[arin-discuss] Fwd: [ARIN-Suggestions] New ACSP Suggestion 2014.10: CHANGES TO CANDIDATE SPEECHES

[Bill Sandiford]

For clarity, my +1 earlier was in relation to the comments of Cathy Aronson.

I am opposed to ACSP-2014.10

On Jun 5, 2014, at 3:13 PM, Rob Seastrom <rs at seastrom.com> wrote:

> 
> Paul Andersen <paul at egate.net> writes:
> 
>> 				      -1 
>> I'm having a hard time
>> reconciling what is going on here.  The idea of effectively
>> pre-approving candidate messaging feels to me like the proposed cure
>> is worse then the disease.
> 
> Agree with Paul here.  Candidates are given a couple of minutes to
> present, nominally to say something about their platform and why you
> should vote for them.
> 
> A time-limited presentation is all the restriction that is proper.  If
> the candidate wishes to go off on a completely unrelated tangent,
> expound on conspiracy theories, or recite poetry that ought to be
> their prerogative.  If the oration is completely irrelevant to the
> election, hopefully that will inform the electorate's voting decision.
> 
> Specious allegations from the usual directions notwithstanding, a
> statement of endorsement for another candidate has nothing to do with
> "election rigging".  I expect that anyone who is qualified to stand
> for an AC position will have a campaign statement that is more
> substantive than merely saying to vote for someone else (though that
> might be entirely reasonable in isolated cases).
> 
> Dictating the terms and framework of the message seem a bit over the
> top to me.
> 
> In summary, opposed to ACSP 2014.10.
> 
> -r
>