FTL and Ian Freeman "NEVER banned" from FSP events

Shire Media
#1

According to FSP President Rachel Goldsmith in a Facebook post in the closed group “Porcupines”,

In accordance with my reading of the initial language, and having had some discussion for clarity with the people involved at the time… FTL at large has NEVER been banned or ‘censored’ from fsp events. FTL reps and broadcasters have chosen not to attend or broadcast, and/or the event producers have neglected to invite them.

Goldsmith referenced the original statement posted by Matt Philips:

FSP will no longer provide FTL with promotional consideration and has ended the “Mutual Sponsorship” agreement. Furthermore, Ian Freeman is no longer invited to attend FSP-hosted events, including PorcFest and Liberty Forum.

Also in her post, she encouraged people to buy their Porcfest tickets.

So to recap: The President of the FSP declares that FTL and Ian aren’t banned from PF, they are not banned from broadcasting from PF, and anyone interested in attending PF should buy a ticket. This could be construed as an indirect invitation.

So was the ‘ban’ a misunderstanding? Or were there other statements, public or private, that threatened Ian/FTL with force if he/they attended FSP events?

2 Likes
#2

It would be interesting to see Ian test the waters here. My understanding is that FTL and Ian aren’t welcomed at the event, but other co-hosts are welcome, so long as they aren’t doing so in a capacity that represents FTL. To that end various co-hosts have continued to attend Liberty Forum and Porkfest.

From what I’ve seen over the years the backlash has largely been from the outrage of members of the Free State Project over the FSP board leadership - in recent years -and the incident is more or less the one that simply broke the camels back. While certainly there is some bad blood here Ian’s been relatively quiet compared to Free State Project members over the incident.

Prior to this point there were numerous small things that had occurred over the years which were irritating participants- but for the good of the movement people have remained quiet. Leading is hard work- and while we might not all agree those who step up to the plate should be given some latitude. It wasn’t until they spat in Ian’s face that people got really upset over the degrading situation. Ian wasn’t just another activist.

Where people have upset about past kicks over people spouting unpopular views some of those views were at least violent-or some would argue so anyway. While the FSP is a private organization it set a bad precedent for a group that is supposed to be advocating freedom. Lead by example they say. That means you don’t have to agree with someone, but you will let that person speak and banning people goes against what a good leadership advocating freedom should be doing.

What I’ve advocated in the past is that the FSP have a statement prepared to respond to negative media publicity when people spouting unpopular views hits the mainstream media that clarifies that the organization itself has a policy against taking a position on political issues and that the only objective of the project is to gather those in support of freedom in one place. Then quote the FSP’s statement of intent:

“The Free State Project is an agreement among 20,000 pro-liberty activists to move to New Hampshire, where they will exert the fullest practical effort toward the creation of a society in which the maximum role of government is the protection of life, liberty, and property”.

2 Likes
#3

I was absolutely banned from FSP events and FTL was also not welcome to broadcast. In fact the Porcfest organizers in 2016 tried to stop @DerrickJ from doing his LRN.FM show because they thought LRN.FM was Ian Freeman or something. They ended up being persuaded to allow him.

1 Like
#4

I was expected to be gone from the campground by 9am on the first day of Porcfest in 2017 when I was there from Forkfest.

1 Like
#5

I was there for that, I remember. But I’m curious, who communicated that expectation to you? Did they threaten you with physical removal if you did not comply?

1 Like
#6

You’ve mischaracterized Rachel’s post (or at least the part you quoted here). She says they never banned FTL, but doesn’t mention Ian specifically.

While the public statement only says he is “no longer invited to attend FSP-hosted events”, The FSP Board Meeting Minutes state otherwise:

I realize that may still be a bit vague regarding the question of Ian’s banishment, but then at the next Board meeting there’s the following-

That makes it pretty clear that the FSP BoD considers it an actual ban.

Right, except for when they want to take a position on political issues.
For example, they raised more than $2,000 to fight Concord getting a BEARCAT.

Unsurprisingly the blog post calling for donations to fight the BEARCAT was one of many that “mysteriously” disappeared from the website during the redesign, but the evidence can still be found in the minutes of the board meeting-

So glad I never actually signed up with that shitshow of an organization.

#7

The FSP isn’t making it easy for themselves. That’s for sure. The whole reason the statement of intent was so simple was because we have a diverse set of concerns that we want to address and not everybody is going to agree on everything. And that’s fine. It’s up to the organizations and actions that people initiate upon moving here that determine where things go. Not the board. If the people on the board wanted to come out against the bearcat they should have voluntarily gotten together outside of the FSP to start another group to take that action.

