OccupyKC facebook group

[Greta Moore]

Hey,
If you are a facebooker you may have seen the anti-censorship
discussion that led to Rachel deleting all members of #Occupy Kansas
City.

I started "OccupyKC" to take it's place, and for the Media Workgroup
to help admin.

[Amy Bowen]

Thanks dude.

I can't believe she did that. What is the reason for Jenni's beef with her, do you know?

[Greta Moore]

Jenni said "Get your head out of your fat ass."

Somehow Rachel decided that equated to a threat on her and her family.
I don't know. I have known Rachel for 8 years and I am really shocked
by her reaction.

ehhh....

On Jan 19, 11:53 pm, Amy Bowen <amy.bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks dude.
>
> I can't believe she did that. What is the reason for Jenni's beef with her,
> do you know?
>

[Marc]

She said Jenni also threatened her, on behalf of "anonymous", in
private messages.

I'm not sure why she chose to slash and burn the group rather than
turn it over to somebody else, I think that speaks volumes. I
messaged her weeks ago about a couple issues and her responses have
always been dismissive, claiming some bogus precedent or group
decision she and the admins were upholding.

Whatever, onward and upward.

[Jeff Johnson]

I will say this:  Regardless of whether Rachel should end the group, or whether she or any other admin should delete a post, Jenni's statement to her that is quoted below is unacceptable.  Unacceptable.  First and foremost, "Jenni" should be receiving from all of you your unqualified condemnation for saying such a thing to her.  This unfettered defense of free speech that I see so much of in this Movement is one of the worst examples of misplaced priorities I have ever seen.

There is an appropriate context for attacking attempted limitations on free speech, and that context is when government attempts to limit speech.  Even then, there are good reasons for the government to do so, but they should be scrutinized very closely and narrowly limited.

However, in nongovernment restrictions of speech, it is silly to insist on unrestricted speech.  It is childish and unmannered to refuse to conform to standards of decent behavior.  Those that are weighing in on this "controversy" without clearly condemning "Jenni's" written attack on Rachel are accomplices in the attempt by "Jenni" to psychological abuse Rachel.  Period.

Is it really shocking that Rachel would interpret "Jenni's" statement as a threat?  Perhaps the statement would not be interpreted as a threat by an objective observer.  But, guess what, Rachel cannot be expected to be an objective observer when such deliberately hurtful statements are directed at her.  I would give her that slack.

Instead, by failing to condemn "Jenni's" comment, and by condemning Rachels emotional reaction to it, you are giving "Jenni" slack.  In the name of free speech, you overlook hateful language.  You all are not the free speech enforcers .  You are human beings.

[Amy B]

Woah. I don't know if I was still half asleep or what, but I totally mistook this to be a private email. I didn't realize I was posting on the Google group in my response. To clarify:

First of all, It goes without saying that Jenni's message is completely beyond the pale. The message was threatening without a doubt. I wouldn't be surprised if Rachel has already filed a police report (I might if I were in her position). That said, there are those of us who have come to expect this kind of behavior from Jenni, which is why total shock was not expressed in my earlier message.

There were two things I didn't (and still don't) understand: 1. Why on earth Jenni sent Rachel that message 2. Why Rachel decided to dissolve the Facebook group instead of handing it over to someone else who was willing to take on the responsibility of admin.

Respect to Jeff for calling it like he saw it, though I think this whole thread was a misunderstanding and should be deleted. 

[Greta Moore]

Jenni was just an angry kid responding to Rachel's refusal to stop
censoring posts with "profanity."

In my opinion she was more upset that so many people thought a
decision she made was wrong.

See the comment I left on your post in the facebook group Jeff. If
you have any other questions feel free to ask.

[Christian Soulliere]

I'm not really expressing an opinion one way or the other but why are we using this google group to discuss this?  Maybe I'm just misunderstanding this whole topic but it seems like you all are discussing the facebook group, not the page that is linked to on the website - occupykc.net

If I understand this right Rachel is doing things of her own accord and she moderated a group that she had admin control over.  Regardless of the moral or standards I don't really see the problem or the responsibility this group has to this topic.

It seemed to me that Greta was just informing us that Rachel had done what she had done and that Greta opened a new group.  I don't know.  I just get a lot of email.. hah.

-Christian
ChristianSoulliere.com

[Anthony Cage]

Um. all admins enter into a contract showing a code of conduct. if you do x y z, you are removed from admin and owe the collective $100

:)

Would that help?

[Christian Soulliere]

Either I am missing the point entirely or I'm being misunderstood.

These are all autonomous decisions.. and this is not a facebook group "sanctioned" by occupy kc, as neither was the previous one being censored and somewhat closed by Rachel.  Is that accurate?  

-Christian
ChristianSoulliere.com