Censorship
In March of 2018, a comment I made during a discussion on the CSI Community forum was removed by administrators. It was an innocuous post amid a lengthy discussion on the difficulty members were having finding things on the relatively new website. I don’t recall what the specific comment was, but CSI’s removing it led to a lengthy discussion with Cam Featherstonhaugh, who was at that time moving his way up towards chairmanship. He ultimately agreed to reinstate my post in the discussion then moved the entire chain from the main Community forum over to a new area called Suggestion Box.
This led to a whole other discussion over why Cam thought it made sense to move a valuable discussion for encouraging member engagement from the forum with over 8,000 members to an area had less than 80 members. I told Cam that “moving a discussion to Suggestion Box serves to censor discussion rather than solve issues.” Sound familiar?
I had completely forgotten about the incident – after all it was eight years ago – until today. I have no ill-will against Cam and as a default believe that any person who volunteers for CSI has CSI’s best interests at heart. Occasionally in groups like ours, we have different opinion on what is best. Now fast forward to today…
Elias Saltz had posted a single word comment: “Crickets?”
Thanks to Brian Payne for the capture of my response:
Before long, my post was gone and this text from Cam appeared:
"Passive agressive [sic] comments are not helpful. They harm the organization and they harm people. Actual human beings for whom this is their livelihood, who deserve dignity, even if you think they made a bad decision.
I flagged a recent comment here as inappropriate. I will continue to flag these kinds of comments. Enough is enough.
This space is for advancing the knowledge of practice, not attacking the leadership of our organization. Go on Facebook if you have to complain publicly."
Although Cam’s post is redolent with defensiveness, I’m not implying that today’s censorship results from an 8-year-old grudge. I’ve reached out to Cam to talk it over with him and fully expect that he will call me or email me back. I’m basing this expectation on my recollection that he was respectful and cordial when we talked back in 2018. I’m willing to apologize for hurting his feelings, if that is what is going on here. It’s never good to use your words to harm others, and that certainly was not my intent here.
This is all poignantly sad. Perhaps the board sees the new MasterFormat licensing as the viable course to save our association. But the ultimate underlying problem is not the new gadget that is still in the box waiting to be unwrapped on March 31. The problem is that membership’s legitimate concerns and questions are treated dismissively. The sad part is that if CEO Mark Dorsey and his board had been honest, communicative, and transparent in their actions, they might have been able to get everything they wanted without alienating a large chunk of their membership.
The 1st Amendment prohibits Congress, among other things, from abridging freedom of speech. Later Supreme Court decisions determined the guarantee applies only to government actions, not to those of private enterprises. I freely acknowledge that CSI, as a private entity, has the right to censor speech on their community forum.
In fact, one could make the argument that their management should actively moderate and suppress speech they determine is inappropriate for their discussion areas. Such suppression is not necessarily malicious and could be justified to:
• Preserve CSI’s public image
• Limit misinformation
• Maintain order
• Avoid conflict
• Protect feelings
It is clearly within management’s purview to set policy for how their website is controlled, and that includes censoring speech they consider to be detrimental to the ends they are trying to achieve. The ironic thing about choosing to suppress speech is that the more dissent is suppressed the more it spreads.
Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis (look him up, kids, he’s a fascinating character in our history) famously gave us this advice in his opinion concurring opinion in Whitney v. California (1927): “If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”






