PTA vs. CRC: The Letters
If you follow our story, you know that the Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum used the PTA directories from the pilot-test schools to send letters and postcards to families whose children might be in the test of the new sex-education curriculum. They also used that PTA information to call homes and play a recorded scare-message, all of this trying to get people to keep their kids out of the pilot test.
In 2005, the Montgomery County Council of PTAs officially reprimanded the CRC for using the directory information and ordered them not to do it again: the resolution document can be found HERE. Of course the CRC, whose mission is more important than a bunch of rules, ignored the PTA's request. I did not make some PTA people happy with my earlier comments on this topic, but let's say the PTA's response amounted to a big sigh and roll of the eyes.
Thousands of families give their personal information to their school's PTA and let them publish it for the local community. These directories are really handy, but they depend on a level of trust. Businesses can't be mining them for addresses to mail junk to, for instance. The PTA puts a statement on every directory to that effect, and it seems that just about everybody figures out how to respect that ... everybody but the CRC.
Today the PTA released an exchange of letters between them and the CRC's President and lawyer, John Garza.
First, the PTA writes to the CRC:
That seems pretty clear. A short apology would have been a good response, don't you think?
Instead, the PTA received a lesson in passive aggression:
So Garza pretends that the PTA is trying to "limit our free speech rights;" he couches this in a bunch of friendly-sounding verbiage, and tries to flip it around to arrange a big meeting between the CRC and parents. Oh, and preaches about tolerance while he's at it.
You tell me -- is it possible that he doesn't understand what the issue is?
That's always the question with these guys: do they not understand, or do they distort things intentionally? I swear, sometimes I can't tell. I'm not being ironic, I really can't tell.
This week, the PTA responded to the CRC:
If the PTA had any teeth, there'd be a lawyer talking to Mr. Garza. There would be papers filed. A precedent would be set, and quick. The county PTA should have the state PTA backing them up, and the national PTA should be backing up the state. But when they say they have been directed to "zealously guard directory information," they mean they will send a letter that they know will be ignored.
In 2005, the Montgomery County Council of PTAs officially reprimanded the CRC for using the directory information and ordered them not to do it again: the resolution document can be found HERE. Of course the CRC, whose mission is more important than a bunch of rules, ignored the PTA's request. I did not make some PTA people happy with my earlier comments on this topic, but let's say the PTA's response amounted to a big sigh and roll of the eyes.
Thousands of families give their personal information to their school's PTA and let them publish it for the local community. These directories are really handy, but they depend on a level of trust. Businesses can't be mining them for addresses to mail junk to, for instance. The PTA puts a statement on every directory to that effect, and it seems that just about everybody figures out how to respect that ... everybody but the CRC.
Today the PTA released an exchange of letters between them and the CRC's President and lawyer, John Garza.
First, the PTA writes to the CRC:
April 16, 2007
John Garza, President
Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum
P.O. Box 183
Damascus, MD 20872
Dear Mr. Garza:
The Montgomery County Council of PTAs is aware that your organization has misused the property of several PTAs in the county. Specifically we are referring to your organizations’ use of the Bethesda-Chevy Chase, Westland, Sherwood, Julius West, Watkins Mill, and Beall PTAS/PTA directories.
Washington Post reporter, Daniel DeVise, informed us that Ms. Michelle Turner stated on the record that the CRC used the directories because it had no other way to reach parents.
Many of these PTSAs have written directly to your organization and other PTSAs wrote to you in 2005 to protest your use of their directories then. MCCPTA wrote to you in 2006 to inform you that your use was improper. You are well aware that these directories are the property of their respective PTSAs and that your use of them constitutes misuse as defined within their disclaimer which appears in their directory.
Please cease and desist immediately and destroy all information obtained from these directories.
Jane de Winter
President
That seems pretty clear. A short apology would have been a good response, don't you think?