They should have remained focused on or at least make a committed position to stick to what the organization was stated to do: Promote the migration movement/sign people up to move and any directly related actions to do this all based on the statement of intent. Nothing more nothing less. The organization making political statements based on personal moral views or banning people based on unpopular speech is exactly the type of behavior that the people moving here as part of the FSP and larger migration movement are trying to get away from.

2 Likes
#8

Matt Phillips. I wasn’t looking to push anything to the point of threats, so I left by the time requested.

1 Like
#9

Also, the FSP’s termination of our agreement is evidence we weren’t welcome to broadcast from the event. That was the document that arranged our broadcast services in return for a couple hotel rooms.

Further, they made a point of offering Darryl and Mark free tickets in 2016 but told them they could not do the show from the event. It was crystal clear to us at the time that we were not welcome as a show and I was specifically banned as an individual. So obviously Darryl and Mark chose not to accept the free ticket, given the show was prohibited.

Rachel is misinformed about the history, if all she’s doing is looking at meeting minutes.

1 Like
#10

this thread will cause 4000 secret emails to be passed around the fsp leadership and another 500 super secret ones

4 Likes
#11

Not being welcome or not being invited isn’t the same as being banned. That means no one is stopping you from purchasing a ticket and/or a site at the campground. Who amongst them is willing to physically restrain a ticketholder? Would they call the cops?

Maybe Matt Philips would’ve? But he is no longer in position to do so, and between the new leadership, the Porcfest organizers, and the security team, I don’t know anyone who will do such a thing.

#12

@Britton

Did you not read the actual minutes of the FSP Board of Director meetings I posted. They specifically used the word banned in regards to Ian at two different meetings.

1 Like
#13

Yes I read that, thank you very much for posting those minutes. But everything I just said still stands. It comes down to this: what are they gonna do?

Perhaps I’m an impractical idealist, but I just want this particular hatchet to be buried.

#14

Not to speak for Ian, but It seems to me that abiding by the NAP and respecting private property means accepting the FSP’s right to ban anyone they desire from their paid (or otherwise closed) events.

For me, the question is not “how are they going to enforce their rights”, but “am I going to respect their rights”. And my answer is always yes.

And why anyone would insist on going to an event where they were unwelcome is beyond me anyway.

1 Like
#15

Great point. But the organization today is not the same as it was in 2016 or 2017. The post by Rachel Goldsmith certainly appeared to be an invitation to me. I forgot to mention that she made the post as a reply to someone else’s comment several days after she asked for the community’s thoughts on the issue. The least polarized responses were a consensus that it was right to dissolve the partnership but wrong to ban Ian from FSP events.

Who specifically in the FSP today is saying that Ian is unwelcome? However FSP, Inc. feels about Ian’s attendance, I’m fairly certain his presence will be generally welcomed by the attendees.

At the end of the day, I’m pretty sure Rachel just wants to sell more tickets, and that’s easier with Ian there than without.

#16

What does it even mean to be banned from porkfest?

Rogers campground will sell a camping spot or rent a hotel room to Ian, or charge him $5 to be there for the day. No violation of NAP if Ian pays those fees.

They banned Ian Freeman. Does that mean Ian Bernard can still attend?

#17

Why would FSP not want to “invite” such freedom fighters such as Ian ? I don’t get it.
You’d think that key people in the freedom movement would be welcome there.
Why isn’t Larken Rose welcome to Porcfest ?
Samm

#18

I’ve never been to Porcfest, but my understanding is that the FSP rents a section of Rogers for its private use for a specific set of days and that they establish entry points to control access to those areas. Thus, one could go to Rogers during Porcfest without being permitted to attend Porcfest itself. Which is what it means to be banned from the event while not being banned from the campground itself.

I assume the name question is a joke, because it’s simply silly.

@truthvsstate
Larken has both attended and been a featured speaker at Porcfest in the past, but I believe stopped attending when Christopher Cantwell was banned.

#19

Cantwell is an idiot. Possibly a mole. Maybe a fascist? Don’t really care about him.
Larken Rose however, is an admired speaker and philosopher.
Why was Larken concerned about Cantwell’s removal? What did Cantwell do wrong according to Porcfest ?
Samm

#20

The only non-violent action they can do is issue a refund for his ticket. Whether they choose to do that or not would certainly clarify the FSP’s stance on this.

I also am curious to Ian’s position on Porcfest, whether he wants to attend or not.