My Freemasonry | Freemason Information and Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

GM of Florida Renders Decision Over Social Media Sharing of Controversial Communications - Whatever They Are


by Christopher Hodapp




THIS ought to play out predictably. With lots of noise and gnashing of teeth.

MW Donald W. Cowart (photo), Grand Master of the Grand Lodge F&AM of Florida has just issued an official decree on October 17th forbidding all Masons in his jurisdiction from sharing "any critical or controversial communications between or concerning Masons or any other derogatory Masonic information" on "any online platform, including but not limited to social media, blogs, websites, forums, podcasts, and video sharing..."

Don't know the specific background or events that led to this decision, but I can attest that this kind of struggle between GMs and online Masons has been going on for at least a quarter century now. On the one hand, there are brethren who believe it's their emphatic, GAOTU-given right to unfettered free-speech, no matter what. On the other hand, when do the privacy rights prevail for our fellow Freemasons – to whom we are obligated to "whisper good counsel in his ear, and in the most tender manner possible, remind him of his faults, aid in his reformation, and ward off all approaching danger" – if we as individuals think their privacy violates our own free speech?

As Masons, like it or not, grand masters do get to swing their weight around and make those decisions for us at times. But then the question arises: is a grand master – acting from a position of responsibility and authority on behalf of his members – entitled to those self-same privacy rights? After all, we are all ultimately taught to respect the men we elevate to officer positions and to abide by their decisions, until such time as the next grand lodge meeting in which his actions, rulings, decisions, and edicts are reviewed and approved by us. And a GM is generally the ultimate authority in all matters of Masonic jurisprudence until such a review occurs.

Then comes the third question: can a GM's decision or action be hidden from the membership by a misguided or improperly abused demand for 'secrecy'? We've all seen damage done to individual Masons or lodges when a GM yanks dues cards or charters, destroying decades of Masonic careers or years of lodge rebuilding. Reviewing his actions 11 months later doesn't undo the damage.

I'm sure this seems comically ironic on this website that has at times shared not exactly flattering Masonic stories online. Or possibly just plain hypocritical. In my own case, I hold myself solely responsible for selectively deciding stories to report or withhold here. It's my own little fiefdom here, and if I wind up suffering another suspension penalty at some point in my future, I'll lick my wounds and take a bit of time on a beach to contemplate my virtues, my sins, and my place in the Cosmos. All I can say in defense of my own mercurial role as occasional public tattler of injustices is that I follow the Justice Potter theory of decision justification: "I know it when I see it."


Continue reading...
 

Winter

Premium Member
I have little doubt that this edict will likely have the opposite effect and cause many more social media posts in response. On the one hand, I am all for not airing our dirty laundry for all the world to see. But the benefit of dragging some issues into the light of day to bring attention to egregious abuses of power cannot be denied. But who gets to make those judgement calls when Brothers have their dander up?
 
Top