Are Internet Forums the Correct place to protest BSA Policy

[Quixote]

based on the recent posts(specifically the undue influence topic), it occurs to me that one of the questions raised has to do with what/where is the appropriate forum to raise the issue if you are a scout leader.

 

NJ - you're the lawyer here - Are internet forums such as this one public or private speach - or does it matter?

 

What i'm getting at is let's say i'm for having cigarette smokers as leaders and there is a national ban on cigarette smokers as leaders.

 

If i dress up in my leader uniform and picket council, i am obviously an avowed cigarette smoker advocate and am making cigarette smoking a political issue and bringing attention to myself in the process - should my membership be revoked?

 

Same question, but i'm not in uniform.

 

I raise the issue at round table and debate my fellow scouters on the subject - is this public or private speach? bringing attention to myself or the "cause"?

 

I mail letters to national protesting the policy and asking that they re-address the issue - with appropriate copies to coucil, district and CO.

 

Based on current law, which of the above are allowed?

[sctmom]

Along with the law, what is RIGHT. What is the respectable way to treat people when we don't agree?

 

This should be thought about if you are the protester or the one with the "power" to kick people out.

 

 

[dan]

NO!

Becuase their is no one here that represents the BSA! Professional Paid Scouter, versus us "just" Scouters!

 

Most people here do not even know what the policies are, only what they want them to be!

[evmori]

I must disagree with Dan.

 

I think most of us know the BSA policies. I know some of us don't agree with all of them.

 

 

I feel these types of forums are great places to discuss our opinions. There are people for all over the USA as well as other countries. Getting their insight & opinions on matters is great!

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

[NJCubScouter]

First let me comment on the title of this thread:

 

Are Internet Forums the Correct place to protest BSA Policy

 

First of all, I would not describe what anybody does in this forum as being

"protest." We are discussing the issue and stating our viewpoint, on all

sides. It is not necessarily "protesting" any more than a post in the other sub-forums saying that the uniform shorts are uncomfortable, or that

the Webelos hat is ugly, or that Cooking should be a required merit badge, or any of the other things that Scouters believe could be improved.

 

Second, I would say that the answer to your question depends on what

anybody's purpose is in commenting in this forum. If someone expects to

change BSA policy with their comments here, it probably is not "the correct place"

to achieve that purpose, because that is not its function. It is

conceivable that the discussions in this forum could help persuade some

rank-and-file Scouters (specifically those who read but do not post on the

subject) that the policy should be changed, and when combined with the

dozens or hundreds of other places online where people discuss this,

someday there might be enough of a movement to change the policy, that

change occurs. I'm not saying it's likely, perhaps it's more in the

category of "anything's possible." Perhaps we're all just venting, but

there is nothing wrong with that either.

 

However, if the question is whether Internet forums are an

appropriate place to comment on BSA policy, the answer is, sure. This

forum is provided by the owner as a place to comment on Scouting subjects,

including "Issues and Politics" in Scouting, hence the name of this

sub-forum. This obviously is one of those subjects.

 

If one want to change the policy, there are other ways to attempt to do so

that may be more effective; though at the moment, I suspect that the

"official channels" will be no more receptive to change than posting in an

Internet forum, or shouting your opinions from a mountaintop, for that

matter. For the time being, anyway.

 

Quixote asks:

 

NJ - you're the lawyer here - Are internet forums such as this one

public or private speach - or does it matter?

 

For purposes of whether it is appropriate to post here about controversial

subjects, I am not sure that it matters. The public/private distinction in

matters of speech usually concerns whether a place or forum are public or

private, in order to determine whether the government (or in rare cases, a

private owner) is permitted to prohibit or regulate speech in that place.

One area I can think of where it matters whether speech is "public" or

"private" is in the law of defamation, because in order to win a case for

libel or slander you have to prove that the offending statement was

"published." I believe that courts have generally held that a statement

that appears on the Internet is indeed "published." The problem, of

course, is that people do not necessarily use their names, or their real

names, on the Internet, but if you can prove who did it, you can sue them.