Instead, the PTA received a lesson in passive aggression:
CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE CURRICULUM, INC
P.O. Box 183 Damascus, Maryland 20872
May 3, 2007
Jane De Winter
Montgomery County Council of Parent-Teacher-Associations
2096 Gaither Road
Suite 204
Rockville, Maryland 20850
Dear Ms. De Winter:
On behalf of Citizens for Responsible Curriculum I respond to your letter of March 6, 2007. In order for us to determine whether we should comply with your demand, kindly forward to me a list of all the specific reasons you assert to limit our free speech rights. Kindly identify exactly what it is about our communication that you find offensive, exactly why our right of free speech should be limited, and exactly how parents of Montgomery County High Schools have been harmed by our mailing. Once we are receipt of this detailed information we can properly access whether we should acquiesce to your demand.
We very much want to please the PTSA and have friendly relations with all the parents of Montgomery County High Schools. To further this goal, I ask that you kindly allow one or more representatives from CRC to come meet with as many parents as possible or members of the PTSA to work out any differences that we have and to see how we can work together in the future.
Because we believe the tolerance of other's view point is an important attribute to cultivate, we would like to learn more about your position and invite you to learn more about our position as well.
I look forward to hearing from you, you are free to contact me on my cell phone, 301-706-5557 to schedule a meeting.
If we can be of any service to you or the PTSA please let us know, we would like to help in any way possible.
Very truly yours,
John R.Garza
cc: Board of directors -Citizens for Responsible Curriculum
So Garza pretends that the PTA is trying to "limit our free speech rights;" he couches this in a bunch of friendly-sounding verbiage, and tries to flip it around to arrange a big meeting between the CRC and parents. Oh, and preaches about tolerance while he's at it.
You tell me -- is it possible that he doesn't understand what the issue is?
That's always the question with these guys: do they not understand, or do they distort things intentionally? I swear, sometimes I can't tell. I'm not being ironic, I really can't tell.
This week, the PTA responded to the CRC:
John Garza, President
Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum
P.O. Box 183
Damascus, MD 20872
May 25, 2007
Dear Mr. Garza:
Thank you for your May 3, 2007, letter responding to MCCPTA’s request that you stop misusing PTA/PTSA directories. I have shared this letter with our membership.
Contrary to your assertion, MCCPTA has no interest in limiting your free speech rights. Our interest is protecting the integrity of the information that is collected solely for PTA approved purposes.
Specifically, as you are no doubt aware, "Directories and the information contained in them are the property of the PTA, Inc. The directory is provided to you for use only in connection with PTA-sponsored activities and PTA-approved purposes. The directory and the information in it may not be used for any solicitations, advertising, mass mailings, or any other purposes unrelated to the mission, objects and policies of the PTA or by any other organization other than the PTA."
Your organization's use of PTA student directories is clearly contrary to our expressly stated purpose and expectations. My communication to you was to cease and desist from using that information. Such a use violates the express permission for which people provided this information.
MCCPTA routinely denies requests from dozens of other organizations for our directory information out of respect for the commitment that we have made to individuals who have released this information to us. There are proper channels of communication open to your organization, like all other organizations, that would not require you to violate our directory
disclaimer. You have willfully decided to violate our disclaimer, even after your organization was informed that its use of PTA directories is improper.
Our membership has directed us, through the resolution previously provided to you, to zealously guard directory information. We find your total disregard for our clearly articulated disclaimer to be very disrespectful of MCCPTA and local PTAs.
Sincerely,
Jane de Winter
President
If the PTA had any teeth, there'd be a lawyer talking to Mr. Garza. There would be papers filed. A precedent would be set, and quick. The county PTA should have the state PTA backing them up, and the national PTA should be backing up the state. But when they say they have been directed to "zealously guard directory information," they mean they will send a letter that they know will be ignored.
posted by JimK at 1:18 PM
49 Comments:
Is John Garza just crazy? His letter was off-topic and non-responsive.
Watch out Robert, Garza will be sending a threatening letter to you saying you slandered him.
Yes he is considered "just that crazy..."
He and CRC are a match made in heaven.
