Eventing Nation booted from covering Event in Unionville, PA

[FitzE]

@ohmyheck

(Okay crawling back under my rock. There are a few of us rock-dwellers now. Maybe we can meet up for tea : )

I’ve got the pot scalded and waiting!!

I think people may be confusing rebranding a consumer product and renaming a once-a-year event. Many annual events undergo name changes due to sponsor changes. But there is very little in common between re-naming a consumer product and an event. The latter has fewer issues involved.

Re-name/re-brand/change trade dress of Pringles, and you risk confusing your loyal buyers who then (i) may not find your product on the shelf and (ii) may choose another of the 27 similar products on the shelf by mistake thinking it is the new Pringles. Sales and market share plummet. You also have to mount a big campaign to educate your consumer base (i.e., the entire buying public - every person in every market in which you place product) about your new look and name. Super expensive, lots of moving parts, hit to the bottom line guaranteed until you can re-establish your new brand. Same with repeated services like, say, an exterminator.

Re-naming an annual event is different. There aren’t 27 other high-level 3-day events in the Unionville area the second weekend in September. Your relatively small consumer base (people who event at that level AND in that area, and people who like to go watch events) won’t go to the event shelf and mistakenly pick some other Unionville event that weekend. You also don’t rely on them seeing your labeling/trade dress/etc. in order to attract them to your “product” among a group of similar products. You are the only product in town at that time and so your “consumers” quickly understands “same race/same place/new name.”

In fact, a single name change of an annual event is vastly simpler than the serial name changes that go with events like bike races or venues like stadia which are renamed not infrequently and, yet, everyone is able to turn up at the right place to watch baseball.

For a local example, the long-running international cycle race held in Philadelphia went from Core States, to First Union, to Wachovia, and on and on and, guess what? Greg Lamond never turned up at any other international bike race in Philly held on that same weekend each year.

Re-naming products and re-naming venues/events are really different undertakings and conflating the two isn’t useful. I’m a lawyer, like Walker, so I hope I get credit for at least having a nodding acquaintance with this topic. [Which itself isn’t great reasoning. No reason a family law practitioner, for example, should know about the work/expense involved in re-branding anymore than anyone else with an interest in that topic.]

While there is work and expense involved, it is not the same as for product/brand changes. Not understanding those differences isn’t helpful to the discussion.

Oh, and @Marigold has years of experience so let’s please not discount her valuable contribution to the discussion. She has vastly more than a nodding acquaintance with the issues involved. Why her expertise is not given the same weight as others who weighed in on the subject is baffling. If it’s simply b/c she is not supporting the majority view here, that’s not a good reason.

[Marigold]

@MorganSercu

I take offense at your insinuation that I had or would inquire.

I am sorry that you are offended. I meant no insinuation (I try to avoid doing that on internet chat forums since it’s beyond my ability to get right most of the time). You had not inquired and I didn’t think you would, but you didn’t seem to be believing the details I was offering from my own experience and I wanted to explain why I could not go further to help support them.

@MorganSercu

You keep pushing that it would have been a pain but …

Cuyler Walker had had enough pain and hassles so the “but” doesn’t matter. “But” and “just” negate whatever was said or written before.

“It’s expensive but…:”
“It’s a hassle but…”

He had had enough. I suspect after 20 years of people demanding more and more from him this was too much. He is an attorney himself so I suspect he was on a nodding acquaintance with what a name change would entail.

I understand all of that. I have never said that he must feel differently than he does. I believe I would feel differently if I were in his shoes, but I am not in his shoes (which is why none of you are out here eventing on my imaginary 300 acres).

I’m not sure you and I are managing to communicate in ways the other understands. I’m happy to answer questions about my position if you have them, but I’m not sure I’m helping the discussion by continuing to address the same crossed wires between us.

@OfCourseItsAnAlter

You don’t have enough evidence to make that claim. Perhaps the issue is that the emails cannot be released without the consent of the person who wrote the email. Perhaps Denis had permission from Mr. Walker. Perhaps board members do not have permission from Leslie Wylie (which seems likely, given what board members have said about how bad LW comes across in those emails). No conflict with the rules there at all - all parties are following them.

I don’t. I did speak more authoritatively about the situation than I can fully support with fact, and perhaps that was wrong. I made assumptions based on first-hand experience with approximately 40-50 different boards across a multitude of industries and types of business, and I extrapolated based on the fact that I’ve never seen rules of the nature you describe (that allow the release of parts of the discussion based on author but not others, or allow the release of one email by an author, but not others). But you are right that I can’t technically back that up for this particular board, and for that I apologize.

