cyclops

This is interesting and I have to agree with Blancmange on this. If a politician visits a scout meeting in the function of being a politician, what privacy expectation is there? It seems that this is a public figure making a public appearance. Why would there be a limit to what can be photographed at this event?

I have a scouting nephew in the Somers area and some friends in the Valhalla area. Love that part of the state. Nephew made Eagle and now sticking with it on camp staff during summers while in college. Really good young man. Welcome to the forums.

Same experience here.

This is indeed very sad. What would be the correct way to respond to this out in the wilderness?

It worked for me.

I'm really hoping that BSA will not offer RFID pins to be voluntarily implanted in scout leaders starting with the next round of registrations and renewals. It's an outrageous idea.

Actually, in my very red state I do hear Trump supporters say that they did want this. There are a few who waver some and my statement is aimed at them but most couldn't care less about what Trump says or does. Some of them are quite proud of some the most outrageous things that are being said. In fact when I ask some of them what it would take for them to change their minds they are quite open that "nothing the man could do" would change their minds about him. They are angry and in their own words, "we just want to see this whole *&^*&^&^ place destroyed and we think things are going just fine". Then they remind me that they won and I'm a loser and some such... I'm sorry that you view me as irrational.

When I introduced the statement it was in the other thread about the speech to the Jamboree. The discussion had ventured into who else might be invited to speak to the Jamboree or other scout groups. And then I read what Scaramucci had said about others...as the new Communications Director. His statements were, to my mind, not appropriate for scouts to hear nor did they convey any manner of scout spirit. So I added it to the discussion at the time. Later, a moderator moved my post to a new thread and here we are. No, there's not much of anything being said by Scaramucci that makes me feel good. Nor from several other persons in the White House. I hope that answers your questions.

Thanks qwazse, I thought they probably did but didn't know for sure.

If that's YOUR definition of censorship then BSA has been doing this for, as you say, 100 years by excluding everyone else. Yes, it could be viewed as breaking a tradition. But censorship, according to dictionaries and pretty much anyone but you applies when certain speech is prohibited, as is applied in this forum. The moderators will moderate any expression that crosses what appears to be a fuzzy line of decorum. There are some expressions that simply won't be allowed. There are certain individuals who, if they prove to be troublesome by insisting on posting that kind of speech, can be suspended or even banned from the forum. THAT is censorship. But just because the Elks Club decides to invite one speaker as opposed to another for their banquet (I'm not an Elk, I have not idea if they have banquets or not) doesn't mean they're censoring all of the other possible speakers (which I suppose includes most everyone else on the planet). When I am not selected by the 'letters' section of a magazine I am not being censored. I just didn't 'make the cut'. I am still free to proclaim to the world whatever it was I was trying to proclaim. I just won't be doing it in the 'letters'. Censorship is when China prohibits web access that possibly supports political opposition. It's when the leaders of Myanmar put someone under arrest for speaking in opposition, it's when Russia, on threat of imprisonment, suppresses opposition speech. But it isn't my local paper's refusal to publish my op-ed article. That is their editorial decision. I am still free to pay to have that article published as an 'ad' or even by printing it myself if I want and to sell it or give it away for free for the public to read. And it isn't BSA's decision to choose whatever speaker they want: THAT is called freedom of choice...by a private club. You are confused about what censorship is.

Man, I can feel your pain. When I was a boy, my father took me camping in the Everglades. We tented on a 'roost' in the middle of a mangrove swamp and there was no mosquito net, no fans, no electricity. I sweated my you-know-what off for weeks one time, on the shore of one of those blackwater lakes surrounded by swamp. Those experiences made for great memories. I hope I never do it again, lol. I'm more suited for Colorado or Montana or someplace like that. BUT, the fishing was great, we caught and ate so much fish and I still love it. You have to WORK to catch like that in other places, lol.

I agree with hiker67 on this. BSA is, as they argued successfully to SCOTUS, a private club. As such they should be free to select anyone they feel like. That, at least, would make it clear that whomever the speaker was, the speaker would more likely communicate a message that was more in line with Scout Law and Oath. And while I wouldn't limit it to someone who is IN scouting, I would support an attempt to select persons who had been scouts or scouters in the past if not present, but I think there are plenty of others who may not be or have been associated with scouting who also represent the high ideals of the Law and Oath.

You know, after I read his speech to the Jamboree I thought that what he said was uncalled for and inappropriate for the occasion. I obviously have an already low opinion of the man. But when I heard his 'slasher' speech yesterday, in which he advocated the commission of crimes of bodily injury by OFFICERS OF THE LAW...he went to unfathomable depths way beyond even my already low expectations. I hope that the BSA can somehow distance itself from this person and keep him away from our youth. Any lesson to be learned by his negative example can be learned other ways without the taint of this profoundly bad example.

I'm good with that approach. I was thinking more along the lines of a local official at a troop meeting, not a larger, more public venue. But with respect to national news from internet or television, there's a point where I know I have to watch it to find out what people say. If possible, I'll try to view it with some humor (horrified fascination).

In the presence of scouts? No, that calls for an interruption of whatever is happening and maybe a private conversation to either change things or see the official to the curb (or if that's not possible, leave with the boys)...with a followup discussion with the scouts about what's right, wrong, helpful, hurtful, courteous, discourteous, and why. What would you do? I'm open to better ideas.