Pages

Tuesday, July 26, 2022

It seems the more local the election the sleazier it can become. [very important UPDATE]

What is reported in this July 25 Strib item is troublesome and stupid. 

Maintaining or participating in a risk-prone private Facebook account, by a politician, is questionable. 

Little can be thought of as presenting more of a risk of harmful blowback. 

Strib reports:

Kevin Landry, who is challenging incumbent Commissioner Matt Look, reported the violent threats to police. 

A candidate running for the Anoka County Board says he fears for his family's safety after violent threats that appear to have come from supporters of his opponent were posted online.

Kevin Landry, who is running for the First District seat covering the western side of the county, called police after posts accusing him of pedophilia and implying a death threat surfaced in a private Facebook group over the weekend. At one point a post from Landry's opponent, incumbent Commissioner Matt Look, thanked commenters for their support.

[...] Look said in an interview that he had been out of town and was unaware of the threats against Landry, and that his own comments on Facebook were unrelated.

The threatening Facebook posts — which Landry shared with the Star Tribune — stemmed from a photo, which a member of the private group obtained and posted, that showed Landry holding a small child who was unclothed. Landry said the photo was a "proud papa" picture, taken 12 years ago, of his then-4-month-old daughter. The person who posted the photo on Facebook accused Landry of being a pedophile and said the "behavior needs to be addressed, not ignored."

A subsequent post showed an image of bullets with the caption, "there is now a child molestation vaccine." It continued with the words "one shot and its cured."

A different person commented "for Kevin???," accompanied by an emoji depicting a smiley face.

[...] The post from Look's Facebook account, which appeared in the comment thread, read "Good work everyone. This is without a doubt ... a full contact sport. It's starting early and will last until the elections. Thanks for your help and support. It is much appreciated."

Look said Monday that his comment was in response to attacks he has faced about issues related to his divorce and attacks Landry had leveled against him, and that he made it during the filing period.

"I do not support this or what he is going through," Look said.

A member of the Facebook group saw the posts and flagged Landry, who shared them with police. An Anoka Police Department detective took a report and an investigation is pending, [...]

[italics emphasis added] 

People should simply know better. They should act, post, and behave like adults. All of it done online, behind Landry's back. Defaming him with mockery behind his back. 

Not by Look directly, but within a group of enabled, invited cohorts.

These kinds of  stuff are wholly absent, to the best of my knowledge, on any general, open, public access website Look maintains. Publicly, Look touts himself repeatedly, as expected of one seeking to keep an incumbency alive.  

However - This is a private cabal at play. By invitation only. These by appearance are Matt Look's inner circle people.

Shame. 

Surely Matt is not responsible for others' conduct.  That is clear. HIs disclaimer is appropriate. At this point disclaiming is all he can do. However, why risk in the first place doing a private Facebook thing by invitation only? Bonding? Solidarity of the guys? (presuming a gender bias to the invitation process, which Matt can dispute by publicly disclosing the identity of all of his group's participants)

BOTTOM LINE: Look should know to keep a public online persona, only.

Risking the cozy paycheck this way raises a question of judgment. 

Facebook, in the open is dumb enough. How much dumber is it to maintain a "club site" type of thing where this type of banter can happen?

Readers can decide -- Is it proper, prudent, or a Christian thing, to enable such banter behind the opposing candidate's back? Or does it reflect badly upon the enabler?

 __________UPDATE__________

Thankfully, Look replied to a notice email - his response in its entirety:

I did not set it up and I do not maintain it.  I share information to interested parties, 99% of which I’ve never met in person 

Sent from my iPhone

The implication I drew from the wording of the Strib report was that Look had set up and was maintaining a private website is then a wrong conclusion. That impacts all of the post, and its conclusions - based on a wrong reading of what Strib stated. Matt Look was not responsible for the Facebook private site's genesis. He did not invite or authorize membership. He joined. This UPDATE is to correct things.

Strib did not post a link, which they had to have held from Landry, where that might have enabled readers to be better informed in forming an impression. Readers are encouraged to carefully read the Strib item to see if I was too presumptive in my inference, or if their reading also suggests an implication that Look is responsible for the private website rather than a participant on it. My entire post suffers from a misperception. 

STRIB WAS NEGLIGENT IN NOT GIVING THE LINK WHERE READERS COULD THEN RIGHTLY OR WRONGLY INFER LOOK'S POSITION IN THINGS. HE HAS BEEN ENTITLED TO BE A GROUP MEMBER, BY WHOEVER HOLDS THAT HAMMER,  AND HE FOR WHATEVER REASONS HE HOLDS, HAS DECLINED TO SUBMIT THE LINK TO ME, ALTHOUGH BY EMAIL I EXPRESSLY REQUESTED IT OF HIM. THE WISH HERE IS HE HAD SENT THE LINK. HE DECLINED. READERS ARE ENCOURAGED TO ASK LOOK, OR LANDRY WHO CLEARLY ALSO HOLDS THE LINK, TO PROVIDE IT FOR THEIR EDIFICATION. THIS ENDS THIS POST, WITH THE LINK ITSELF LEFT TO READER FOLLOWUP.

MY FEELING, WHY DID LOOK  DECLINE TO PROVIDE THE LINK? NOTICE OF THIS UPDATE WILL BE SENT HIM. LOOK CLEARLY IS FREE TO BE IN WHATEVER EMAIL GROUP HE CHOOSES, BUT GIVEN STRIB'S DETAILS, WHAT KIND OF A STRANGE, DERANGED GROUP IS INVITING HIM TO PARTAKE? WITH HIM ACCEPTING.

LAST, AFTER REFLECTION, HAVING THE GROUP LINK, WITHOUT AN ACCESS PASSWORD OFFERS LITTLE HELP. LANDRY'S CONCERNS INSTIGATED A POLICE INVESTIGATION, ACCORDING TO STRIB. POLICE OUGHT TO BE ABLE, BY WARRANT OR OTHERWISE, TO GAIN ACCESS TO THE ENTIRE SITE AND TO REACH PUBLICLY AVAILABLE CONCLUSIONS. PRESUMABLY LANDRY WILL KEEP HIMSELF CURRENT WITH INVESTIGATION RESULTS.

FURTHER: LANDRY MIGHT HAVE GROUNDS TO SUE AND PREVAIL ON A DEFAMATION ACTION. NOT AGAINST LOOK. BUT OTHERS.

PEOPLE ARE COMMUNICATING ABOUT LANDRY IN FALSE WAYS. WAYS LIKELY DAMAGING TO HIS CANDIDACY. YET HE CHOSE TO GO TO THE POLICE AND STRIB ABOUT IT WHILE NOT KNOWING ALL FACTS CONCERNING A WEBSITE WHERE HE WAS NOT ALLOWED ACCESS.

IT IS A MESS.