[OfCourseItsAnAlter]

@Marigold

I made assumptions based on first-hand experience with approximately 40-50 different boards across a multitude of industries and types of business, and I extrapolated based on the fact that I’ve never seen rules of the nature you describe (that allow the release of parts of the discussion based on author but not others, or allow the release of one email by an author, but not others). But you are right that I can’t technically back that up for this particular board, and for that I apologize.

It’s also possible that the board has no rule at all but that Leslie Wylie made some kind of threat of legal action if they released her emails. We don’t know. My point is simply that - we don’t know, and for that reason, I objected to the part of your previous post that I read as critical of the board for releasing one email but not the others.

[Equkelly]

@FitzE

I’ve got the pot scalded and waiting!!

I think we might need something stronger than tea.

[pluvinel]

@Marigold - I have read all your posts. I think they are well thought out. Perhaps this will add further points to ponder.

Near as I can distill your position…as I understand it… is that if someone had approached you with a request to change the name of your property, with the justification that it might offend others, you would have agreed to a name change.

That is your position. It is yours to have as one individual. But it is not a universal POV for landowners…most people have emotional attachments to their land. Another landowner might react differently to demands being made about what to do on their land.

As I can summarize what went down…

• A landowner allows people to use his land for 20+ years;
• After 2 decades of use, someone(s) object to the name of his land and/or to the name of the event being conducted on the property;
• These "someone(s) approach the landowner and event organizer with a request and/or suggestion to change the name....with the caveat/warning/threat....
• That, oh, by the way.....if you don't consent to making the change to the name, we will smear you in the NYT, etc

And speaking as a landowner, if someone(s) had approached me with threats to go to "mainstream media" if I did not do their bidding, my response would be to say, "Sayonara."

Below is the excerpt from the COTH article relating the demands being made by EN:
[INDENT]

…

As they proceeded, Wylie and EN owner John Thier knew the loss of the event might be the outcome. In an email shared with the Chronicle, dated Aug. 28, Olympic rider and PFEE board member Boyd Martin wrote, “The worst case outcome for us in the Eventing world is that if the landowner gets so offended with this issue that he decides to kick the event off his land and we lose the venue for the sport we love and need.” Thier responded, “There are many worse outcomes for Eventing in the US than losing the PFI venue, such as the sport not standing up for what is right.”

PFEE board members also said EN invoked the threat of mainstream media coverage if the event did not change its name.

[/INDENT]

https://www.chronofhorse.com/article/name-controversy-ends-plantation-field-events

@MorganSercu I have read your analysis which seems to rest on the expense to change names and also on the “annoyance factor” for the landower. My bets are with the “annoyance factor.” The landowner had enough…and I can’t fault him.

The question is how this effort started by EN will have repercussions and/or continue its ripple effects in the rest of the equestrian world and what will happen to access to other private sites.

[FrittSkritt]

@pluvinel

Wow! An event organizer now has to pass a cultural purity test now to be allowed to organize a competition!

Last I recall, we still had a First Amendment right to free speech and free association. Keep up attitude and it make sure that eventers lose all access to private lands.

Oh, and lest you missed civics class that day, there are 2 landmark Supreme Court Cases that tested the limits of the First Amendment.

These cases held that the First Amendment protects individuals’ rights to express their views, even if those views are considered extremely offensive by most people.

The 2 cases are, National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie (1977), and [I]Brandenburg v. Ohio /I, the Supreme Court

The 1978 Skokie case involved neo-Nazis who applied for a permit to march in the heavily Jewish community of Skokie, Illinois.

In the Brandenburg v. Ohio case Ku Klux Klan member Clarence Brandenburg. Brandenburg delivered a speech where he called for “revengeance” [sic] against Jews and African Americans. He was convicted under two Ohio laws, sentenced to prison and fined $1,000. Brandenburg appealed and argued that the Ohio law violated the First Amendment. His case eventually went to the Supreme Court. The Court unanimously agreed with Brandenburg and struck down the Ohio law as unconstitutional.

https://billofrightsinstitute.org/ed…d-brandenburg/

I see your Google law degree has proven itself useful.

If by “cultural purity test,” you mean “don’t be an a-hole and post racist content,” then yes, he’s failed it.