The same goes for things like "cyberstalking."

 

What i'm getting at is let's say i'm for having cigarette smokers as

leaders and there is a national ban on cigarette smokers as leaders.

 

If i dress up in my leader uniform and picket council, i am obviously an

avowed cigarette smoker advocate and am making cigarette smoking a

political issue and bringing attention to myself in the process - should my

membership be revoked?

 

Same question, but i'm not in uniform.

 

I raise the issue at round table and debate my fellow scouters on the

subject - is this public or private speach? bringing attention to myself or

the "cause"?

 

I mail letters to national protesting the policy and asking that they

re-address the issue - with appropriate copies to coucil, district and CO.

 

Based on current law, which of the above are allowed?

 

I'm not sure exactly what you are asking. What the BSA

can legally do, what the BSA would do, and what the BSA

should, are three different questions with up to three

different answers for each of your scenarios. In the case of what the BSA

can do legally, I agree with BobWhite's posts that the BSA can probably

remove any leader who speaks out against any of its policies. As for what

the BSA would do, to date the only removals I am aware of for simply speaking were for two (or so) people who were accused of advocating to Scouts that the policy was wrong.

 

As for your cigarette scenario, this is hypothetical because smokers are not banned as leaders, in fact it is not even prohibited to smoke in front of the boys, only "strongly discouraged" (the last time I checked.) But going with your hypothetical, my guess would be that if you picket council in uniform to end the anti-smoker policy, you probably would be asked to stop, and if you did not, you probably would be terminated. Doing it out of uniform might change the answer. At a roundtable, I don't think that raising the issue would result in any sanction, though of course at a roundtable there is (or should be) an agenda or program, and any more than a brief discussion of BSA policies probably would be disruptive. My guess (again) would be that chronic disruption of roundtables probably would be cause for you being asked to stay away, but not to be terminated as a leader. I think the content of your comments would be less important than the fact that you are "off topic," so to speak.

 

Mailing letters probably would result in no adverse action, after all, that is essentially what several councils did to request a reconsideration of the anti-gay policy.(This message has been edited by NJCubScouter)

[NJCubScouter]

Sorry about the formatting of that last post, I wrote it offline and some glitch in my computer prevented me from transferring it to the forum the way I usually do, and it ended up have line-breaks where I didn't want them.

[Quixote]

NJ - thanks for the comments, and yes the cigarette smoking was hypothetical (at least for now ).

 

I aggree with your comments - the only reason i ask is that i was curious about the legal standing of the internet related to free speach and how the impact of the Dale decision relates to any other issue someone might take with BSA policy.

 

I've only been on this site for a month or so, and while it and some of the opinions cause my blood to boil at times, they also invite a certain amount of reflection which I think is usefull to the movement.

 

YIS

Quixote

[scomman]

Isn't that what a discussion is supposed to be. A gathering together of different viewpoints and a discussion of how they relate to the program.

 

In one of my church groups we believe that Christianity is diffrent for everyone. We all serve the same Lord as Christians and hold to certain common agreements but beyond that Christianity is colored by our past expeirences and makes us into the persons we are in Christ.

 

I truly enjoy the debates in here and even though I usually state my opinion and respond to quite a few issues. You would nt see me doing that in public. I enjoy the anyomity of these forums.

[littlebillie]

well, I REALLY like to think that the Executive folks in Texas take a look in here from time to time. Maybe to take an unofficial pulse, maybe to get ideas - maybe just for entertainment, whatever.

 

Regardless, IF they do look in, and IF they saw some brilliant thing that might open the doors without stepping on most toes - or keep the doors closed and make most folks more appreciative of it - either way - that they'd adopt whatever that brilliant idea was.

 

 

No real reason to think this - just seems to make sense... sort of a free think tank, y'know?