Baen Books is a well known name, but not one generally associated with political controversy. The main reason I ever used Baen was to buy e-books by P. C. Hodgell, a feminist author who writes the Kencyrath series. Now, bizarrely, their forum has been accused of, “Being Used to Advocate for Political Violence”, by an obscure self-publishing Patreon writer called Jason Sanford. It is a serious allegation, and as far as I can tell, many of the posts he relies on as evidence do not advocate violence. Others are mere hyperbole. I analyse some of the evidence below, exposing Sanford’s unethical behaviour. His purported evidence mostly does not support the case and the article is so unethical as, in my opinion, to call into question Sanford’s suitability to be employed in journalism, such as in his day job at the Ohio News Media Association. Having analysed the evidence, I provide contact details for his employers for those who wish to politely complain.

Political violence is the fear du jour. Last year the United States was devastated by riots associated with the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement. On January 6, 2021, there was a rowdy protest / occupation in Washington DC. The violence on that occasion was serious, but was nearer an Occupy style protest than a BLM riot. Mr Sanford, an obscure Patreon creator who appears to have a day job to make ends meet, has published an article alleging that the web forum, “Baen’s Bar”, associated with science fiction publisher Baen Publishing is being used to publish political violence. In the aftermath of the allegation, the forum has temporarily been taken down.

In his article, Mr Sanford claims that he presents “evidence”. Okay. I went to law school. I know of what I speak. I took a look at the so-called, “evidence”.

Much of Mr Sanford’s evidence, assuming he has accurately described the posts, cannot support his contentions. Consider this –

“When someone on the forum praised the police officer who led the rioters away from the Senate floor during the Capitol siege, Turk said, “He should have let them invade the senate floor. Time those POS’s faced a little reality.””

Mr Sanford targets a user called, “Turk” in this example. Firstly, if calls for violence are ubiquitous on the forum, why choose out a user whose name implies they are non-Caucasian and of Islamic heritage for the example? Surely there are examples which are not implicitly associated with a racial, national or religious heritage. This is potentially somewhat insensitive.

Secondly, invading the Senate Floor is technically trespass and may be illegal under other laws. However, in itself, it is no more violent than the Occupy Wall Street movement. Their unlawful protests were described as, “peaceful”. The user does not advocate assaulting any individual, nor any class of people, nor destroying any property.

“The rest of that thread then discussed how the riot wasn’t that bad because not many cops were really hurt (fact check: over 100 were injured, a number of them seriously) and “only” 5 people were killed, which to forum users meant the siege wasn’t that serious.”

As a matter of construction, saying that a riot, “wasn’t that bad” is not advocacy of violence nor is it even advocacy of a future riot. The “evidence” if true does not support the allegation. It is no different than saying, “Black Lives Matter riots were mostly peaceful, but there were some bad apples who were violent”.

“This view was shared by others on the Bar, with user Arun.tblp describing the Capitol siege as a “peaceful protest.””

Not advocacy of violence, political or otherwise. At worst, it is an incorrect statement of fact, but it advocates nothing.

Kratman finished the post by saying the militia should “recruit working class blacks, Hispanics, and Asians” because “they can engage in violence at need” while the media won’t “condemn people of color for anything they do.” It’s worth noting a number of Baen’s Bar users posted comments agreeing with Kratman’s words in that thread.

This post seems to advocate Trump supporters recruiting non-Caucasians to their militia. The mere existence of a citizen militia is a concept embodied in the US Constitution and therefore it is disingenuous to say it is advocating political violence.

“There are tons of discussions on the forum about the pending second American Civil War (frequently shortened to ACW2). For example, user Winterset wrote a thread titled “It may start sooner than I thought” on January 9, 2021, only a few days after the Capitol siege. This user wrote: “With the idiocy of Pelosi and company on this truly obscene impeachment fiasco, and what the social media types are doing now, ACW2 is marginally closer. At this rate by summer the gunpowder will be burning everywhere.””

As a matter of construction, pessimistically predicting that the actions of a political party are so divisive that they may result in civil war is not the same as saying it is a good thing. For example, consider the hypothetical situation where Jason Sanford wrote a headline along the lines of: “Jason Sanford predicts with concern that lax forum moderation on happypuppynet.com forum may endanger children, at this rate by summer there will be a tragedy”. Such a post by Mr Sanford would not support the contention, “Jason Sanford advocates violence against children”.

Sanford finds perhaps one or two posts that might cross a line, but seems unable to distinguish between passive commentary such as – “I speculate there may be violence” and calls for violence – “go to Washington DC and kill them, immediately”.

Having said that, one user did post –

““Trump losing is a good thing. IF he had won things would be better for a while but the Dims would keep up the garbage. Now they will do the stupid power mad grab that will set off what NEEDS to happen. Which is ACW2. Those that claim its already happening as usual cannot understand reality. A real civil war is killing in job lots and all that goes with it.””

This post opines that a civil war is a good thing, and goes on to clarify for avoidance of doubt that means killing a lot of people. However, given the weakness of the evidence in the other posts there is an inference that this post is the exception rather than the rule.

Most seriously of all Sanford alleges that a moderator, Theoryman, posted in support of violence. Disturbingly however, Sanford does not show the whole context and cherry picks extracts from sequential posts, run together.