Again, what you’re saying is that it’s perfectly OK for someone to post hate speech on his Facebook profile and not be held accountable for it. He doesn’t get a free pass because it’s his “First Amendment Right” to post racist content that originated from QAnon or 4Chan, he doesn’t get a free pass he’s been in the sport forever, he doesn’t get a free pass because he’s taken a small event to the FEI level, and he certainly doesn’t get a free pass for being a white guy who’s gotten away with this crap for years. If this were anyone higher up in USEA or USEF, do you think they’d tolerate this BS? Eff no.

It seem like in your mind, the only opinions that matter are those who have the power to remove “access to private lands.” As long as they don’t say the quiet part out loud, it’s all free and clear on your conscience.

You keep regurgitating the narrative that EN was threatening the landowner to “smear” Mr. Walker’s name and out him to the media, when in fact we have ZERO hard proof that this is what happened. But this is what fits your story: this wealthy white guy was being put under the microscope for a hot second and it made him feel uncomfortable, so he took away land from some horse people. Try telling the millions of black folk (who deal with vastly more discomfort on a daily basis) that because one guy “felt” he was being called racist and threw a temper tantrum, you re going to keep going with this idea that he’s the one who was wronged so no more white guys go through the same thing and we can all keep our land for eventing. Sound about right?

You’ve proven yourself time and time again on this thread that you have zero interest in expanding your little culturally protected, white privilege bubble to include hard thoughts about racial oppression and discrimination, so I’m going just hit this “ignore” button on you. Ta ta!

[MorganSercu]

@FrittSkritt
Are you saying that the LO did so or the EO? I can see BOYCOTTING the event but not demanding a name change that very year. If EN was truly offended at the venue name then they should also have been equally offended by the people who competed there. Would that have included staff members?

Not that it matters because the landowner pulled the lease.

@pluvinel Yes, there was the hassle factor on top of everything else for the past 20 years.

[MorganSercu]

"While there is work and expense involved, it is not the same as for product/brand changes. Not understanding those differences isn’t helpful to the discussion.

Oh, and Marigold has years of experience so let’s please not discount her valuable contribution to the discussion. She has vastly more than a nodding acquaintance with the issues involved. Why her expertise is not given the same weight as others who weighed in on the subject is baffling. If it’s simply b/c she is not supporting the majority view here, that’s not a good reason."

Ok - thank you for the explanation. I thought of them as one & the same. Nevertheless, the LO didn’t want to do it. Whether he was affronted or had had one too many asks/tells by outsiders doesn’t really matter. He had had enough.

What I don’t understand is why when someone has stated they have had enough, people are suddenly stating that it wasn’t a good enough reason NOT to do what THEY WANTED HIM TO DO. If the customer is always right but the business no longer wants their business, they can shut it all down. Which is what happened here, apparently. That doing x and only spending additional funds on y wouldn’t be that much of a stretch, etc. They are not the party in question and are not weighing the 20 years of freight on top of it all.

It is an interesting discussion though but not likely to change Mr. Walker’s mind about USEA and USEF. Like I said, if THEY had changed their by-laws (?) to state that events would be identified by their locality name, then everyone would have had to do the same. Maybe Walker would have continued the lease. We will never know.

I am not acquainted with Marigold or her experience. I am acquainted with Atl_rider and several others though. You say she has plenty of experience & knowledge on the topic, so that is good enough for me because I trust you.

[FitzE]

@MorganSercu

Ok - thank you for the explanation. I thought of them as one & the same. Nevertheless, the LO didn’t want to do it. Whether he was affronted or had had one too many asks/tells by outsiders doesn’t really matter. He had had enough.

Honest question: why are we weaving such a tale of woe and 20 years of hardship for the LO? Is there background I don’t know about where the PF board and competitors and…who else, I’m not sure…have been making repeated and public demands for more and more from him? That seems odd. Everything like this I’ve ever been connected with involved lots of volunteer work days and funding for improvements to the land. If it is true that this event has a history of escalating and unreasonable demands on the LO by the organizers and competitors over two decades, then I think we found our true problem here, not the final straw of the name issue. If this event does have this unusual and unreasonable history, then I agree the LO was just done. But there must be a whole lot of previous straw to get to final straw phase, so if what you and others keep saying is, in fact, true, then blame 20 years of increasing demands AND the name issue, not just the name issue.

