The closed thread also wasn’t, and wasn’t closed as a call to action. That’s my point. Asking people to talk to people they know is no more a call to action than asking people to stand still on an escalator is a call to action.
And, again, that’s not why the thread was closed, and we shouldn’t be looking for ways to justify a thread closure when it was closed for incorrect reasons.
I hope you’ll talk to JC about his incorrect understanding of the law around this issue.
A call to action is a request of board members to participate in some loosely organized activity, such as contacting off-board entities in support or opposition to a particular issue. Here, the OP urges board members to contact off board entities, ie, members of the military, regarding a particular issue. That’s a call to action, anyway you slice it.
Yes it was a call to action and I would have moderated it that way if it were in my forum. Your examples aren’t even close to being a call to action. I have no reason to say anything to JC on the issue. The same topic can be debated very easily if worded
Yes.
A justified injunction that would not be easy to challenge and overturn in court? Probably not.
A harassment injunction by some butt-hurt Trump flunkie? I’m not that confident.
The problem is, is that there is no difference between the two. Either gets the board shut down.
I don’t know what may have motivated JC to close that thread, but personally, I do worry about the types of crackdowns that the administration is having on social media, and that is exactly the sort of thread that could get their attention.
I suppose it’s possible to come up with a specific interpretation of “call to action” that includes talking to people you know but excludes asking people to wear a mask during a pandemic (for example), but again, that’s not why the thread was closed, that’s not relevant to this situation, that’s not a clear interpretation of the rules, and if a clear interpretation of the rules prevents someone from saying, “please ask military people not to shoot unarmed civilians,” we need to change that rule.
I can see the call to action argument but that’s not why it was closed. It was closed for illegality.
We have had many threads that have discussed military and what orders are lawful and unlawful, and how they should interpret them.
This was not one of those threads. This was a call to action, not a discussion.
No, it is an obvious call to action not requiring some weird interpretation. It is asking for an outreach campaign. It is a clear violation of the “call to action” rule, even more that you’ve quietly acknowledged he didn’t say “friends and family”.
For god’s sake, the daylight between “military members you know” and “friends and family” is extremely small, and overwhelmingly decreases the number of people reached out to. But yes, your friends, family, and acquaintances would be spoken with.
If this is really what’s meant by “call to action”–and now Loach is saying it is–we need to revisit this rule, because it’s ridiculous to have a rule against asking people to have a conversation with people they know.
I’ll stipulate that it was a call to action. It’s still not the stated reason that the thread was closed, and the stated reason was wrong for reasons belabored quite thoroughly in this thread.
Firing on ANY American civilian, on American territory is a direct violation of the Posse Comitatus act of 1878 which explicitly forbids the use of active duty military personnel in any action against Americans on American soil. Period. Even if the civilians in question are armed and firing on the military units, if they are ordered to return fire it will be an illegal order that the soldiers are 100% justified in refusing to comply. You cannot order a soldier to commit a war crime–see the My Lai massacre for pertinent details.
Reopen the fucking thread, Chance, you were categorically incorrect to close it.
No, it’s not. You think russian heel didn’t mean to include every Facebook “friend” that was in the military? Those aren’t necessarily really friends but you know them.
Others have spoken more eloquently than I could, so I’ll just chime in with agreement: it was a shameful act to close that thread.
I’m happy it was closed because I really don’t want this place turning into a Resistance organizing spot. However, I do agree that JC should be extremely embarrassed about calling it encouraging illegal activity.
If we are genuinely at the point where the government is going to try to shut down a messageboard because people on it are pleading for the military not to shoot unarmed civilians, then we’re at our Reichstag fire moment, and the board should take this tiniest of stands. I’m not convinced we’re at that point, but goddamn, if we are, are we really going to cower away from the tyrannical government that implies?
Jonathan Chance said “no” and he says he’s not going to change his mind, apparently not at all embarrassed by his utter ignorance.
But remember, it’s perfectly within the boundaries for pedophiles to discuss their fantasies.
I think that we are at a point where political flunkies may very well harass any online groups that they perceive as being on the left.
Trump himself isn’t going to take us down, no, but it doesn’t take Trump, all it takes is one person on the right who has the wherewithal to file a legal motion. I do not know that the wisest course of action is to give them an excuse.
If things get as bad as what you say, then our time would be much better spent off the message board anyway.
It’s not like it hasn’t happened before. The shooting of unarmed civilians, i mean.
None of the members of the Ohio National Guard who fired on the protesters were ever prosecuted.
So … was it an unlawful order? Apparently not.
The posting does sound like a “call to action” to me. I also agree with Jonathan Chance that if it had been worded differently where it didn’t sound so much as that call, it would have been easier to let it stay.
I would think if you want to discuss this further you need to craft the discussion in such a way so that it IS a discussion about the issue and not a “you should go do this.” Can you do that? Open a new thread, restate the question, and go from there?
Jenny
your humble TubaDiva
Administrator
B.S.
Everyone, civilian or military, has the right to defend themselves.
Where in the world did you get the idea that soldiers can use their weapons on their own prerogative?