MCPS pays Bethany Mandel's cabal $125K for using public Twitter for a private staff club

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not on twitter but wasn’t it common to block someone on Twitter if they were being obnoxious, disruptive or bullying? Seems likely that’s what happened here. I get a public entity is different than a private one but they should still be able to block users who are disruptive or harassing.

Yes, and yes. And was this even an official MCPS Twitter account?

Yes, it was an official MCPS Twitter account, labeled as such and run by staffers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not on twitter but wasn’t it common to block someone on Twitter if they were being obnoxious, disruptive or bullying? Seems likely that’s what happened here. I get a public entity is different than a private one but they should still be able to block users who are disruptive or harassing.

Yes, and yes. And was this even an official MCPS Twitter account?

Yes, it was an official MCPS Twitter account, labeled as such and run by staffers.

If it is an official government account I don’t think it can block people. There was litigation about this re Twitter during the first Trump administration and also Larry Hogan was blocking people on his facebook page.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not on twitter but wasn’t it common to block someone on Twitter if they were being obnoxious, disruptive or bullying? Seems likely that’s what happened here. I get a public entity is different than a private one but they should still be able to block users who are disruptive or harassing.

Yes, and yes. And was this even an official MCPS Twitter account?

Yes, it was an official MCPS Twitter account, labeled as such and run by staffers.

Where is it "labeled as such"? The description says "A safe, affirming professional & social network for MCPS staff who identify as part of the LGBTQIA+ community. Resources & reminders for MCPS schools & offices." That sounds like an unofficial account that people started amongst themselves, not something that MCPS Comms runs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not on twitter but wasn’t it common to block someone on Twitter if they were being obnoxious, disruptive or bullying? Seems likely that’s what happened here. I get a public entity is different than a private one but they should still be able to block users who are disruptive or harassing.

Yes, and yes. And was this even an official MCPS Twitter account?

Yes, it was an official MCPS Twitter account, labeled as such and run by staffers.

Where is it "labeled as such"? The description says "A safe, affirming professional & social network for MCPS staff who identify as part of the LGBTQIA+ community. Resources & reminders for MCPS schools & offices." That sounds like an unofficial account that people started amongst themselves, not something that MCPS Comms runs.

I'm curious too, I didn't even know about this page, who was running it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not on twitter but wasn’t it common to block someone on Twitter if they were being obnoxious, disruptive or bullying? Seems likely that’s what happened here. I get a public entity is different than a private one but they should still be able to block users who are disruptive or harassing.

Yes, and yes. And was this even an official MCPS Twitter account?

Yes, it was an official MCPS Twitter account, labeled as such and run by staffers.

Where is it "labeled as such"? The description says "A safe, affirming professional & social network for MCPS staff who identify as part of the LGBTQIA+ community. Resources & reminders for MCPS schools & offices." That sounds like an unofficial account that people started amongst themselves, not something that MCPS Comms runs.

If it's run by MCPS staff and labeled as an MCPS-affiliated account, that makes it an "official" MCPS account. You can't redefine "official" as only being the accounts that MCPS Comms runs.

And clearly, even though Comms didn't run it, their policy allowed for these staff-run accounts, which is why they had to amend the policy to instruct staffers not to block users based on viewpoint discrimination as a result of this settlement.

MCPS has admitted it was wrong and is making policy changes as a result. Not sure what point you're trying to prove here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not on twitter but wasn’t it common to block someone on Twitter if they were being obnoxious, disruptive or bullying? Seems likely that’s what happened here. I get a public entity is different than a private one but they should still be able to block users who are disruptive or harassing.

Yes, and yes. And was this even an official MCPS Twitter account?

Yes, it was an official MCPS Twitter account, labeled as such and run by staffers.

If it is an official government account I don’t think it can block people. There was litigation about this re Twitter during the first Trump administration and also Larry Hogan was blocking people on his facebook page.

The basis of the Hogan lawsuit, though, was that he was an elected official and blocking access violated the rights of constituents to access him and his office. In this case, though, teachers are not elected officials and don't have constituents in the same way.

I dunno. I think MCPS tried to protect its staff from a known hate-monger, and then decided to throw money at her to settle, but fundamentally I walk away from this thinking MCPS was in the right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not on twitter but wasn’t it common to block someone on Twitter if they were being obnoxious, disruptive or bullying? Seems likely that’s what happened here. I get a public entity is different than a private one but they should still be able to block users who are disruptive or harassing.

Yes, and yes. And was this even an official MCPS Twitter account?

Yes, it was an official MCPS Twitter account, labeled as such and run by staffers.

Where is it "labeled as such"? The description says "A safe, affirming professional & social network for MCPS staff who identify as part of the LGBTQIA+ community. Resources & reminders for MCPS schools & offices." That sounds like an unofficial account that people started amongst themselves, not something that MCPS Comms runs.

If it's run by MCPS staff and labeled as an MCPS-affiliated account, that makes it an "official" MCPS account. You can't redefine "official" as only being the accounts that MCPS Comms runs.

And clearly, even though Comms didn't run it, their policy allowed for these staff-run accounts, which is why they had to amend the policy to instruct staffers not to block users based on viewpoint discrimination as a result of this settlement.

MCPS has admitted it was wrong and is making policy changes as a result. Not sure what point you're trying to prove here.