I’m curious to know what this history is that keeps being brought up. I have honestly just never heard of an event organization/competitors making escalating demands on an LO year on year like that, nor an LO who didn’t enjoy their connection to the event and get lots of volunteer work hours. One of the LOs for a “happy hack” I used to help organize would always say, “Of course I let them use the land, how do you think I get my paths mowed and my banks built back up after winter?!” It was fun for her to have the event and she appreciated the work the volunteers did each spring. Certainly no one would have had the face to demand things of her over and over for 20 years as is being cited here. That just makes no sense.

What I don’t understand is why when someone has stated they have had enough, people are suddenly stating that it wasn’t a good enough reason to do what THEY WANTED HIM TO DO. If the customer is always right but the business no longer wants their business, they can shut it all down. Which is what happened here, apparently. That doing x and only spending additional funds on y wouldn’t be that much of a stretch, etc. They are not the party in question and are not weighing the 20 years of freight on top of it all.

I, for one, never said it wasn’t a good enough reason. I had many posts saying positive things like, it’s a shame he didn’t use the opportunity to glorify his family and property even more; I wish he’d gone the Dolly route and found the win here; etc. Never did I say it wasn’t a good enough reason. And never did I say it’s not ‘his barn, his rules’. I only said it was a shame and a missed opportunity and it could have happened another way (just like EN could have gone another way with the whole thing - both sides had choices in their actions and reactions and that’s just true). But if this is what he wanted to do, so be it. Nothing for it. It was, obviously, the right choice for him so that’s an end to it as far as I can see.

I am not acquainted with Marigold or her experience. I am acquainted with Atl_rider and several others though. You say she has plenty of experience & knowledge on the topic, so that is good enough for me because I trust you.

I only know what she shared here in this thread, that this is her profession for many years and she’s been involved in multiple re-branding/name changes even linking to some case studies. I believe way back when Atl rider posted I recall thinking it sounded like that poster was talking about a big product/service re-naming/re-branding and those are a hell of undertaking with some brands not able to survive the change. But with events/venues it’s a pretty normal occurrence esp. with the rise of naming rights for sponsorship. There’s a hotel in Hong Kong and one on O’ahu where you can tell how long someone’s been in the area by what they call it as its name has changed with each new M&A transaction! Same with the bike race. If you called it the Cores States you were an old-timer; First Union - you were a newcomer. Same race/same place/same time/new name - over and over again for the entire run of the international event. It’s really pretty normal these days for events and venues to change names frequently.

[trubandloki]

@FitzE The history I have read about in this thread is not so much the land owner being upset with the event, but the event causing problems for the landowner because of neighbors complaining about traffic and other problems the event cause.

I look at it this way - The landowner has been fielding complaints from people that the event is an issue and dealing with to defend the event. Now the eventers (EN) are turning on him and he is not going to deal with outsiders complaining and the people he has been defending all these years too.

I will say, that a bunch of the posts in this thread do make me wonder why any landowner is generous and lets such thankless people use their land.

[MorganSercu]

FitzE - My point is that it doesn’t matter. The LO had had enough. My bet is that referring to it as P* Field was insulting as p* is thought of a slang term for a portion of a woman’s anatomy. Plus the number and tone of emails (plural) from Leslie Wylie that were referred to by another board member.

Also, it was mentioned that the people who live on the road used by the eventers to get to and from the competition complained regularly and a lot of time and effort went into keeping them less unhappy so they wouldn’t use their clout to get the event shut down. That the road wasn’t designed for so much traffic, etc. Not unlike people who find their driveways blocked by a huge influx of out-of-town church users once a week. It’s a real PITA for the residents. Or if they had complained enough then the permits to host the events could have gotten pulled.

If USEA and USEF had changed their by-laws to state that venue names would be dropped and instead competitions would be referred to by the town where they take place then everyone would have grumbled but carried on.

USEA’s loss may be the local food bank’s gain. Or maybe Mr. Walker will be willing to lease it out to the 4H club. Or to a private group to school their horses, dogs, etc. Otherwise, more hay may be available for purchase next year than has been for the past 20 or so.

[pluvinel]

@FrittSkritt

I see your Google law degree has proven itself useful.

If by “cultural purity test,” you mean “don’t be an a-hole and post racist content,” then yes, he’s failed it.

Again, what you’re saying is that it’s perfectly OK for someone to post hate speech on his Facebook profile and not be held accountable for it. He doesn’t get a free pass because it’s his “First Amendment Right” to post racist content that originated from QAnon or 4Chan, he doesn’t get a free pass he’s been in the sport forever, he doesn’t get a free pass because he’s taken a small event to the FEI level, and he certainly doesn’t get a free pass for being a white guy who’s gotten away with this crap for years. If this were anyone higher up in USEA or USEF, do you think they’d tolerate this BS? Eff no.

