but to bring down monuments because they were horrible human beings when no one had that in the forefront of their minds until someone points out the blind spot that no one was looking at and now we have a hard time seeing anything but… I fail to see how that is more awakened.
Sure we are noticing the blind spot, but now you can’t see anything else. That isn’t being awakened, if you fail to see the totality of a human being, which includes both the good and the bad.
I’m sure that the ultimate counter argument is what about Adolf Hitler. Should we have any statues of him around… I’m not sure that we do, but if we did if the majority of the public wants it remove I would agree, but if it’s only a minority of the public then no. There should be a democratic process to it.
The symbol for what Nazi Hitler stands today is very much different for the symbol of which Brigham Young represents in the minds of LDS.