[Cynnabar] A "minor" bit of censorship

[Randy Asplund]

Yup. Johnnae, you nailed that on the head. That's the pendulum of over- 
reaction leading to inappropriate and ineffectual response that I was  
talking about.  Seems to be a sign of the times, since this is  
something far from isolated to the SCA.

I think it is a shame that the US court system is so capable of  
allowing the punishment to extend into the innocent (corporate SCA for  
example) when the actual perpetrator should bear the focus of the  
consequences. We have a very imperfect system.

The problem is in the SCA taking the attitude of "erring" on the side  
of anything. It shouldn't intentionally "err" at all. It should be  
smart enough to do what is legally required and reasonable. It should  
be smart enough to evaluate actual effectiveness of policies. Placebo  
policies cause more harm than good because they lead to a sense of  
false security (as well as limiting what people can do which they  
might want to do).

Example of the SCA erring on the side of paranoia: I wanted to teach a  
class at Pennsic last year for kids on how to draw dragons. If I had  
picked an A&S pavilion as a site(which would not be monitored BTW) it  
would have been registered. But even though I have a background check  
clearance for working with SCA youth, and there would be at least 2  
unrelated adults working there, my class was denied because it was for  
minors in a Merchant Booth. Why is this stupid? I am teaching the  
exact same class this year, in my booth. I just didn't put an age  
classification on it when I registered. I don't mind if extra adults  
come. The placebo policy was completely subverted because it didn't  
work.

So last year, the kids missed out on a fun and safe activity that has  
been done at events elsewhere because the SCA can't seem to be  
bothered to take the time to properly evaluate policies and use common  
sense (a merchant booth is a VERY public place, and kids are roaming  
them alone all the time, so why is a class there more prone to a  
problem? Arguably, it is actually a safer environment).

My feeling is that the best defense against what the SCA is concerned  
about is for us as a group to encourage more parental involvement with  
youth at events. Too often I see parents dump off their kids or just  
let them roam free. Certainly this should not be banned because some  
youth are able to be trusted more than others, but what to do about  
the rest? Do we cause harm by restricting the good ones? While I am a  
trusting person to a certain extent, I feel the parents need to make a  
judgement call AND be held responsible for its results. I think that  
such common sense is more effective than the Chicken Little attitude  
the SCA seems to be promoting.

RanthulfR


On May 14, 2011, at 7:09 AM, Johnna Holloway wrote:

> Until such time as the Federal lawsuit, namely IN THE UNITED STATES  
> DISTRICT COURT
> FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
> JOHN DOE #4 v. THE SOCIETY FOR CREATIVE ANACHRONISM, INC. : CIVIL  
> ACTION
>
> either settles or has it day in court, the SCA is going to err on  
> the side of safety with regard
> to policies that directly deal with minors.
>
> The fact that the SCA is dropping printed kingdom newsletters for  
> the vast majority in order to save printing and mailing costs so  
> that these monies may be applied to legal expenses just shows that  
> this lawsuit will transform the SCA in untold ways.
>
> Johnnae
> _______________________________________________
> Barony mailing list
> Barony at cynnabar.org
> http://lists.cynnabar.org/listinfo/barony

Randy Asplund
www.RandyAsplund.com
Maker of Medieval books and
Illustrator of Science Fiction & Fantasy
(734) 663-0954
2101 S. Circle Dr. Ann Arbor, MI 48103