It seem like in your mind, the only opinions that matter are those who have the power to remove “access to private lands.” As long as they don’t say the quiet part out loud, it’s all free and clear on your conscience.

You keep regurgitating the narrative that EN was threatening the landowner to “smear” Mr. Walker’s name and out him to the media, when in fact we have ZERO hard proof that this is what happened. But this is what fits your story: this wealthy white guy was being put under the microscope for a hot second and it made him feel uncomfortable, so he took away land from some horse people. Try telling the millions of black folk (who deal with vastly more discomfort on a daily basis) that because one guy “felt” he was being called racist and threw a temper tantrum, you re going to keep going with this idea that he’s the one who was wronged so no more white guys go through the same thing and we can all keep our land for eventing. Sound about right?

You’ve proven yourself time and time again on this thread that you have zero interest in expanding your little culturally protected, white privilege bubble to include hard thoughts about racial oppression and discrimination, so I’m going just hit this “ignore” button on you. Ta ta!

I don’t look at Facebook very much, so I have no clue what anyone posts there.

As far as posting “hate speech”… The US is still a nation of laws, not under mob rule. If the SCOTUS has said that offensive speech is protected, then, although I may not agree with the content of the speech, I agree with the person’s right to say it. Just as it is your right not to associate with anyone you don’t care to.

Oh…and BTW…

In the eyes of United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, I don’t qualify to check the box for “white” when filling out the EEOC’s Race & Ethnic Identification Category.

As a matter of fact, in all those seminars that @Virginia Horse Mom talked about organizing in the corporate world, it was me who was involuntarily drafted to participate in meetings which were euphemistically called “Multicultural Workshops” so that I could share my “life experiences” with people just like you. … and then had to do it multiple times since we were the minority population. It got real old.

So, thank you for putting me on ignore

[FitzE]

@pluvinel

Wow! An event organizer now has to pass a cultural purity test now to be allowed to organize a competition!

Last I recall, we still had a First Amendment right to free speech and free association. Keep up attitude and it make sure that eventers lose all access to private lands.

Oh, and lest you missed civics class that day, there are 2 landmark Supreme Court Cases that tested the limits of the First Amendment.

These cases held that the First Amendment protects individuals’ rights to express their views, even if those views are considered extremely offensive by most people.

The 2 cases are, National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie (1977), and [I]Brandenburg v. Ohio /I, the Supreme Court

The 1978 Skokie case involved neo-Nazis who applied for a permit to march in the heavily Jewish community of Skokie, Illinois.

In the Brandenburg v. Ohio case Ku Klux Klan member Clarence Brandenburg. Brandenburg delivered a speech where he called for “revengeance” [sic] against Jews and African Americans. He was convicted under two Ohio laws, sentenced to prison and fined $1,000. Brandenburg appealed and argued that the Ohio law violated the First Amendment. His case eventually went to the Supreme Court. The Court unanimously agreed with Brandenburg and struck down the Ohio law as unconstitutional.

https://billofrightsinstitute.org/educate/educator-resources/lessons-plans/landmark-supreme-court-cases-elessons/skokie-and-brandenburg/

PSA: This case has absolutely NOTHING to do with the 1st Amendment whatsoever. To have a 1A case you need what is called a “State actor.” I.e., if there is not involvement by the State on some level, the 1st Amendment does not apply. You only have a right of free speech as against the State, not against private people or companies.

Example: a private employer can fire you for all kinds of speech - literally anything they want. If they can write it up and tell you not to say/do it and you say/do it, you’re done. IRL example: Amy Cooper (aka, Central Park dog walker). The State of NY or the federal gov’t could not sanction her for what she did (unless it rose to the level of making a false police report), but her employer canned her a$$ within hours of that performance. Protected speech from gov’t sanction is not necessarily protected from private sanction. Say crap that makes your company look bad and you’re out!

There is no State actor in this current situation. Thus the 1st Amendment does not apply. And, in fact, Facebook as a private company can sanction such speech. They can decide we aren’t allowed to show pictures of horses b/c Mark Z. is allergic to them. They can come up with any rule they want. They didn’t take down Glaccum’s post but they could have if they wanted with zero 1A implications. And any private person can object (like any poster here who saw what he posted and found it repugnant) to his posts and chose to (i) draw conclusions about his character and (ii) refuse to do business with him, based on those posts - again, all without ever coming even close to a 1A issue.