Judge Xinis would have eventually determined whether or not it was an official account. She initially found that Mandel had plausibly averred that it was official, which is why that claim was not dismissed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not on twitter but wasn’t it common to block someone on Twitter if they were being obnoxious, disruptive or bullying? Seems likely that’s what happened here. I get a public entity is different than a private one but they should still be able to block users who are disruptive or harassing.

Yes, and yes. And was this even an official MCPS Twitter account?

Yes, it was an official MCPS Twitter account, labeled as such and run by staffers.

If it is an official government account I don’t think it can block people. There was litigation about this re Twitter during the first Trump administration and also Larry Hogan was blocking people on his facebook page.

The basis of the Hogan lawsuit, though, was that he was an elected official and blocking access violated the rights of constituents to access him and his office. In this case, though, teachers are not elected officials and don't have constituents in the same way.

I dunno. I think MCPS tried to protect its staff from a known hate-monger, and then decided to throw money at her to settle, but fundamentally I walk away from this thinking MCPS was in the right.

+1

[Anonymous]

She loves the attention and does it on purpose.

https://onlineharassmentfieldmanual.pen.org/stories/bethany-mandel-editor-and-columnist-new-jersey/

https://montgomeryperspective.com/2024/02/12/are-you-ready-for-bethany-mandel/

https://bernoff.com/blog/the-lesson-of-author-bethany-mandel-dont-go-on-camera-unless-youre-prepared-and-dont-make-excuses-afterwards

Just a few.

[Anonymous]

She’s a hateful bully who is clearly troubled from what frankly sounds like a horrendous childhood and seeks attention.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not on twitter but wasn’t it common to block someone on Twitter if they were being obnoxious, disruptive or bullying? Seems likely that’s what happened here. I get a public entity is different than a private one but they should still be able to block users who are disruptive or harassing.

Yes, and yes. And was this even an official MCPS Twitter account?

Yes, it was an official MCPS Twitter account, labeled as such and run by staffers.

Where is it "labeled as such"? The description says "A safe, affirming professional & social network for MCPS staff who identify as part of the LGBTQIA+ community. Resources & reminders for MCPS schools & offices." That sounds like an unofficial account that people started amongst themselves, not something that MCPS Comms runs.

If it's run by MCPS staff and labeled as an MCPS-affiliated account, that makes it an "official" MCPS account. You can't redefine "official" as only being the accounts that MCPS Comms runs.

And clearly, even though Comms didn't run it, their policy allowed for these staff-run accounts, which is why they had to amend the policy to instruct staffers not to block users based on viewpoint discrimination as a result of this settlement.

MCPS has admitted it was wrong and is making policy changes as a result. Not sure what point you're trying to prove here.

MCPS should have made it staff-only, then this would not have been an issue. They can have internal accounts all they like. It's when they make public accounts, that they can't discriminate based on viewpoint.

They should know this, given the very prominent case with Hogan on a similar issue. Especially MCPS Comms should know this.

Just another MCPS mess-up that cost the taxpayer more money. Just like outgoing superintendent McKnight getting a $1.3mln golden parachute even though she was fired for incompetence (mishandling of the Beidelman case).

[Anonymous]

She seems horrible but I think this is one of those cases where I have to stick by my principles of free speech and transparency for public institutions and hope this is a good ruling.

A “why aren’t you, Bob” moment, iykyk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She’s a hateful bully who is clearly troubled from what frankly sounds like a horrendous childhood and seeks attention.

Is she still homeschooling her 5 children? She should be focusing on that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not on twitter but wasn’t it common to block someone on Twitter if they were being obnoxious, disruptive or bullying? Seems likely that’s what happened here. I get a public entity is different than a private one but they should still be able to block users who are disruptive or harassing.

Yes, and yes. And was this even an official MCPS Twitter account?

Yes, it was an official MCPS Twitter account, labeled as such and run by staffers.

Where is it "labeled as such"? The description says "A safe, affirming professional & social network for MCPS staff who identify as part of the LGBTQIA+ community. Resources & reminders for MCPS schools & offices." That sounds like an unofficial account that people started amongst themselves, not something that MCPS Comms runs.

If it's run by MCPS staff and labeled as an MCPS-affiliated account, that makes it an "official" MCPS account. You can't redefine "official" as only being the accounts that MCPS Comms runs.

And clearly, even though Comms didn't run it, their policy allowed for these staff-run accounts, which is why they had to amend the policy to instruct staffers not to block users based on viewpoint discrimination as a result of this settlement.

MCPS has admitted it was wrong and is making policy changes as a result. Not sure what point you're trying to prove here.

MCPS should have made it staff-only, then this would not have been an issue. They can have internal accounts all they like. It's when they make public accounts, that they can't discriminate based on viewpoint.

They should know this, given the very prominent case with Hogan on a similar issue. Especially MCPS Comms should know this.

Just another MCPS mess-up that cost the taxpayer more money. Just like outgoing superintendent McKnight getting a $1.3mln golden parachute even though she was fired for incompetence (mishandling of the Beidelman case).

It seems like the Twitter is run by 1 teacher, Ms Astor, I feel like this was a settlement out of convenience not actual wrong doing on MCPS part. It's not even listedon the official MCPS LGBTQ+ Information page.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She’s a hateful bully who is clearly troubled from what frankly sounds like a horrendous childhood and seeks attention.

Is she still homeschooling her 5 children? She should be focusing on that.

If she homeschools why is she trolling MCPS?