PDA

View Full Version : New Disclosure Petition removed from "We The People" website



newyorklily
02-23-2012, 06:57 PM
I just received this email from Stephen Bassett and PRG:

White House Pulls Disclosure Petition II From We the People



Thursday, February 23, 2012 1:32 PM



Relevant Web Pages

Notice of Censorship
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/!/petition/immediately-investigate-ufoet-disclosure-efforts-during-clinton-administration-rockefeller/wKYBnh3r?utm_source=wh.gov&utm_medium=shorturl&utm_campaign=shorturl

We the People feedback form: http (http://www.whitehouse.gov/feedback-petitions)://www.whitehouse.gov/feedback-petitions (http://www.whitehouse.gov/feedback-petitions)

Petition Information: www.disclosurepetition.info (http://www.disclosurepetition.info/)
"Disclosure Petition II - The Rockefeller Initiative" was submitted to the White House "We the People" website on February 23 at 2:05 am EST and quickly began accumulating signatures. Before the petition could acquire the 150 signatures necessary to be publicly posted to the White House website it was pulled down by the We the People moderator.

Paradigm Research Group received the following email from the White House:



Your petition "immediately investigate UFO/ET Disclosure efforts during the Clinton administration - the Rockefeller Initiative." has been removed from the We the People platform on WhiteHouse.gov because it was in violation of the We the People Terms of Participation (https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/how-why/terms-participation).

This petition was removed for the following reason: The petition contained information that invades an individual's personal privacy.

Learn more about the We the People Terms of Participation: https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/how-why/terms-participation


(https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/how-why/terms-participation)Learn more about the We the People Moderation Policy: https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/how-why/moderation-policy

If you would like to request reconsideration of this decision, please reply to this email with an explanation why your petition is not in violation of the Terms of Participation.

Sincerely,
We the People Moderator



Paradigm Research Group responded with the following email:




Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 10:53:43 -0700
To: "We the People, WhiteHouse.gov"<wethepeople@whitehouse.gov>
From: Paradigm Research Group<PRG@paradigmresearchgroup.org>
Subject: Re: Your petition has been removed from We the People

To "We the People,"

Which person's privacy has been violated: President Barack Obama, President Bill Clinton, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, Vice President Al Gore, Governor Bill Richardson, former Obama transition Co-Chair John Podesta, or the late Laurance Rockefeller?

In what way was this person(s) privacy violated?

What information are you referring to?

Comment: please understand I hold no personal animosity toward any of these public figures. However, I fully intend to put as much pressure on We the People as possible to convince you to post this petition to the website and allow the American people to demonstrate their support.

In that regard I apologize in advance for any unseemly correspondence you might receive from any citizen angry about your decision to censor this petition. I cannot control how people express this anger.

Respectfully,

Stephen Bassett
Executive Director
Paradigm Research Group

newyorklily
02-23-2012, 09:12 PM
Here is the latest email from Stephen Bassett


! UPDATE !

Disclosure Petition II - The Rockefeller Initiative is back up on the White House "We the People" website with a new direct link. Sign it here:



http://wh.gov/8wh (http://wh.gov/8wh)




PRG followed up a third time with "We the People" and learned the petition was removed because of the PRG contact email in the petition (thus the privacy violation). Unfortunately the moderator neglected to mention this in his explanation - a mutual misunderstanding.

Important: there was no intention by "We the People" to censor the petition. It was, in fact, a terms of participation violation coupled with a misunderstanding.

None of this should detract from the importance of this petition and the need to acquire 25,000 signatures.