TL;DR: no State involvement (think gov’t involvement for easy reference) = NO 1A ISSUE ARISES

Nothing involved in this discussion or situation could possibly have any LESS to do with the 1st Amendment. Anyone who does not understand this fundamental element of their 1st Amendment right to free speech is, perhaps, the one who missed a crucial civics class.

[anon69112984]

@Virginia Horse Mom

By all accounts, Leslie Wiley and John Thier do indeed know exactly who Denis Glaccum is, and he knows who they are.

As someone stated way way early on in this discussion… they poked the bear. And there is no doubt they knew they were poking the bear when they did it.

Here is a summation of the reality of the situation, as I presently understand it based on comments, a lot of 2nd hand information, and some public first hand information.

Leslie contacted USEA/USEF first regarding her opinion that the name of this event should be changed. They did not respond in a very rapid or satisfactory manner, for whatever reason, so at some point in mid to late summer, she reached out directly via letter and e-mail to either Denis Glaccum - who is President of the entire PFEE Board of Directors, or her letters and e-mails were directed to the full PFEE Board of Directors. We don’t know which… but it really doesn’t matter. Multiple folks who were on the PFEE Board of Directors saw these communications. And it has been consistently reported that the essence of the communications were that she, and EN, thought the name of the event needed to be changed.

Let me again list the names of the people who are on the PFEE Board

Board of Directors

Ms. Kathy Blank

Ms. Amy Ruth Borun

Mrs. Mary Coldren

Mrs. Evie Dutton

Mr. Phillip Dutton

Mrs. Lornie Forbes

Mr. Denis Glaccum

Mrs. Bambi Glaccum

Mr. James Hicks

Mr. Boyd Martin

Ms. Anne Ogletree

Mr. Cuyler Walker

Mr. Michael Bucklin

Mr. Frank McEntee

Mr. Douglas Howe

At some point in the course of communications between LW and DG as well as the rest of the PFEE board, during mid to late summer, it was communicated back to LW that the name of this venue would not be changed this year.

At some point in either early communications directly with USEA/USEF, or during the course of the direct back and forth between Leslie and PFEE in mid to late summer, Rob Burk became aware of all this as well. He, or someone else with a governing body, informed Leslie and EN that they didn’t have the authority or ability to force PFEE to change the name of the event, if PFEE was unwilling to do so.

Everyone involved apparently continued to communicate. At some point in late August, with less than a month to go until the event, Boyd Martin informed EN (and possibly Rob Burk and USEA) that if the push for a name change continued, they risked deeply upsetting and offending Cuyler Walker, the land owner, and if that happened, the lease between the land owner and PFEE for use of the land for the purpose of holding USEA/USEF recognized competitions would likely be terminated, and the entire venue would be lost.

John Thier (the “publisher” of EN) apparently responded to Boyd Martin, indicating that he was of the opinion that there were worse things than offending Mr. Walker and losing the venue and the support of someone like Mr. Walker… and that keeping the name the same was one of those worse things. Because in JT’s opinion, it was an offensive name. And JT believed he and Leslie (the “editor in Chief” of EN) were advocating for something that was “right” and needed to happen.

At some point along the way, apparently close to the point in late August when Boyd Martin conveyed the risks to all parties involved of continuing on their chosen path… and that answer was still “no” with respect to changing the name… there is an allegation that EN communicated back to folks involved with PFEE that they would bring this issue to the attention of the broader media if PFEE continued to stand by their decision not to change the name of this venue.

PFEE apparently then informed EN that they were unwelcome to “cover“ anything related to the September event, nor were they welcome to come onto the property during the event.

In close proximity to this general timeframe, USEA apparently held a meeting of its own board of directors, and decided to take a vote on the use of the word “plantation” in any media and marketing materials related to their organization… and the vote was to stop using that word from there on out. It is unclear if EN had also gone to USEA and informed THEM that they would be bringing this issue to the attention of mainstream media outlets if USEA didn’t take this action… one can only infer that it is possible some communication went back and forth between people with respect to that issue…

so after the vote by the USEA Board, Rob Burk snd Max Corcoran sent a letter to Denis Glaccum and the PFEE Board of Directors on September 13, with literally days to go until the event was scheduled to run, and informed them that in all USEA media releases about the event… USEA would be referring to it as “P Field” going forward.

