[Lnc-business] Satanic Post - LNC Input Requested

Sun Apr 16 13:11:37 EDT 2017

Starchild,

I intend to answer these questions upon my return to Indianapolis, but that
may not occur until tomorrow, as I have a 6 hour drive ahead of me upon
adjournment.

Brett C. Bittner

Region 3 Representative
Libertarian National Committee <http://lp.org/>

brett.bittner at lp.org
317.537.8344

On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Starchild <sfdreamer at earthlink.net> wrote:

>
> Brett,
>
> Thanks for your thoughts, but I'm confused or would like clarification on
> a few points. Why wouldn't adding additional review eyes by adding members
> to the Advertising & Publications Review Committee help ensure that
> problematic stuff is flagged before being posted? To what "punishment" are
> you referring? Why should the focus be solely on Facebook? And why replace
> the existing volunteer admins and moderators there?
>
> Love & Liberty,
>                               ((( starchild )))
> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>                           (415) 625-FREE
>                             @StarchildSF
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brett Bittner
> Sent: Apr 16, 2017 12:30 PM
> To: lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Satanic Post - LNC Input Requested
>
> Whitney,
>
> As I've noted previously, it's my belief that the APRC let this slip
> through during our preparation and travel for the meeting. I know that I
> did not have an opportunity to review the scheduled Facebook posts for
> Wednesday or Thursday during my preparation or travel, in addition to my
> daily routine.
>
> I think the interest we now have in the process for this asset is a step
> in the right direction. When I joined the APRC, I had concerns,
> specifically about the nature of our Facebook procedures, that have now
> come to light. As Chair of the APRC, I do not think that adding members to
> the committee with the current procedure in place is the correct tack. I
> believe that Steven Neikahla's proposal (that did not pass) was a step in
> the right direction, however my concern lies with the "punishment" of the
> appointment bestowed upon me for the proposal to operate.
>
> I believe the proper step would be to form a committee, consisting of
> existing (non-LNC) Facebook admins & editors, members of the APRC, and
> other members of the LNC to offer an updated procedure recommendation. That
> committee should offer those suggestions at our upcoming LNC session in
> Kansas City. In the interim, I intend to pay MUCH closer attention to the
> Facebook posts myself and encourage the other members of the APRC to do the
> same. During our upcoming discussion regarding the vacancy appointment, I
> intend to suggest something to assist the committee in that regard.
>
> This committee's focus should be Facebook-specific in the immediate term.
> I would suggest replacing the existing (non-LNC) Facebook admins and
> editors with those who focus on other aspects of our social media outreach
> upon completion of the Facebook recommendation.
>
> Thoughts?  <-- I thought it important to utilize Mr. Demarest's standard
> closing with this particular topic.
>
> Brett C. Bittner
>
> Region 3 Representative
> Libertarian National Committee <http://lp.org/>
>
> brett.bittner at lp.org
> 317.537.8344 <(317)%20537-8344>
>
> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Whitney Bilyeu <whitneycb76 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> If volunteers are overstepping their bounds, that needs to be reigned in,
>> and I would like to see the Chairman deal with that.
>>
>> The material that is being put out gets mixed reviews...that is not my
>> issue. I would like assurances from the APRC that they can handle the FB
>> volume in a timely manner, which based on my conversations with some of
>> those members, is possible, but difficult. Would adding APRC members, whose
>> sole responsibility would be to review FB content, be appropriate?
>>
>> I don't want to create a situation that will stifle the productivity or
>> creativity of the page's volunteers at all. However, some established
>> frontend guidelines/non-negotiables are in order to avoid future missteps.
>>
>>
>> Whitney
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 11:07 AM, Ken Moellman <lpky at mu-net.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I believe that if we're going to run religious-themed memes, that they
>>> should always include multiple faiths. That way we can never have content
>>> that is singled out and used out of context.  Part of the issue in modern
>>> politics is the out-of-context clip.  Messaging must be crafted in a way
>>> that prevents being clipped out of context.
>>>
>>> Does anyone care that the Satanic Temple is basically a parody
>>> organization?  No.  They see "Satanic".
>>>
>>> So crafting messages is actually a skill.  That's the point.  And
>>> messaging is extremely important to at least corral, if not control, from
>>> an organizational standpoint.  I'm pretty sure other people know that.  I'm
>>> pretty sure that's why we have the APRC.  I am not saying I'm any good at
>>> messaging myself, but I know it is critically important.
>>>
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, I'm now receiving messages from current and former FB
>>> volunteers who are saying there are fundamental problems with the way
>>> things are structured. That there is one particular person who is
>>> inflicting his vision upon the FB crew.  They have asked to not be publicly
>>> identified because they know this person and their allies will also start
>>> attacking in response.  This exposes a fundamental problem with the way
>>> things are set up currently.  And as it stands, the status quo will
>>> continue with no corrective action.
>>>
>>>
>>> It's extremely frustrating to someone like me, who tries to focus on the
>>> technicals.  I don't want to get involved in platform fights, for instance.
>>> But I can help build websites and email servers, and I can put us on the
>>> ballot. But if others are doing things which push people away and hurt the
>>> party, then all of my work is for naught.
>>>
>>> ken
>>>
>>> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 9:50 AM, Patrick McKnight <
>>> patrick.joseph.mcknight at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Arvin,
>>>>
>>>> I respectfully dissent from the premise of your message. The issue is
>>>> not this one post. The issue is the structural process and lack of
>>>> transparency.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Patrick McKnight
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Arvin Vohra <votevohra at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi All -
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd like to request LNC oversight on the Satanic Temple posting as
>>>>> part of the #FreeToBelieve series. I don't want to see our volunteers raked
>>>>> over the coals for issues related to the LNC or APRC.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is a Satanic Temple Posting:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Fine on any day of the year
>>>>> 2. Never ok
>>>>> 3. Generally ok, but not during a religious holiday of a conflicting
>>>>> religion.
>>>>>
>>>>> If future posts go up, I'd like it to be very clear on what the LNC
>>>>> views are, so that volunteers are not blamed for our decisions.
>>>>>
>>>>> My view: I don't think that this is a battle worth picking. You can
>>>>> already be as Satanic as you want in America, so we're not gaining
>>>>> anything. I'd much rather focus on repealing laws and taxes that exist.
>>>>>
>>>>> Personally, I have no opposition to the Satanic Temple. As part of an
>>>>> overall study of religion, I have read sections of various "Satanic" books,
>>>>> and written in non-political areas on mythology parallels between
>>>>> Prometheus in Greek Mythology and Lucifer in the Judaeo-Christian
>>>>> tradition. Realistically, I'll probably look into the religious legal
>>>>> protections they have, based on the comments by the chair, to see how
>>>>> others can do the same. I'd love to see an America in which every single
>>>>> house and apartment building is legally seen as a religious location that
>>>>> pays no property taxes.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Arvin
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Arvin Vohra
>>>>>
>>>>> www.VoteVohra.com
>>>>> VoteVohra at gmail.com
>>>>> (301) 320-3634
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lnc-business mailing list
>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170416/3b60d967/attachment-0002.html>