[Lpk-execomm] Email motion: LNC Censure
Ken Moellman
ken.moellman at lpky.org
Fri Sep 19 19:16:48 EDT 2025
There's a fundamental difference between FCC censorship and internal
censure.
FCC censorship is government force.
Censure isn't even private censorship. If anything, it's a first
amendment expression itself within a group of people voluntary
associated together.
I think there's solid evidence that there is leeway given to affiliates
for a post that misses the mark once in a while. But there's also a
difference between "oops, bad wording" and what can only be labeled as a
pattern of intentionally being awful. I try to ignore all of the stupid,
but the LPNH's interaction with Nina Turner was also particularly awful
enough to hit my radar. Based on the rumblings I've heard, I think the
motion being considered by the LNC is not about "one meme" but about a
pattern of behavior over time.
It's my understanding that a number of former donors have specifically
cited LPNH's regulary-awful messaging as why they're no longer giving.
So the censure and the lack of fundraising aren't necessarily
disconnected. I also know from experience that people can always find a
reason not to give, not to volunteer, etc. But I don't know that it's
disconnected, either. If you give people an excuse to sit out in a
volunteer organization, they will.
---
Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
Libertarian Party of Kentucky
State Party Executive Committee Chair
On 2025-09-19 18:45, Andrew Roberts via Lpk-execomm wrote:
> I understand the no vote. I worded the statement to indicate we don’t
> approve their messaging but I find it ironic the LNC is complaining
> of
> FCC censorship at the same time this is being considered. I think as
> a
> state who could have been censured for posts in the past it’s
> important
> to voice our concern and displeasure. I also added the bit about
> they
> have larger priorities to show our disappointment in their
> performance
> as a board. They are bankrupt and are worried about mean tweets. No
> matter how objectionable that’s off base. Those are the reasons I
> brought this motion forward. It should go without saying since I
> brought it but I vote yes.
>
> Get [1]Outlook for iOS
> __________________________________________________________________
>
> From: Lpk-execomm <lpk-execomm-bounces at lists.lpky.org> on behalf of
> Charles Altendorf via Lpk-execomm <lpk-execomm at lists.lpky.org>
> Sent: Friday, September 19, 2025 18:15
> To: lpk-execomm at lists.lpky.org <lpk-execomm at lists.lpky.org>
> Cc: Charles Altendorf <charles.altendorf at lpky.org>
> Subject: Re: [Lpk-execomm] Email motion: LNC Censure
>
> I have no further discussion And my vote is still in favor
> On 2025-09-19 17:56, Ken Moellman via Lpk-execomm wrote:
> > With the motion seconded on-list, it is now open for discussion. I
> > understood the intent of the motion to be the LPKY Executive
> Committee
> > considering the passage a resolution, speaking on behalf of the
> state
> > party, which requires a majority vote.
> >
> > I oppose this motion for several reasons:
> >
> > 1. It drags LPKY into the dispute. We don't need to be involved in
> > this.
> >
> > 2. It is my understanding that this proposed LNC action stems from
> a
> > meme published by LPNH on social media -- which depicted an
> airline
> > pilot with a star of David on their captain's hat, seated in an
> > airplane, with the caption "We did it!" with a 9 placed in front
> of
> an
> > image of the twin towers forming an "11" -- that can reasonably be
> > interpreted by others, both inside and (especially) outside of the
> > party, as blaming "the Jews" for 9/11.
> >
> > 3. I strongly oppose any collectivist messaging that infers that
> any
> > group ("the _____s") is responsible for the actions of a handful
> of
> > individual people who either (a) participated in an action or (b)
> > specifically enabled or endorsed it. Collectivism is inherently
> > anti-libertarian and contradicts our national party platform.
> >
> > 4. LPNH has a pattern of intentionally expressing things in
> overtly
> > racist terms; with racism being the lowest-IQ form of collectivism
> (as
> > stated by many libertarian thought leaders, including Ayn Rand and
> Ron
> > Paul). This is not the first incident. I believe members of their
> > current board and/or social media team were kicked out of a caucus
> for
> > similar messaging in the past.
> >
> > 5. LPNH is intentionally inflammatory, and a censure is
> essentially
> the
> > natural reaction to that intentionally-inflammatory rhetoric
> within
> an
> > organization. If there's an argument to be made against censure,
> it
> is,
> > IMO, that it is giving attention to the kid who regularly throws a
> > tantrum in the grocery store for attention.
