Holly Candidate / Library President April Brandon Censors Local Journalism Leading to Election

(Crystal A. Proxmire, Oct. 6, 2022)

Holly, MI – While the Holly Township Library encourages people to read banned books and stand up to citizenship, Library Board President, and Village Council Candidate April Brandon, has the opposite attitude – administering an online forum called Holly Open Discussion where local residents have been excluded from conversations and information, and where she’s removed discussion, including those related to the upcoming election.

Brandon has also censored and banned Oakland County Times publisher Crystal Proxmire from the group, enacting censorship of local journalism at a critical time for voters seeking information.

The ban does not just impact the reporter’s access to “public” discussion and information that aids in reporting on community news, it also means people in the group are deprived of information that is relevant to them community, including election topics and stories related to community news, events, policies, businesses, fellow residents and more.

Additionally when Oakland County Times raised the issue of censorship to the Library Board through a letter of concern, Brandon responded with a threat to file charges for stalking against the reporter.

To be clear, in America government officials should not be manipulating public discussion, silencing citizens, obstructing the media, or threatening people – and members of the press – with jail time because they questioned the ethical conduct of a public official.

 

 

Oakland County Times has been a part of the Holly community for over five years, and apart from Brandon, the publication has been overwhelmingly embraced by the community. Nothing has changed about the sharing of news and information that is valuable to community members, yet now that elections are approaching, Brandon claims Proxmire has repeatedly violated group rules and ignored repeated warnings.

However, we don’t have any record of any warnings in the weeks and months leading to the unexpected ban.

The ban did come after doing a story about the transit millage, where Brandon removed the article describing multiple sides of the issue, then made her own posts in opposition to the millage.  She’s been cherry picking old examples of stories she did not like, but that’s not really the issue here, and even if it were, a civil discussion could have cleared up any concerns.

And even if Brandon thinks that a story about Detroit Zoo (which is a regional asset that Holly taxpayers help fund), for example, is inappropriate for the Holly community, it’s still worthwhile for the public to question whether they think the President of the Library should be the one making that decision for them about what is useful to read or not.

ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS OF CENSORSHIP

The issue of censorship is twofold.  First is the ethical implication of a politician controlling the content that 11,000 people see, and censoring that content to their own political advantage, while misleading people into thinking the group is “open discussion.”

The ethics don’t require a law. Sometimes people do unsavory things that may not break any specific law, but are still hypocritical or questionable.

There are clear legal concerns in this situation. But even for those unfamiliar with the law, the ethics are common sense.

Should a person with political power use that power to silence individuals they dislike?  Should someone who is representing the Library be banning and censoring local journalism? Should the media expose cases where a person who runs an organization that touts reading banned books and fighting censorship is actually doing the very thing they claim to be against?  Do the words in the picture on the Library homepage matter, if their leadership does the opposite?

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF CENSORSHIP

Secondly are the legal issues, such as potentially violating the Open Meetings Act as well as the First Amendment protections of freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

While Facebook is a private entity, public officials are still responsible for following the law when they engage on the platform.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has resources for those concerned with social media censorship.

“If a public official invites comments on a social media page concerning public matters or otherwise intentionally designates it as a space for public discussion, the social media page may become a “limited” or “designated” public forum. Where public forums are involved, public officials cannot exclude people from accessing the page just because the official disagrees with them.”

“A few principles guide what officials can and can’t do when they use social media as a government actor:

• They cannot stop people from joining a public conversation on the social media account because of the views they express on the topics at hand.
• They cannot block critical voices from asking for government services through the social media account because of those critical viewpoints.
• They cannot prevent people from being able to see social media posts that publicly announce government information or policy because of their viewpoints.”

Another ACLU guide explains the importance of protecting rights online.  “Just because a public official disagrees with your post or comment doesn’t mean they can block you or delete your comments online. As our democracy expands to online platforms, our First Amendment freedoms must remain protected—and that includes on social media.

More than ever, elected officials and government agencies are using social media to communicate with their constituents and the general public. In fact, the Supreme Court has recently recognized that Facebook, Twitter, and Zoom can be “the modern public square,” where constituents can “petition their elected representatives and otherwise engage with them in a direct manner.”

