• SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    They posted to Facebook. The post was taken down, allegedly because they did not go through proper channels to post it. Their requests to return the post to Facebook were met with invitations to a shitty zoom call they couldn’t enter with a person who did not attend.

    that specific criticism isn’t banned because we just read that criticism in a substack

    It remains forbidden from being posted on their Facebook page.

    I appreciate you trying to hold headline authors accountable, but I don’t see how this headline is inaccurate.

    Ohio Dem Party Has Banned Criticism Of Gov. Candidate Amy Acton Calling Trans Girls “Boys”

    I think it is future-proof, too. Even if the post is restored, the fact remains that it was once banned.

    • null@piefed.nullspace.lol
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      They posted to Facebook.

      Ooo you’re getting warmer! Are these specific people banned from posting that specific criticism anywhere on Facebook?

        • null@piefed.nullspace.lol
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          Now we’re really cooking!

          Okay, so let’s work it out starting really broadly: should everyone in the world have access to post anything they want at all to that Facebook page?

          • SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            That isn’t the question. The question is “why can’t the original posters resubmit through the proper channels”? Because it was banned.

              • SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 day ago

                No. Remember? They tried that:

                After deleting the original statement, we promptly asked about submitting the post for approval through the proper channels so that it could be reposted. At this point, ODP staff informed us that a meeting with Acton was on the table. After thorough discussion, caucus leadership determined this offer aligned with our goal to bring our message directly to her.

                They got tricked into attending a meeting without Acton. And some of them weren’t allowed into the meeting.

                • null@piefed.nullspace.lol
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 day ago

                  You keep using this quote – have you actually read it?

                  They asked about submitting the post for approval and they were offered a meeting with Acton.

                  That’s what it says.

                  You’re making the positive claim that they were told they cannot resubmit the post for approval. That quote does not demonstrate that to be the case.

                  Do you understand that yet? Or do we have to loop around again?

                  • SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 day ago

                    They asked about submitting the post for approval

                    …which was ignored. Instead:

                    they were offered a meeting with Acton.

                    …which turned out to be a lie.

                    Where do you get the idea that they were allowed to resubmit the post?

                    the Ohio Democratic Party had demanded the criticism be removed. The caucus protested, appealed, but then relented. The criticism never went back up.

                    It was banned.