Well… at that point, Mr. Walker, the property owner, decided he was officially done with this whole issue. And on September 14, he informed everyone involved very politely that he felt the whole debate was disrespectful to him and his family, and their reasons for naming the property what they had chosen to name it. He also regretted ever getting involved with this group of people affiliated with eventing, and allowing them use of his property, and he was resigning from the Board of PFEE, and would be terminating the property lease. And though the event could go ahead and run as scheduled, after that, it was over, and he would work with Mr. Glaccum to coordinate the removal of all PFEE equipment and assets from his property.

Rob Burk was also included on the September 14 communication from Mr. Walker, expressing Mr. Walker’s regret at ever having allowed anyone associated with eventing access to his property, and terminating all association with and sponsorship of the sport.

Apparently at that point, some folks at USEA started communicating behind the scenes… and decided that they would not refer to the event as “P Field” after all, and that they did sincerely regret offending Mr. Walker so deeply, and didn’t wish for this outcome.

However…

On September 16, EN started publishing a series of editorials about the “controversy” over the name of Plantation Field, and how they believed the name was an issue of concern for the sport of eventing, and hurtful and disrespectful to black people. Shortly after the first EN editorial went up online, PFEE wrote their own press release, announcing that 2020 would be the last competition at the venue given the owner’s decision to cancel the lease, and providing background information on why the event was named Plantation Field, the general history of the surrounding area (which was in no way connected to slavery), and the property owner and his family’s long long history of giving to philanthropic causes in the area. But it didn’t matter. EN continued “publishing“ editorial content… though John Thier’s editorial did express some regret for their role in this mess.

But… the controversy did hit the wider news. And a story about it has now been published in the Philadelphia Inquirer and the New York Times. Leslie Wiley actually did speak to the NYT and provided comments when they asked her for them. The story was not a complimentary one with respect to the entire community that participated in the sport of eventing, and essentially characterized many eventers who spoke up online protesting this whole controversy and ENs handling of it and the loss of this venue over the issue of the name, as racially insensitive and intolerant. The article then took broader strokes, and cast much of equestrian sport in that light.

PFEE and Mr. Walker did not provide comment to either the Philly Inquirer or the NYT. But Mr. Walker’s name, and the fact that this venue was his family’s property and the name was tied to he and his family… that was noted in each article. It was also noted in one or both articles that Mr. Walker is a registered Republican.

[B]So there you go folks. If someone thinks I have been unfair in this summary… by all means point it out. I tried to stick to the facts regarding what is known.

My own opinion, the venue is gone for good. It does not matter now how profusely anyone with the USEA and USEF apologizes… the NYT article was ugly and it’s done. And Leslie Wiley did willingly contribute to that NYT article.

You can blame Mr. Glaccum if you want to. He may very well be a “curmudgeon”… but come on… Leslie Wiley and John Thier are clearly the root of this whole mess. And likely EN is making additional revenue on the extra clicks on the EN site as a result of all this publicity as we speak. [/B]

First of all I cannot believe this discussion has gone on for 88 pages.

Secondly of all - an issue I’ve already brought to life - it is freakishly hard to take the original EN demand serious unless they boycott all European Events next to a big house/castle full stop. Something I am pretty sure these ladies would never do.

Third of all the above post (brilliant work by the way) which I landed on by accident when randomly heading for a page in this mega thread made me search for the article in New York Times which leads me to the following question. WTF is this?

According to data from the United States Equestrian Federation, the organization that governs American horse sports, almost 90 percent of its 185,000 members identify as white.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/21/s…me-change.html

Are they seriously asking for this information when people become members? 😱😱😱

[pluvinel]

@FitzE

PSA: This case has absolutely NOTHING to do with the 1st Amendment whatsoever. To have a 1A case you need what is called a “State actor.” I.e., if there is not involvement by the State on some level, the 1st Amendment does not apply. You only have a right of free speech as against the State, not against private people or companies.

Example: a private employer can fire you for all kinds of speech - literally anything they want. If they can write it up and tell you not to say/do it and you say/do it, you’re done. IRL example: Amy Cooper (aka, Central Park dog walker). The State of NY or the federal gov’t could not sanction her for what she did (unless it rose to the level of making a false police report), but her employer canned her a$$ within hours of that performance. Protected speech from gov’t sanction is not necessarily protected from private sanction. Say crap that makes your company look bad and you’re out!