Michigan Municipal League has a whole page dedicated to resources about social media and the risks.  A recent training in Grosse Point shared those concerns, where they urged council members not to engage in online discussions because of the risk of “deliberations,” which mean discussion about board topics.  And last year in Madison Heights a councilperson resigned from public office rather than give up moderating a community-themed Facebook group after residents who had been blocked asserted their rights and City Council instituted a social media policy.

In the case of the Holly Open Discussion forum, Oakland County Times was removed from the group just weeks before the Nov. 8 election, where Brandon is running for Village Council.

After being banned, Proxmire learned that Brandon had been selectively removing or disallowing dozens of news stories from the community Oakland County Times related to topics of interest in the community.  While Brandon had the opportunity to click a button that would notify Proxmire of the removed posts, she chose not to do that. Rather she silently removed stories, then silently banned Proxmire and had both her and co-admin Lloyd Bingham block the reporter so she could not reach them to appeal.

 

Stories censored by Brandon include those about election topics, local events, notice of a food recall impacting local families, resources available through Oakland County available to Holly residents, and other posts that were not out of line with other content that has been permitted to remain in the group by others.

Each post was made with the sincere intent of providing local news and resources to the Holly community. And even if Brandon can find examples that are questionable, it doesn’t override her Constitutional responsibility as a public official not to silence the voices of others.

When Oakland County Times contacted Brandon via email to discuss the ban and attempt a resolution, Brandon was not open to the suggestion of cordiality, and the next step was to go to the Library Board with a letter of concern over the legal and ethical issues of censorship.

PUBLIC VS PRIVATE

Holly Township Library Director Gregory Hayes responded to Proxmire’s letter of concern by stating that “The Library is not responsible for the private opinions of Ms. Brandon.”

However, Brandon engages in the group as a representative of the Library Board, and is listed as an official spokesperson for the library according to library policy.  She announces her title in posts and has a profile picture with the library stacks behind her.

In the Open Discussion Group, Brandon regularly posts about local topics, including those related to Library news and events.  She’s had conversations about library contracts, library budget, library policies, and the dismantling of the library’s Michigan Room.  Other board members are in the discussion group, have been privy to those posts, and engaged in those discussions.

If Brandon were acting as a private citizen, the legal arguments about OMA and Constitutional Rights would not be an issue.  But even then, the public would still have a right to know that their “open” group is actually being censored and manipulated by someone seeking elected office.

But April Brandon is not just a private citizen trying to control the conversation. She is the elected President of a public body.

On top of it, it’s a body that encourages visitors to “challenge censorship,” “read a banned book,” and “encourage conversations” in the banner artwork on their website (which was removed on October 4).

Another concern is that the official Holly Township Library Facebook account is active in the group, in spite of now knowing that members of the public are being excluded and that their Board President is the one doing it.

THREAT OF IMPRISONMENT

In addition to the censorship, there is concern over the fact that Brandon threatened Proxmire with incarceration in response to a letter of concern to the Library Board, threatening to file stalking charges.  She told Proxmire she would be filing a police report, but would not press charges if the reporter would leave her alone.

That’s not how America works.  Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are protected by the Constitution.

Public officials have the right to ignore media questions, but they do not have the right to threaten reporters with jail just for asking them. Any resident has the right to express concerns to a public body without retaliation or intimidation.

Stalking is a very serious crime, and making a false charge of stalking against someone is incredibly disturbing.  And when a government official uses the threat of jail to silence a reporter that is doing their job, the effects on democracy can be downright chilling.

WHAT’S NEXT

Oakland County Times has identified others who have been banned from the Holly Open Discussion group, and is asking others to come forward with their stories by emailing us at editor@oc115.com.

Proxmire has also started a new online group called Holly MI News and Events, which people can find by searching for that name on Facebook.

Check out our Holly News Page to browse stories that we think do matter to the Holly Community.  And if you’d like to help support our work please sign up to make a monthly Patreon pledge.