Ted
andrea- not anon
Well, of course, CRC is above the rules and they know so much better what is best for our MCPS students. That is why they can violate the privacy of our students and families. Their claims about caring about our kids(so few of them have MCPS students) is just BS.
"You tell me -- is it possible that he doesn't understand what the issue is?"
You apparently don't. The only reason this is an issue is because its not a liberal cause. It's got "free speech impediment" written all over it.
CRC used the directory for a "PTA-approved" purpose: parent-to-parent communication.
The PTA would lose if they took it to court. They have become so closely entwined with and supported by the school that they qualify as a quasi-governmental group. Access can't be denied for political purposes. It would wind up just like the flyer case.
Oh, but the poor targets of this horrible crime. They actually received a letter- or in some horrific cases, were called at dinnertime and informed about the actions of the MCPS Board.
Maybe we should start a campaign to raise money to build a memorial to the victims fo this senseless crime.
anonymous wrote:
"CRC used the directory for a "PTA-approved" purpose: parent-to-parent communication."
That's it, justification (if you want to call it that) by a CRC'r.
Ted
"That's it, justification (if you want to call it that) by a CRC'r."
I'm afraid you're right, Teddy.
They try to justify their cruel and wicked behavior by saying they're just trying to make conversation but really they want to give away the secret policy decisions of our wise school board.
If we let them get away with it, people will start to question MCPS decisions and start bothering them with annoying protests. We'll wind up with a thriving democracy here in the heart of blue state socialism.
But it won't come to that.
Onward, PTA lawyers!
Andrea- not anon
HAHAHAHA, anon is such a laugh. When people like CRC violate rules - that is okay. CRC claims such incredible parental concerns- when most have no kids in MCPS- but the right of privacy for our kids means nothing. What a load of bull claiming it is a freedom of speech issue- this is not freedom of speech- no one is denying Johnny and his crazy cronies the right to say anything. By the way, Johnny Garza is not an MCPS parent. He lied about it on that cable show- but hey, telling lies is also okay in the CRC "just cause"
Anonymous spouts, "If we let them get away with it, people will start to question MCPS decisions and start bothering them with annoying protests."
*****
CRC Attack Fails: Less Than Five Percent Opt Out
CRC Brags: Parents Unimpressed
http://www.teachthefacts.org/archives/2007_03_01_vigilance-archive.html
Yeah anon it really is working for CRC Johnny and company. Let's see 3 CRC nuts showed up at Argyle to protest??? Or was that at another pilot school????
Quite effective ..yeah right.
Ted
I think their motivations for writing a letter is obvious in the sentence which says they want to "... meet with as many parents as possible..." to discuss the use of the directory. Does anyone really beleive that, or do they just want to get an audience with parents so they continue to push their agenda without having anyone there to point out when they are lying, etc.
If not that, then it must be the classic "turn the arugment around" rather than respond to the issue at hand. If they can re-focus the discussion to the PTSA and not their blatant misue of the directory, then they have won. Cowardly, but it often works as we have seen in way too many political campaigns.
It is becoming clear what the problem is here. The members of the CRC are mentally ill.
This was bound to happen. The quality of psychiatric care in the US has deteriorated with managed care and HMOs; the mental hospitals have been emptied out with patients' symptoms controlled with the new psych drugs, but once they get out they stop taking them. This is behind the homelessness problem, and largely accounts for the gigantic prison population in the US, among other things.
Unfortunately, the borderlines and psychopaths in the CRC have disrupted the school district and the county. I don't think you can force them to take their meds, though, unless they become violent.
Look at the logic of this guy's letter and tell me I'm wrong.
Andrea- anon
The CRC aren't really mentally ill- that would give their form of some craziness some excuse.
It seems impossible that a lawyer would have absolutely no understanding of the concept that the PTA owns this information. But he doesn't get it AT ALL!
Where did John Garza go to law school? How embarassing for them.
Where did John Garza go to law school? How embarassing for them.