There is no State actor in this current situation. Thus the 1st Amendment does not apply. And, in fact, Facebook as a private company can sanction such speech. They can decide we aren’t allowed to show pictures of horses b/c Mark Z. is allergic to them. They can come up with any rule they want. They didn’t take down Glaccum’s post but they could have if they wanted with zero 1A implications. And any private person can object (like any poster here who saw what he posted and found it repugnant) to his posts and chose to (i) draw conclusions about his character and (ii) refuse to do business with him, based on those posts - again, all without ever coming even close to a 1A issue.

TL;DR: no State involvement (think gov’t involvement for easy reference) = NO 1A ISSUE ARISES

Nothing involved in this discussion or situation could possibly have any LESS to do with the 1st Amendment. Anyone who does not understand this fundamental element of their 1st Amendment right to free speech is, perhaps, the one who missed a crucial civics class.

I thought you were putting me on Ignore…sheesh…

[FitzE]

@MorganSercu

FitzE - My point is that it doesn’t matter. The LO had had enough. My bet is that referring to it as P* Field was insulting as p* is thought of a slang term for a portion of a woman’s anatomy. Plus the number and tone of emails (plural) from Leslie Wylie that were referred to by another board member.

100% agreed. That’s about the stupidest “fix” I could possibly imagine.

[MorganSercu]

I think it was Mr. Glaccum who brought up 1A. Somehow that got tossed into the bonfire.

Such a mess and a waste. Well, Mr. Walker wins. He regains 100% ownership and control of his land and eventually his privacy too.

[pluvinel]

@FitzE

PSA: This case has absolutely NOTHING to do with the 1st Amendment whatsoever. To have a 1A case you need what is called a “State actor.” I.e., if there is not involvement by the State on some level, the 1st Amendment does not apply. You only have a right of free speech as against the State, not against private people or companies.

Example: a private employer can fire you for all kinds of speech - literally anything they want. If they can write it up and tell you not to say/do it and you say/do it, you’re done. IRL example: Amy Cooper (aka, Central Park dog walker). The State of NY or the federal gov’t could not sanction her for what she did (unless it rose to the level of making a false police report), but her employer canned her a$$ within hours of that performance. Protected speech from gov’t sanction is not necessarily protected from private sanction. Say crap that makes your company look bad and you’re out!

There is no State actor in this current situation. Thus the 1st Amendment does not apply. And, in fact, Facebook as a private company can sanction such speech. They can decide we aren’t allowed to show pictures of horses b/c Mark Z. is allergic to them. They can come up with any rule they want. They didn’t take down Glaccum’s post but they could have if they wanted with zero 1A implications. And any private person can object (like any poster here who saw what he posted and found it repugnant) to his posts and chose to (i) draw conclusions about his character and (ii) refuse to do business with him, based on those posts - again, all without ever coming even close to a 1A issue.

TL;DR: no State involvement (think gov’t involvement for easy reference) = NO 1A ISSUE ARISES

Nothing involved in this discussion or situation could possibly have any LESS to do with the 1st Amendment. Anyone who does not understand this fundamental element of their 1st Amendment right to free speech is, perhaps, the one who missed a crucial civics class.

All of the above is true…and totally irrelevant.

The point is that anyone can post offensive speech…as long as it is allowed in whatever internet platform they are using…and that speech is protected by law.

And all of you who disagree with what that person says are free to ignore/shun the person whose postings you disagree with.

So perhaps you can ignore me.

[FitzE]

@trubandloki

@FitzE The history I have read about in this thread is not so much the land owner being upset with the event, but the event causing problems for the landowner because of neighbors complaining about traffic and other problems the event cause.

.

That makes more sense. I kept seeing things references to ungrateful land users and their increasing demands over 20 years and then separate discussion of neighbor issues, so I saw them as two different things. If the users of the land have been plaguing the man for 20 years and have not been sufficiently grateful, then he made the right choice. But, again, to have a final straw (name change) you need a hold load of straw up on the camel first. Let’s at least share the blame among EN and all those others straws up there.

[ladyj79]

@pluvinel

All of the above is true…and totally irrelevant.

The point is that anyone can post offensive speech…as long as it is allowed in whatever internet platform they are using…and that speech is protected by law.

And all of you who disagree with what that person says are free to ignore/shun the person whose postings you disagree with.

So perhaps you can ignore me.

Instead I would like to demand that you allow me to prance my luxury pet around your yard. And maintain facilities that appeal to me.

But in silence, peasant!!!

:lol::lol::lol: