[Lpk-execomm] Email motion: LNC Censure

[ken.moellman at lpky.org]

Try this again.

By vote of 3-1 the motion passes.

Sep 19, 2025 22:23:39 Robert Lodder <rlodder at biospherics.net>:

> The saga began with another LPNH meme. The meme is an editorial cartoon in the spirit of Thomas Nast. Nast's work was so provocative in his time that it led to direct attempts to silence or censure him, particularly from those in power whom he targeted. He wasn't simply a commentator; he was an active political force who used his art to dismantle political machines and influence public opinion, and his targets fought back. His cartoons frequently attacked Democrats, especially those he saw as being corrupt or hindering Reconstruction. This naturally led to fierce criticism from Democratic newspapers and politicians. His anti-Irish and anti-Catholic cartoons were deeply offensive and were met with outrage from those communities. His caricatures of Irish people as ape-like brutes and Catholic bishops as predatory crocodiles provoked a backlash and, in later years, led to the discontinuation and renaming of a professional award in his honor. But he remains a hero in history books.
> 
> The meme is NOT saying that Jews were flying the hijacked planes on 9/11. That simple interpretation is obviously ridiculous. Everyone knows exactly who the 9/11 hijackers were:
> 
> *American Airlines Flight 11 (North Tower, World Trade Center)*
> 
> * 
>          
> 
> Mohamed Atta (leader)
> * 
>          
> Abdulaziz al-Omari
> * 
>          
> Wail al-Shehri
> * 
>          
> Waleed al-Shehri
> * 
>          
> Satam al-Suqami
> 
> *United Airlines Flight 175 (South Tower, World Trade Center)*
> 
> * 
>          
> 
> Marwan al-Shehhi (leader)
> * 
>          
> Fayez Banihammad
> * 
>          
> Mohand al-Shehri
> * 
>          
> Hamza al-Ghamdi
> * 
>          
> Ahmed al-Ghamdi
> 
> *American Airlines Flight 77 (The Pentagon)*
> 
> * 
>          
> 
> Hani Hanjour (leader)
> * 
>          
> Khalid al-Mihdhar
> * 
>          
> Majed Moqed
> * 
>          
> Nawaf al-Hazmi
> * 
>          
> Salem al-Hazmi
> 
> *United Airlines Flight 93 (Shanksville, Pennsylvania)*
> 
> * 
>          
> 
> Ziad Jarrah (leader)
> * 
>          
> Ahmed al-Haznawi
> * 
>          
> Ahmed al-Nami
> * 
>          
> Saeed al-Ghamdi
> 
> NONE of them are Jewish. So clearly the cartoonist wants us to look deeper.
> 
> In my opinion, the meme is in effect saying that if there were no Israel for the US to support, it seems unlikely that the 9/11 attacks would have occurred.  Is the LNC disputing that US support of Israel raises the temperature of the middle east?  Sure, the Saudi royal family is objectionable to many in the country, but without all the hostility we added by stirring a hot pot, I doubt that it would have boiled over onto US shores.
> 
> So how should we respond to this editorial cartoon?
> 
> *Points 1 & 5: Involving LPKY in the Dispute & Censure as Attention-Seeking*
> 
> While ordinarily I prefer to mind my own business, as an organization we should dismiss the idea that LPKY should stay out of the dispute. For the LP, political action and ideological purity are paramount. A failure to defend a fellow libertarian affiliate from what one could see as an unjust power play by the LNC would be a dereliction of duty. The LNC's action represents a dangerous precedent of central authority overstepping its bounds and that such an action must be challenged on principle, regardless of the specific content of the LPNH meme. It is another skirmish in a battle for the soul of the Libertarian Party, a fight for ideological consistency against a creeping "statist" or "authoritarian" tendency within the national committee.
> 
> *Points 2, 3 & 4: The Content of the Meme, Collectivism, and Racism*
> 
> Even if the LPNH meme was offensive, racist, or "collectivist," a censure from the LNC is the wrong response. It will be interpreted as a violation of free expression and a form of censorship.
> 
> The thinking goes like this:
> 
> * 
>          
> 
> *Free Speech is Non-Negotiable*: The LNC's role is not to police the speech of its members or affiliates. The LPNH, as a private organization, is free to express whatever it wants, no matter how distasteful. The only legitimate libertarian response to bad speech is more speech, not censorship. This could be done by counter-argument instead of by some sort of official censure.
> * 
>          
> *The Slippery Slope*: Censuring an affiliate for a "racist" meme sets a dangerous precedent. Who gets to decide what is "racist" enough for censure? This power, once granted, would inevitably be used to silence other dissenters and ideological opponents within the party.
> * 
>          
> *A "Virtue-Signaling" Trap*: One could cast the LNC's action as a pathetic attempt to appease outsiders and "the media" by distancing itself from a controversial affiliate. We should have no patience for this, instead arguing that libertarians should not cater to the sensibilities of non-libertarians. It is a betrayal of core principles for the sake of public relations.
> 
> 
> *Points 6 & 7: The LNC's Right to Censure and the Lack of "Teeth"*
> 
> We should challenge the premise that the LNC has a "right" to censure based on the content of speech. The LNC's authority is derived from and limited by its members and affiliates. If that authority is used to suppress free expression, it should be opposed on principle. It does not matter that a censure has "no teeth." Even a symbolic act of disapproval from a central body can be a precursor to more severe sanctions. It is a form of moral aggression, a public shaming that undermines the unity and ideological foundation of the party. A censure is a declaration of ideological warfare, and it must be met with an equally strong defense of liberty. One could compare it to the "soft" power of the state that, while not a direct act of violence, is still a form of coercion and control.
> 
> The LPKY resolution is a crucial defense of a core libertarian principle and a necessary stand against an incipient authoritarianism within the party. All of the objections are either timid, misguided, or betray a fundamental lack of understanding of the non-aggression principle and the importance of free expression. I vote in favor.
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 5:56 PM Ken Moellman via Lpk-execomm <lpk-execomm at lists.lpky.org> 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
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> *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.
>