His concept of vocabulary is as poor as his concept of property rights. You don't "access whether" you should do something, you "assess."
Under our system of law, we must all pay the owner of private property for the right to use that property unless the owner gives it to us as a gift. In this case, individual PTAs as well as the MCCPTA have made it abundantly clear to the CRC that PTA mailing lists are the private property of the PTAs and are not to be used by non-PTA entities without PTA permission.
I have no doubt that if the CRC member list was to fall into TTF hands and if it was used by them, the CRC would be up in arms claiming theft of their private property and demanding retribution.
What do you do in this situation? This person is too stupid to reason with. The PTA made their point as obvious as it can be, and he doesn't seem to understand.
It's like he hasn't learned the concept that you don't take other people's stuff when they tell you not to.
And is this true, that the person who wrote this letter is a lawyer?
You all seem to take the concept of intellectual property very seriously.
When Jim found private e-mails of CRC members and started posting it here for political purposes, did he get their permission? Was he stealing their intellectual property?
In the same way, the directories are too widely distributed to say they aren't in the public domain.
"His concept of vocabulary is as poor as his concept of property rights. You don't "access whether" you should do something, you "assess.""
The shallowness of TTF's case is clear from the way they constantly complain about any spelling or grammatical errors on CRC's part.
TTF coomunications regularly have the same kind of errors and no one makes a federal case out of it.
Store to the issue, idiot.
andrea- not anon
Anon- don't start discussing things you don't understand. Intellectual property issues and public domain are way beyond your knowledge base(whatever that might be). They are also not what is being discussed here- but I guess you don't get that. Not surprising as you usually try to move away from the actual facts at hand- say, Johnny- is it you?
A couple of years ago, the CRC's message board was discovered by someone -- actually, by several people -- in the Google cache. You just had to search for a CRC member's email address and there it was. People started posting big chunks of it in our comments sections; this information, which was already available to the public via Google, revealed a lot of lies and machinations that were relevant to the debate over sex-ed in Montgomery County, and we ended up reporting on some of it, for people who had not seen it in its raw form.
It's the same thing as when CRC then-President Michelle Turner sent out an email to a bunch of school listserves that had inner-circle CRC plotting appended to the bottom of it. Not private, not proprietary.
The PTA directories are a community effort, with a statement on every one that says what the information is to be used for, and what it is not to be used for. Plus, the PTA's resolution from 2005 was very clear.
JimK
"Under our system of law, we must all pay the owner of private property for the right to use that property unless the owner gives it to us as a gift."
Really? And how do we establish that this property belongs to PTA? I gave my address to them and didn't think I was giving them property rights over my address. If it has monetary value, perhaps they should have paid me for it.
The truth is, I wanted them to give it to other parents who might contact me about curriculum and other concerns. Truth is, the enabling of that kind of parental empowerment is what the PTA should be all about. Truth is, the PTA hasn't lived up to its mission and a new type of parent association, which actually represents the interests of parents, is long overdue.
"In this case, individual PTAs as well as the MCCPTA have made it abundantly clear to the CRC that PTA mailing lists are the private property of the PTAs and are not to be used by non-PTA entities without PTA permission."
Another problem, aside from the issue of ownership, is they have not made this clear to any other parents. If the only parents they don't want contacting other parents are CRCers, maybe there is a potential for a bias lawsuit here. They wouldn't complain if a parent were concerned about an environmental issue on school grounds and used the directory to contact other parents about it. If the PTA is an entity with such a partisan stance, the schools should stop being so involved with them. As a voter, I don't think my tax money should go this political entity.
And don't gripe about where Garza's kids go to school. Michelle Turner is crazy enough to send her kids to public school. And so are the parents who provided the directories to CRC and asked them to forward information to other parents about the clandestine activities of the MCPS school board.
"Plus, the PTA's resolution from 2005 was very clear"
I see. If call up a few people and ask them for their phone number, does their number then belong to me or is it only if I issue a resolution?