> >
> > 6. It is my opinion that it is within the rights of the LNC to
> make
> > such a motion, and to pass a censure based on such behavior.
> >
> > 7. A censure simply is a statement of disapproval of an action,
> and
> > carries no actual teeth. It can sometimes be a prelude to actions
> with
> > teeth, but censure itself is not. It is a statement of disapproval
> of
> > behavior. That is why censure only requires a majority vote, while
> > other disciplinary actions require two-thirds.
> >
> > I am voting no.
> >
> > ---
> > Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
> >
> > Libertarian Party of Kentucky
> > State Party Executive Committee Chair
> >
> > On 2025-09-19 17:11, Robert Lodder wrote:
> >
> >> Second.
> >>
> >> Robert A. Lodder, Ph.D.
> >> Chief Executive Officer
> >>
> >> Phone: (301) 476-0705
> >> Email: rlodder at biospherics.net
> >>
> >> This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for
> use
> by
> >> the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged
> >> and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended
> recipient
> >> of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
> >> distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments
> thereto,
> >> is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in
> error,
> >> please notify me by replying to this message and permanently
> delete
> >> the original and any copy of this e-mail and any printout
> thereof.
> >>
> >> On Fri, Sep 19, 2025, 4:21 PM Ken Moellman
> <ken.moellman at lpky.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> I have just fixed the excom mailing list. I am cc'ing the list to
> move
> >> this conversation there. This motion requires a second.
> >>
> >> ---
> >> Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
> >>
> >> Libertarian Party of Kentucky
> >> State Party Executive Committee Chair
> >>
> >> On 2025-09-19 16:13, Andrew Roberts wrote:
> >>
> >> All,
> >>
> >> I'd like to make a motion for us to adopt the following
> statement.
> >>
> >> Mr. Chair,
> >>
> >> Please let me know if this is out of order or I should rephrase
> the
> >> above motion.
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >> Andrew Roberts
> >>
> >> Statement of the Libertarian Party of Kentucky on the Libertarian
> >> National Committee's Selective Censure of the Libertarian Party
> of
> New
> >> Hampshire
> >>
> >> The Libertarian Party of Kentucky (LPKY) strongly opposes the
> motion
> >> by the Libertarian National Committee (LNC) to censure the
> Libertarian
> >> Party of New Hampshire (LPNH) over social media activities that
> the
> >> LNC claims violate party standards. This action is not only
> >> inconsistent but also undermines the principle of affiliate
> autonomy.
> >>
> >> The LNC has selectively targeted LPNH while failing to address
> similar
> >> issues within other state affiliates that promote
> ideologies--such
> as
> >> "group rights" or other collectivist approaches--that are
> >> fundamentally incompatible with the core principles of individual
> >> liberty, free markets, and limited government. This selective
> >> enforcement undermines the credibility of the LNC and creates a
> double
> >> standard that is unacceptable within a party that claims to
> uphold
> >> fairness and the nonaggression principle.
> >>
> >> While LPKY does not endorse every aspect of LPNH's social media
> >> strategy, we affirm the right of all state affiliates to express
> their
> >> views in line with the Party's Statement of Principles. The LNC's
> >> focus on this issue appears to stem more from internal factional
> >> disputes than from any legitimate concern for the Party's values,
> >> diverting attention and resources away from critical priorities
> such
> >> as membership growth, candidate support, and ballot access.
> >>
> >> The Libertarian Party's strength lies in its unity and commitment
> to
> >> liberty, not in divisive and unproductive internal disputes. We
> urge
> >> the LNC to withdraw its censure motion against LPNH and refocus
> on
> the
> >> Party's true mission of advancing individual liberty, supporting
> >> affiliates, and building a stronger movement.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Lpk-execomm mailing list
> > Lpk-execomm at lists.lpky.org
> > http://lpmail.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpk-execomm
> --
> Charles Altendorf
> Libertarian Party of Woodford County Kentucky - County Chair
> Libertarian Party of Kentucky - Former State Chair
> _______________________________________________
> Lpk-execomm mailing list
> Lpk-execomm at lists.lpky.org
> http://lpmail.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpk-execomm
>
> References
>
> 1. https://aka.ms/o0ukef
> _______________________________________________
> Lpk-execomm mailing list
> Lpk-execomm at lists.lpky.org
> http://lpmail.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpk-execomm
More information about the Lpk-execomm
mailing list