Banishment & pubicity

[LANGJ at mail.syntron.com]

	 There are two very sad facts that we must live with.

	 One, is that we (the SCA) do not have the option of running FBI
	 background checks on prospective (or current) members. Anyone who
	 has the price of a membership may join.  Unfortunately, over the
	 years, some truly awful people have joined the SCA.	If John
	 Dillenger were alive, and had $35, he could join.
	 It goes against the grain of our vision to take the precautions
	 that this requires.
	 Though we are 99%+ honorable people, the fraction of a percent who
	 are not make it necessary to lock our cars, and watch our
	 children.  These precautions need not be intrusive, they are
	 dictated by prudence and common sense.

	 The other sad fact we must deal with, Is that we are an
	 outrageously litigious society.  Our legal system encourages anyone
	 with any grievance to seek damages in court.	Whatever the merit.

	 If John Doe is accused of a crime of any nature at an event, we
	 may (if the Crown feels it appropriate) banish him.  Because the
	 corporation does not want to conduct any business "behind closed
	 doors" any such action must be published in the Kingdom News
	 Letter (the Black Star, in our case).	Officers and Autocrats, may
	 be warned, discreetly of the reasons, but to publish that the
	 Society is acting against John Doe for the commission of a crime
	 for which he has not been convicted, puts the Society at
	 considerable risk of litigation for slander (to name but one
	 possibility).

	 If Michael wishes to dig up the dirt on any pending case, and
	 publish names and accusations, he may do so.  He then may ask the
	 rest of us to contribute to his legal defense fund, as he is sued
	 into bankruptcy.

	 - I'll write "I told you so." on the check -

	 A third cause for distress, is societal in general, extending far
	 beyond the SCA.
	 The conservative extreme in our society, having lost the
	 communist threat as a focus for their paranoia, has chosen to
	 cast suspicion on numerous activities.  We're a little weird for
	 some of them, and may find our activities labeled as a social
	 threat.
	 Some of these individuals would like to see us restrict the rights
	 of some of our minorities.  I trust that we shall not do so.

	 In all cases, a reasonable exercise of prudence by our membership,
	 will be adequate protection from those who have joined the SCA
	 because we are so vulnerable to those whose actions are less than
	 honourable.  Season that with a healthy distrust of any suggestion
	 that smacks of a neo "McCarthyesque" policy.

	 bran
	 [langj at mail.syntron.com]