More Censorship on the Jen Pae "Fakewood" Page

[Michael Deneen]

Lakewood Finance Director/Social Media Director/Corporate Tool Jen Pae has had a difficult day.

Alex Belisle shared some photos of Tristan Rader's Election Night Party on various Facebook pages. The photos were deleted on Pae's "Lakewood Community" Facebook page, no doubt because Rader was not part of "Team Summers".

When a government-controlled media outlet feels the need to control information, that should disturb everyone. It's especially true if the outlet refuses to disclose its government ties to its readers. Lakewood voters took one small step toward government transparency on Tuesday, but there is a very, very, long way to go.

[Bridget Conant]

So let's get this straight, we have young, energetic, hardworking Lakewood residents that want to serve their city and fellow man. They put forth the effort and win the election.

Why aren't we congratulating them and wishing them well? They are here to make Lakewood better and move it FORWARD!

There's nothing "political" or divisive about congratulating new council members; our council members.

But Jennifer Pae and her group think group have decided it's "us" against "them." Way to go on uniting a splintered city, Pae and Team Summers.

Division will be the legacy of this administration - their one "accomplishment."

If it isn't clear enough what that Facebook page is, you have to be terribly naive.

Definitely Fakewood.

[Bridget Conant]

It's actually creepy. We just had an election and not one word about it on that page - like it never happened.

It's like the upside-down.

[Matthew Lee]

The "rules" of that community state clearly:

"NO POLITICAL POSTS:
This is a Lakewood-centric group with the purpose of promoting community. Therefore, political posts and photographs, no matter how innocuous, whether party, candidate, or issue focused, will be removed from this page."

Whether one agrees with those rules or not can be up for debate, but it always has specifically called out political posts and doesn't allow them for any party or politician.

[Bridget Conant]

Sorry, it also says you can ask council members a question.

Why can't you congratulate new council members?

They basically do as they please. They didn't want to acknowledge that Rader won, that's all.

[Bridget Conant]

Sorry, it also says you can ask council members a question. Their definition of political is what suits them.

Why can't you congratulate new council member or ask them a question? They said it's within the rules.

They basically do as they please. They didn't want to acknowledge that Rader won, that's all.

[Matthew Lee]

The rules say:

"Asking a question of an elected leader or a public servant (non-elected but works for the city, schools, county, etc) is not a political post, and their answer is not political. It is that elected leader or public servant's job."

This does not contradict their above rule. Basically:

* Ask a question to a politician and have them answer? Allowed
* Post pictures of a political rally? Not allowed

Whether we agree or disagree with the rules, they do not contradict.

[Michael Deneen]

The "rules" of that community state clearly:"NO POLITICAL POSTS:This is a Lakewood-centric group with the purpose of promoting community. Therefore, political posts and photographs, no matter how innocuous, whether party, candidate, or issue focused, will be removed from this page."Whether one agrees with those rules or not can be up for debate, but it always has specifically called out political posts and doesn't allow them for any party or politician.

One can also argue that a post-election celebration is not a political post, since the election was over. I know Alex never intended for it to be interpreted as such.
However, even if one accepts the premise that it was a "political post", the selective enforcement is certainly curious. They certainly had no qualms using the page to push Summers/Build Lakewood talking points.
One must never forget...that page was created SPECIFICALLY to deceive posters. Jen Pae set up a "mirror image" webpage to control information and messaging WITHOUT disclosing the conflict of interest.


[img]

Spock_(mirror).jpg (45.79 KiB) Viewed 3805 times

[/img]

[Bridget Conant]

Look, the "community" just elected new public servants. It's NEWS, it's something people need to know.

So it's political to say hey, we have new council members, congrats?

If you think it's OK to pretend an election didn't take place and we don't have new members or that no one needs to know who they are, then the FAkewood place is definitely the place for you.

[Matthew Lee]

Wow. Harsh crowd.

Not saying I agree with it but it IS specifically in their rules. Closed Facebook groups have no specific obligation to publish everything. The group NEVER claimed to be a "news" group.

Again, as mentioned earlier, I don't necessarily agree with it but is not censorship. They are just following their own idea of a closed Facebook group.

[Lori Allen _]

The Facebook page in question walks a very fine line, one very close to potential civil rights violations.

When is Ms. Pae making posts on or otherwise operating this page? Is it during normal City of Lakewood working hours (8 a.m. - 5 p.m.), perhaps excluding lunch hours? If so, that is a red flag that this page is being administered not only by a city official, but perhaps by other powers within the city administration. If that is the case, this absolutely appears to be a violation of basic freedom of speech rights guaranteed under Amendment I of the United States Constitution.

As has been mentioned before, it is worth making a formal, written complaint regarding these behaviors to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). In addition to writing the Cleveland office, it may be wise to copy the national headquarters, as you never know who Mr. Summers may know locally.

Of course, I expect very few complaints to go out, as everyone in this town tip-toes around the mayor, running around with their tails between their legs, scared to death of him.

[Mark Kindt]

Mr. Lee, I think there is a strong argument to be made that the page is public forum speech being regulated by a public employee in an intentional manner to manage the content and tone of opinion on public and civic issues.

For some reason, commenting on regulations relating to dog-ownership are not permitted on this page. So, we can't express our opinions and preferences about pets? This is ridiculous! Try talking about the loss of charity care or the loss of independent physicians. We can't even talk about the election of candidates to our own city council. Again, ridiculous!

If they want to run a PR "good" news page, it should be entirely run by individuals who are not on the public payroll (and entirely independent of government and government influence or control).

Many of us are concerned that the misuse of the page is consistent with other city administration efforts to misrepresent public policy issues or to impair the free expression of its citizens on these issues.

It's a bit like having a public employee have a veto right on stories in the newspaper. "Censorship" is the appropriate word for that practice. Why should we permit that in social media?

These are core First Amendment considerations.

[Bridget Conant]

Not to mention that Pae monitors and deletes during the work day. That means shes on the clock, on taxpayer paid city work time, conducting her social media account. Is that kosher with all of you?

During the hospital debacle, when questioned about her seemingly 24/7 presence on various social media sites, she stated that her boss, the mayor, knew of and approved that use of her time.

Therefore, what she is doing IS SANCTIONED BY THE MAYOR and can only be considered as conducting public business at the behest of the mayor.

That cannot be called anything BUT a city sanctioned and controlled media presence. As such, it is illegal to delete comments and ban users from participating.

[Lori Allen _]

If the page is being managed by a city employee during working hours, that is a red flag. Not only does it appear to be a civil rights violation, but may also be in violation of various state laws relating to the use of taxpayer funds for campigning.

I encourage everyone to write to the Ohio Auditor of State - Fraud Division about this matter:

88 E. Broad St.
P. O. # 1140
Columbus, OH 43215

If possible, please include printouts of city employee's activities on the page and the times.

Again, I don't expect any complaints to go out. Everyone appears too scared of the mayor, and feels the need to tip toe around him.

[Mark Kindt]

Here is a copy of the complaint that I recently filed with the ACLU of Ohio on this issue.