[Lnc-business] LNC Member Blogging

[Joshua Katz]

That can be done with candidate speeches too. One bad candidate, even in
another state, can tar other campaigns. So, if that's a reason not to allow
comments, it's also a reason not to run candidates. I can give examples of
candidates I was hit with during my campaigns, and I'm sure the rest of us
can too.

If the media did grab some comment and smear us, by the way, it would
probably be helpful because they'd acknowledge our existence.

There are, of course, many websites on controversial topics that allow
comments. None of them destroy their movements. It's a better idea for us,
since we tend to agree with Mills that the open airing of opinions allows
the truth to prevail. Emailing me is quite different from an open
discussion with ideas floating freely.

Joshua Katz
On Jul 30, 2014 11:44 AM, "Scott L." <scott73 at earthlink.net> wrote:

>
>
> I appreciate Mr. Katz’s attempt to permit some form of public commentary
> on our web site.
>
>
> However – this will open up a can of worms that doesn’t need to be opened.
>
>
> If LP members are unhappy with something the National Party does, there
> are many, many places where they can post their discontent (or their
> agreement, if they like something that we did).  Plus – our lp.org e-mail
> addresses are always available on the web site.
>
>
>
> This organization exists to elect Libertarians to public office.  Having a
> “comment” section on our web site will give the media a one-stop shop to
> pick up juicy quotes that they can use to marginalize the Libertarian
> Party.  You all know that having a disclaimer at the bottom of that comment
> page will not dissuade the media from claiming that one isolated comment is
> “indicative” of how some Libertarian Party members feel about X or Y.
>
>
>
> Ladies and gentlemen – please don’t go down this route.  Let IPR and all
> the other libertarian web sites take care of the need for our members to
> have an outlet to publicly express their opinions on internal LP
> governance, or other matters.
>
>
>
>   Scott Lieberman
>
>
>
>
>
> “I would respectfully disagree with the vice chair, for largely the
> reasons Dr. Lieberman mentions. I like the solution oriented approach, but
> I disagree with forcing it on LNC members on the website. Also, the primary
> readers will likely be LP members, not the public at large, but the public
> at large will also read what is written, raising the concerns the Secretary
> raises, plus the difficulty in writing for a split audience.
>
> I would instead propose having open comments on everything on the website.
> Then, if an LNC member chooses to comment, it is clear that it isn't under
> color of office, since anyone can comment, although they can choose to
> include their identity and title if they think it will lend credence.
>
> If an LNC member wishes to post elsewhere under color of office, they are
> free to. Many of us do, and at the regional level, we have more direct
> means of speaking to constituents. If an LNC member wants to post on the
> website officially, or other have an LP branded statement, they can go
> through the APRC.
>
> If we do go this route, though, I would disagree with then specifying what
> people can say. Without open posting, the justification for allowing posts
> without APRC approval is board member status, which out ranks staff and
> most management (we have a combined chair and CEO, hence most.) So either
> we entrust board members in this way, or we don't. Or limit it to some
> subset, say, those who do or may supervise staff directly, ie. Chair and
> Vice Chair.
>
>    Joshua Katz”
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20140730/930dfa1d/attachment-0002.html>