The National PTA fully supports MCCPTA's actions and stands ready and willing to assist when requested by MCCPTA. The PTA structure, however, is not set up in such a way that the national organization steps in to the business of a local, council, or state unit unless 1) asked or 2) the unit is in violation of national policies. Please do not make generalizations about what the national or state PTA should or should not do without being familiar with how the organization is set up.
Anon, thanks for providing us that knowledge about how the PTA works.
Clearly, either the county PTA thinks this is a problem, or they don't. If they do, they should deal with it effectively, which obviously means doing something besides passing resolutions and sending letters. If they don't think it's important to protect the directories, then, OK, this correspondence has been sent as a formality, and parents and teachers won't need to get their hopes up.
I think the key is probably in your phrase "unless 1) asked." You are saying the county PTA hasn't asked for help from the higher levels. If that's how they want to handle it, fine, but they will have to expect some criticism, and I am the messenger who delivers that to the Internets. Trust me, I have no desire to criticize the PTA, and my conclusions about this are not solely my own. Every time the CRC gets away with something like this it makes them feel like they can try something else, and they would like to drain the county of energy altogether. So I am critical, yes, of people and groups that don't stand up to them. And the PTA, so far, isn't.
JimK
"Clearly, either the county PTA thinks this is a problem, or they don't."
Regardless of what anyone thinks, it clearly isn't a problem.
The only way it could be a problem would be if people stop giving their address to the PTA. Since it the use occurred a couple of years ago, there should be evidence as to whether that happened.
Of course, that wouldn't have happened, even if large numbers were bothered by the contact, which doesn't seem to be the case, unless the parents knew where CRC got their name and number. And they would only do that if someone informed them of that. Thus, the informer is the real problem. An isolated mailing or two would be soon forgotten unless someone was determined to cause problems. The real problem-causer here is TTF.
In the words of Gomer Pyle: surprise, surprise, surprise!
"If they do, they should deal with it effectively, which obviously means doing something besides passing resolutions and sending letters."
Like waste limited resources on lawyers to attack TTF's opponents. I doubt anyone wants their PTA dues going to that.
"If they don't think it's important to protect the directories, then, OK, this correspondence has been sent as a formality, and parents and teachers won't need to get their hopes up."
In order to justify protecting something, you'd need to establish some actual danger. None exists.
We know TTF wishes some problem had been caused. They shouldn't keep their hopes up.
"I think the key is probably in your phrase "unless 1) asked." You are saying the county PTA hasn't asked for help from the higher levels. If that's how they want to handle it, fine, but they will have to expect some criticism, and I am the messenger who delivers that to the Internets."
Again, the only way it would cause a problem is if attention is brought to the isolated use and it is made to seem more significant than it is. That might cause people to worry about giving their name for directory use. Probably the best way to handle this is to pass a resolution to ask TTF to stop interfering and ban TTF from using PTA resources like listservs, meetings, et al.
"Trust me, I have no desire to criticize the PTA, and my conclusions about this are not solely my own."
Well, your pathetic attempts to inflame the situtation are causing harm to the PTA mission.
"Every time the CRC gets away with something like this it makes them feel like they can try something else, and they would like to drain the county of energy altogether."
Maybe we should try ethanol.
"So I am critical, yes, of people and groups that don't stand up to them. And the PTA, so far, isn't."
They passed the stupid resolution to try and shut you up. Maybe next they will have to try something else.
Anon, it is possible that different people perceive things differently. The PTA doesn't have to see the world the way I do, and further, you are not the authority on what is and is not a problem.
On the other hand, we are all entitled to our opinions, including me, and in my opinion this is a problem. It is apparent that you don't understand the concept of the "opinion," and its relationship to the "fact."
JimK
Fact is that if the use of the directory by another parent group is causing the problem you say it is, drawing attention to the use makes the problem worse.
Anon, you're beautiful. I just say that you can't tell a fact from an opinion, and you immediately post an opinion beginning with, "Fact is ..." and proceeding to treat my opinion as if I believed it were a fact, concluding with your opinion being the "fact" that is the subject of your sentence.
