Jeff Garzik, gmaxwell and Lukejr turned this into an issue by moving to strike Jon Matonis and Roger Ver, two established Bitcoin community members who present themselves competently and articulately, based solely on their political ideas. Now, instead of discussing the topic of strategy and purpose for the Press Center, jgarzik wants to silence any debate. I think that determining the press strategy is very important.
No, the problem (in this case) is not their political ideas.
The problem is that
they project their political ideas on Bitcoin, with things such as representing Bitcoin as being a tool used to bring about
anarchy [whatever].
Why do you think the goal of the Press Center should be to project or advocate any particular ideas?
I think the goal of the Press Center should be to assist journalists in finding sources that are competent and articulate for whatever particular ideas [Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Pirate Party, whatever, etc.] for their story or segment. To accomplish that goal any particular ideology or agenda of the individual would be irrelevant so long as they are competent and articulate because it will assist the journalists in the performance of their duties.
For example, if a particular member of the press wants to setup a debate between a Republican, Democrat and Libertarian then how is the Press Center going to help assist that journalist if it only includes Potential Interviewees who can competently present objectively or subjectively from only two of three major political parties?
The intentional limiting of the marketplace of ideas does a great disservice to the members of the press that are the intended beneficiaries of this resource. The goal should be to have enough Potential Interviewees that members of the press can find one to fit whatever vignette they need for their story or segment.
The general objection against Roger Ver is that he has a criminal history. And not just some debatable crime (eg, drug-related or statutory), but selling explosives. For all I know, maybe he was just selling fireworks - or even wrongly accused and railroaded. However, the media doesn't care about the truth: this is a tool they can simply say "Bitcoin spokesman Roger Ver, who holds a conviction for selling explosives to terrorists, blah blah blah". Maybe they can say it regardless of who we put up as a press contact, but having him listed will serve to re-affirm such detraction when it happens.
AGAINST INCLUSIONThe criminal record could be used to taint arguments against Bitcoin by showing that one of the community's most ardent proponents is a convicted criminal and Bitcoin should be opposed or stop in order to keep people safe.
But this type of argument by the press would be a logical fallacy of association and an appeal to emotion (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy). Nevertheless, the press can act in a way to mould public opinion irrespective of the underlying logic or facts. And the press has stronger facts to use such as Silk Road since it involves current activities.
Notwithstanding, for those reasons Mr. Ver should not be included. If there are additional reasons then please articulate them.
I am only concerned about Bitcoin as a whole and rather unconcerned about the use of the conviction against Mr. Ver on a personal basis as he can pull up his big boy pants and handle himself. Plus, as discussed in the for inclusion section, he could frame the argument in a way that is could help mitigate the damage for both himself and Bitcoin.
FOR INCLUSIONMr. Ver's conviction happened while he was a young adult, is stale since it is over ten years old, was relatively minor because it involved neither violence nor moral turpitude such as fraud and resulted in only 10 months of jail time, a $2,000 fine and some probation.
A stated intent of the criminal justice system is rehabilitation. Mr. Ver has, to the best of my knowledge, not been convicted of anything else since and has not become a repeat offender. To the contrary, he has built a reputable and profitable company, Memory Dealers, that does millions of dollars of gross revenue with several employees, has been tax compliant and has invested and provided guidance to several Bitcoin companies. Absent the conviction, Mr. Ver would be a great role model. With the conviction, he is a fine example of rehabilitation by showing what those who have had a criminal record can do to become legitimate, useful, productive and contributing members of society.
Additionally, if the press wants to disparage Bitcoin regardless of logic or facts and instead appeal to emotion then who we suggest to them as Potential Interviewees is irrelevant because they will find whoever they want anyway to craft the narrative they want. On the contrary, if Mr. Ver wanted to engage in further criminal activity then he would likely not be seeking such a public profile by running a successful company or giving interviews with FOX Business and other media outlets.
Additionally, while I am not sure whether Mr. Ver was wrongfully convicted,
Ohio State University reported that annually over 10,000 innocent people are convicted of serious crimes.
Consequently, Mr. Ver's inclusion would be beneficial because he exemplifies rehabilitation which is a very positive message to be sent, is an articulate and competent speaker who also has business and managerial experience and exclusion for a stale conviction is based merely on an appeal to emotion but not a weighing of the benefits and potential risks resulting from the underlying facts and logic.
