The issue us whether Shaleshock should
publish the letter of a harsh critic / detractor.
Why I so strongly suggest: Publish
I so often seem to be the one
who is so often censored.
e.g., I was banned from the BRSC listserv
over this shale issue.
One of the organizers
said something to the Press+Sun:
"This organization (The Binghamton
Regional Sustainability Coalition)
*** does not oppose the drilling ***."
When I read this,
and thinking about
what this beautiful land, these beautiful hills
will look like
after this operation goes full scale,
I got a feeling in my stomach
like someone had punched me in my gut.
Of course, there is nothing sustainable about it.
It is completely contrary to the mission
of the BRSC.
The guy who said it,
I almost consider a brother.
We have a long history together.
Others in that group as well.
We've worked together.
They've been over to my house
for meals and parties.
They are my friends and neighbors.
So I feel causal speech,
and shocking speech -- when necessary
is permissible. It's among family.
I was angry, and I basically said
that was a blood stupid thing to say,
I questioned the mission of the BRSC,
and I pleaded:
Who will defend the rights of nature?
And the banned me.
Censored, deleted, excised, removed, banished,
sent away, out of sight.
This is just one of a dozen incidents
where I have banned, censored, expelled, even arrested
for speech or my attempts at participation.
Want irony? I was banned from the Binghamton IMC
an organization which I really began
(of course there were others)
over core matters of principle.
The IMC is supposed to operate by consensus.
Every voice matters.
All blocking concerns are addressed.
Yet, this gang was using the IMC
to illegally promote their political candidates.
This is against the rules of 501c3's, a good idea IMO,
forcing non-profits to focus on core missions
charitably helping people
and not promoting mainstream politicians.
This mob used a 2/3rds override(*)
to run me out.
(* this 2/3 overrides is uncommon
in consensus-based organizations,
but I actually advocated for this rule
because strict consensus can be blocked
by one sole renegade [e.g. IMC-Ithaca].
This rule attempted to prevent that...
but made it vulnerable to mob rule...
This defect of strict consensus
is critical process issue
which must be solved by all communities.)
This is in a land where speech is supposed to be free
and all voices are supposed to be heard
everyone is valued (Democracy!)
every vote counts
every voice matters
every one has equal rights
no one has the right
to coerce another in any way
( I find my frequent censorship so ironic
as my work is largely about media access )
Let it all fly.
Only in a market
where all ideas have currency
and where all natural persons have access
can the truth then be discerned.
BH in Bingo
email: WilliamAHuston at gmail