What would we do without you?
JimK
Anonymous said "Of course, that wouldn't have happened, even if large numbers were bothered by the contact, which doesn't seem to be the case, unless the parents knew where CRC got their name and number. And they would only do that if someone informed them of that. Thus, the informer is the real problem. An isolated mailing or two would be soon forgotten unless someone was determined to cause problems. The real problem-causer here is TTF.".
That's one of the most fatuous things I've ever heard. By your logic if someone is stealing office supplies and no one realizes it that is not a problem unless someone exposes it and then the whistleblower is the problem. By your logic if someone is telling nasty lies behind your back the person who tells you about it is at fault, not the person doing it.
Anonymous said:
"Of course, that wouldn't have happened, even if large numbers were bothered by the contact, which doesn't seem to be the case, unless the parents knew where CRC got their name and number. And they would only do that if someone informed them of that. Thus, the informer is the real problem. An isolated mailing or two would be soon forgotten unless someone was determined to cause problems. The real problem-causer here is TTF."
You can't possibly believe that. It's like the kid who cheats claiming that the real problem is that other kids care enough to turn him in. This is another demonstration of my contention that you just write on this blog in order to goad other people, not because you hold any real opinions. I don't think you genuinely think the things you write, but that you're just arguing for the sake of arguing (I have a student in a class, who when he get's bored, tells another student that he's better than him at football; he can count an a response, and about 20 minutes of entertainment. You remind me of that).
Is anyone on this blog an expert on the law around contact lists and things like that (other than our bombastic anonymous)? I maintain contact lists in excel files of the GSA sponsors in the metro area, all public information, but I go to considerable amounts of effort to put them together and maintain them. I share the files with groups and some people and groups, at my discretion (it is in fact all public information, school emails, addresses and phone numbers, no youth contact info, no personal contact info). I would be displeased, however, if someone such as CRC took the files I've created by my effort and used them for purposes I haven't authorize.
Here's my question: do I have any expectation of protection for the work I've put into compiling these files (their useful for mailmerge, emails and such).
I know I used to do mailings to the private schools in the area, and had permission to use the mailing list of the Association of Independent Schools of Greater Washington. Whenever I did a mailing, they would mail me labels premade, rather than an address list. I just assumed that I was not to copy their list into my own files.
So is there an expert we can ask? We know that CRC is violating the repeated and clear requests of the MCCPTA. Are they also violating the law?
"So is there an expert we can ask? We know that CRC is violating the repeated and clear requests of the MCCPTA. Are they also violating the law?"
This is a democracy, Robert. What do you think, citizen? Should it be against the law to sent someone a letter if you got their address from a third party who believes they have the right to control who sends letters to that first party and didn't give you permission because they just don't like your point of view? We need "permission" to send someone a letter?
Can I go around collecting people's addresses and then, once I have 'em, become the gatekeeper to decide who can communicate with them?
?By the way, Johnny Garza is not an MCPS parent. He lied about it on that cable show- but hey, telling lies is also okay in the CRC "just cause""
John's youngest son is in public school.
That is a fact, not a lie. His daugthers are in private school.
So he is an MCPS parent.
Theresa
CRC Theresa you know that Johnny's addition as an MCPS parent was not always so and if anything recent.
So really Johnny now has an avenue to spread CRC garbage to parents there. Let me guess like a lead balloon.
Ted
I have this sense of deja vu, Anonymous. I was seeking expert opinion, not speculation. Are you an expert? Do you know someone who is? Is John Garza expert enough to answer my question? I would like to know what the real answer is.
rrjr
The PTA collected contact information from its members, promising those who gave it that the information would only be used for PTA purposes. The CRC desire to get parents to withhold permission for MCPS students to attend the pilot of the new sex education curriculum is not a PTA purpose. I'm sure candidates for BOE would love to use the many PTA member lists to contact potential supporters just like CRC did, but they know and RESPECT the fact that PTA members lists are PTA property, solely for their own use.
Twice the CRC has brazenly broken the promise the PTA made to its members, but CRC supporters don't care and don't see anything wrong because to zealots like them, the ends justify the means. Well, guess what? Even the end result showed that the majority of MCPS parents disagree with the CRC's plan to opt out of the pilot. Over 90% of kids eligible for the pilot classes received parental permission to attend.
"I have this sense of deja vu, Anonymous. I was seeking expert opinion, not speculation. Are you an expert? Do you know someone who is?"
And I wasn't trying to answer your question, Robert. I was asking what, in your opinion, should be the law here. You're allowed to have one. Be a man.
Should we allow groups to collect people's names and addresses and treat them as their proprietary information? Should it be illegal to send a letter to someone unless you found out their address is some prescribed way? Should it ever be illegal to send someone a letter? Would democracy even be possible if we allow private groups to regulate communication among citizens?
"The PTA collected contact information from its members, promising those who gave it that the information would only be used for PTA purposes."
That's a promise they can't keep if they publicly distribute the material. They are not a law enforcement agency and they don't own people's address and phone number. They have no right to tell others what they can and can't communicate about.
"The CRC desire to get parents to withhold permission for MCPS students to attend the pilot of the new sex education curriculum is not a PTA purpose."
Inter-parent communication is a PTA purpose. The subject matter here, curriculum, is what PTA should encourage discussion about.
"to zealots like them, the ends justify the means"
Actually the means justify the means. We are a society that believes in freedom of thought and discussion.
Andrea- not anon
Oh, my, Johnny was telling the truth - or at least for right now. No doubt, enrolled a child so he can pull her out and substaniate the claims that were lies previously.
And my other point is that CRC- this is part of their HTT stance-decides to violate what the PTSA has done and said because they need to get to our kids. If they were so caring about kids- they would respect the directory rules. Hopefully, it cost CRC a l ot of someone's money to send those silly letter and phonecalls. You would also think CRC would find someone who was more literate than Johnny- and hey, no offense to my lawyer friends on here- but I guess a law degree doesn't necessarily mean you can read, write or speak(Susan Jamison, another CRC notable, is proof of that)
"And my other point is that CRC- this is part of their HTT stance-decides to violate what the PTSA has done and said because they need to get to our kids. If they were so caring about kids- they would respect the directory rules."
Yes, because so many children were scarred by the cruel tactics of CRC. Who will start a fund to build a memorial to these innocent victims? Those whose privacy has been irrevocably breached.
Hey, wait a minute, the letters went to parents not kids.
Anonymous said "Should it be against the law to sent someone a letter if you got their address from a third party who believes they have the right to control who sends letters to that first party and didn't give you permission because they just don't like your point of view?"
It may not be illegal, but its certainly immoral. If I give someone my address and they out of honour agree to use it only for themselves its a shameful abuse if you intercept that address and send me unsolicited crap.
Anonymous said "Should we allow groups to collect people's names and addresses and treat them as their proprietary information? Should it be illegal to send a letter to someone unless you found out their address is some prescribed way?".
Anonymous, companies collect mailing lists which are treated as proprietary information under the law - its illegal to access those lists and use them without permission and its the same thing with the PTA list.
The PTA collected names and addresses under the assumption that they would only be used for PTA purposes. The CRC violated the terms under which the names were collected and that is unethical and from what I can tell probably illegal as well.
Your perverted statements that if no one complained it was okay is equivalent of saying its okay if a bank employee embezzles $1000 out of the till, bets on the horses the next day, wins, and pays it back by saturday that they've done nothing wrong.
"Anonymous, companies collect mailing lists which are treated as proprietary information under the law - its illegal to access those lists and use them without permission and its the same thing with the PTA list."
You need to read up on intellectual property law, Randi. It's only illegal if the holder has taken reasonable caution to safeguard the information and if the the information has been obtained by some illegal means such as breaking and entering. Neither would apply in this case.
Furthermore, there is a question about whether PTA obtained the information by fradulent means. If they told people upon requesting this information they would make their names available for contact by other parents and then try to prevent that contact when they don't like the message, they may be guilty of using the information to further their partisan aims. They did not disclose that they would use this information in this way when they requested it. This could have a backlash where parents with traditional values refuse to give PTA their contact information.
Silly anonymous, my opinion is clear. You weren't asking for it, you were expostulating loaded, goading, provocative (3 adjectives in a row!) questions.
Dear anonymous, you're even succeeding in irritating kind, sweet, gentle, unflappable (4 adjectives in a row!) me. Watch this:
Anonymous said:
"Be a man."
Care to step outside, Big Boy?
anonymous said, "the letters went to parents not kids."
_____________________________
Here is what one kid said about letter sent to her parents from CRC.
BCC Parents and students-
I'm a BCC Alumnus, Class of 05. While I was home during my spring break
from the University of Michigan, I read a letter addressed to my parents
from the "Citizens for Responsible Curriculum." This group opposes a new
MCPS curriculum that addresses homosexuality and transgenderism. I found
the
CRC's letter and agenda to be intolerant, extreme, and offensive. The
letter
describes the gay lifestyle as "medically proven to be hazardous, both
physically and emotionally."
They want this point of view to be taught in MCPS schools.
On the CRC web site, I found the phone number for Michelle Turner, the
group's spokesperson. I called and expressed my extreme displeasure
about
the changes they are trying to make in the MCPS sex ed curriculum. I
encourage everyone who feels as I do about this group to do the same.
This
is your curriculum they are trying to meddle with--- let
them know how you feel about it! Ms. Turner's number (posted on the
website)
is
301-335-6042.
(name removed)
Class of 05
Ted
Oh dear, Ted has uncovered another sufferer. Someone who was unfortunate enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and who had to face the ugly truth that there are people who disagree with the school board. Will the tragic stories never end?
Perhaps, with extensive counseling, this innocent victim will someday be able to lead a normal life again.
Anonymous, "extensive counseling" might benefit you as well.
Ted
Anonymous said "It's only illegal if the holder has taken reasonable caution to safeguard the information and if the the information has been obtained by some illegal means such as breaking and entering. Neither would apply in this case."
I certainly wouldn't take your word for that, I'm confident a lawyer would advise PTA differently.
Anonymous said "Oh dear, Ted has uncovered another sufferer. Someone who was unfortunate enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and who had to face the ugly truth that there are people who disagree with the school board. Will the tragic stories never end?".
Anonymous, people like the CRC are responsible for creating a hostile environment for LGBTs. LGBTs are much more likely than straights to miss school out of fear of their safety and have a higher suicide rate due to the oppression and demonization by people like you and the CRC. The CRC is using the PTA names and addresses to maintain and promote this hostility, it may be a laughing matter to you, but it certainly isn't to the people you hurt and their supporters. They have the same right to live free and open that you do and thankfully more and more people are recognizing the evil that you are responsible for.
Andrea- not anon
I am not contending that the PTSA directory is intellectual property but I know about IP lawsuits(not because I am a lawyer) and Anon is wrong. It would be really good if anon is Johnny. Hope no one is hiring him for IP protection.
"I am not contending that the PTSA directory is intellectual property but I know about IP lawsuits(not because I am a lawyer) and Anon is wrong."
There are different types of IP, Andrea. What the anon said was true for "database" type of IP, of which address and phone lists would be one.
TTF's assertion, however, that PTA has achieved ownership status of this information is dubious.
Andrea- not anon
maybe, maybe not- I certainly don't trust any anon "legal" opinions. If I hear it from the lawyers I know on here(or my IP lawyers)- I'd buy it. The two CRC lawyers who opine are Johnny and Susan and their basic writing makes me question anything they do. Hey, is Susan working in GA?- just heard another crazy mom wants Harry Potter off the school shelves. Luckily the school said no.
Post a Comment
<< Home