“Theoryman wrote, “As I’ve already pointed out, rendering ANY large city is uninhabitable is quite easy… And the Left lives in cities. The question is just how many of its inhabitants will survive…” Theoryman later in the thread suggested shooting transformers in cities with high-power rifles to make the cities “uninhabitable until restored,” adding in another post that “The point is to kill enough of them that they can not arise for another 50 years… or more.””

This paragraph is unsatisfactory. The first passage quoted is not, absent more, advocacy of violence. It is a passive commentary that it would be easy for some unspecified person to render cities uninhabitable. However, the passage does not say that would be a good thing. Again, it is the difference between saying, “terrorists could easily do this terrible thing” and “terrorists should do this terrible thing”. The next quote is a paraphrase, which is unacceptable as “evidence”. Citation needed, as Wikipedians say. The final passage is shorn of context. If there is advocacy of violence by Theoryman, this paragraph of Mr Sanford’s does not prove it.

Speaking of the shooting of a protestor by a police officer, Theoryman is alleged to have said –

“When a user in the thread pointed out a recent news article saying the officer was unlikely to be charged, Theoryman responded by saying “Which is why the guy needs doxed… After that, the problem will take care of itself.””

Mr Sanford interprets this passage as meaning –

“Let’s be very blunt about what Theoryman is saying: He is urging people to kill a police officer who defended the U.S. Capitol once they learn the officer’s name. And yet again, this user is a moderator for Baen’s Bar, meaning the publishing company selected this user to monitor and manage discussions on their forum.”

This does not follow. “Doxing”, is an internet practice of revealing the true identity of a user identified by a pseudonym, or the identity of a person who is seen but not identified such as at a protest. Typically, in modern, “Cancel Culture,” the purpose is to secure dismissal from employment or to procure customers to withdraw their business. Revealing the name of a police officer may be intended simply to secure his dismissal or prosecution for perceived excessive force. Proving intent to dox does not prove intent to murder, or incite or procure murder.

In short, a lot, if not all, of Mr Sanford’s so called evidence does not support his contention. There are one or two posts which can be construed as abstract calls for violence but most of his evidence does not even support that contention. Baen’s Bar seems (on Mr Sanford’s evidence) no more guilty than Twitter. There are perhaps a few bad apples. Probably less than Twitter, in fact. Yet, as a result of Sanford’s article, an innocent book publisher is facing threats to their livelihood.

As semantic construction, you can say that a site has been used to “advocate” something if one lunatic posts doing so, once, before the post is immediately deleted and they are banned. Even knitting forums and Mumsnet have been known to have excitable posters who occasionally cross lines (archive). However, such cannot be grounds for closing or condemning the platform or there would be very few platforms – certainly not Facebook, Twitter or Patreon. This article appears to be essentially click-bait aimed at promoting Sanford’s Patreon account and thereby increasing his second income.

Mr Sanford works for the Ohio News Media Association (archive). He is named on their website and names them on his LinkedIn page (archive). He has a relatively junior role in a relatively small organisation, copywriting their newsletter as well as producing marketing materials and graphics. Clearly his fiction does not pay his bills. I approached the President and Executive Director of ONMA, Monica Nieporte, and spoke to her on the phone as well as sending her a letter. She agreed to quote by email and was offered an extension of time. She has not responded nor not taken up my offer of an extension. Mr Sanford was emailed directly. Both emails were read a very large number of times.

A first draft of this article was sent to Mr Sanford and Ms Nieporte for comment. No allegation in my article against Mr Sanford has been denied by Sanford or Nieporte.

For specificity, my questions were as follows –

1. Is ONMA aware of Mr Sanford’s second job?

No answer was received. No denial was received.

2. Is it acceptable for Mr Sanford to produce a misleading article for personal gain?

No answer was received. No denial was received.

A third question related to serious concerns that may form the basis of a further article. It has been omitted here.

For those who are concerned, including aggrieved users of Baen’s Bar (which has temporarily been taken down), readers may contact by email the President and trustees of ONMA as follows. Only publicly advertised contact details, or those provided on request by their organisations, are included –

Monica Nieporte
President and Executive Director, ONMA
mnieporte@ohionews.org

Trustees

Scott Champion
Clermont Sun
scott@championcarolinas.com

Mark Cohen
APG Media
mark.cohen@adamspg.com

Jana Collier
Cox Media Group
jana.collier@coxinc.com

Karmen Concannon
Sentinel-Tribune
kconcannon@aimmediamidwest.com

Kirk Dougal
AIM Media Midwest
kdougal@aimmediamidwest.com

Kurt Franck
The Blade
kfranck@toledoblade.com

Bill Hudnutt
Lorain County Printing and Publishing
bhudnutt@chroniclet.com

David Keller
Morgan County Herald
dkeller@mchnews.com

Beryl Love
Enquirer Media
blove@enquirer.com

Mary Huber
Archbold Buckeye
buckeye@archboldbuckeye.com

Lane Moon
AIM Media
lmoon@aimmediamidwest.com

Chris Quinn
Advance Ohio
cquinn@cleveland.com

Readers are requested to be polite, respectful and courteous.