Has Sun City Anthem Communication Gone Too Far ?

Has Sun City Anthem Communication Crossed a Line with Censorship ?

In John 8:32 of the King James version of the bible, the following words ring loud in what Americans believe is the right of free speech:

"Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free".

Powerful words...meaningful words...words that we, as both Americans and residents of our community, are entitled to, whatever the consequence.

Something took place on the "official" Sun City Anthem website on Monday, August 12, 2013; that in my opinion, may have crossed a line in free speech; something one particular individual wrote, another responded to, and a third took it upon himself/herself, to remove commentary for a reason claiming to have a legal ramification.

Let's preface this by saying the dialogue referred to "Vic's Restaurant", our eatery that has gone through transition after transition, in the short few months of its existence.

Is "Vic's" what we thought it would be?

Has it been a moderately priced restaurant that would cater to the needs of our community? 

Has it provided a catering service that organizations both inside our community and outside it, have praised?

For those who believe it has kept its promises, perhaps those individuals might explain the low turn out in the restaurant and continuing club functions either utilizing "pot luck" or outside Anthem Center facilities for their venues.

Let's get something straight...no one wishes ANY business to fail...especially one that is HEAVILY FINANCED by residents.

And if it fails...who is to blame?

Is it the residents?

Is it the restaurant?

Is it THOSE WHO allowed it...and spent community funds in financing it, and drafting lease language that omitted protection of Sun City Anthem's financial well-being?

Regardless of what you believe, every Sun City Anthem resident is entitled to an opinion....EVERYONE...for one reason...

...THEY FINANCED A SUBSTANTIAL ASPECT OF IT and as "stockholders" they are ENTITLED TO A RETURN ON THAT INVESTMENT.

That return can be a tangible financial one through the revenue sharing aspect of the actual lease depending on the profitability of the business, and/or an intangible one through a service they provide COMMUNITY RESIDENTS in creating an atmosphere which provides excellent food and service...at a price WHICH THE MARKET BEARS.

To date, neither appears to be taking place, no matter what may be written to the contrary.

This gets me to the point of this article....FREE SPEECH.

The following comment was placed on the Sun City Anthem website by George Meese, husband of Board Member, Bella Meese.

"Unfortunately we have some blogs or forums that do nothing but denigrate anything and everything about Sun City Anthem.  From day one when the news came out that we had a restaurant those  groups started bad mouthing the restaurant (even before it was open) and have continued to do so regardless of what the restaurant has done to improve their offerings for our residents.  In my experience it takes a few months for a new restaurant to adjust to what their new customers want.  This is true of most restaurants and VIC'S is no exception.  At this point VIC'S food is excellent and so is the service.  Pay no attention to those that preach nothing but negativity about our community."

Mr. Meese has every right in the world to make such a comment, and we would certainly NEVER deny him that right.  I have known George Meese to be an honorable man, a dedicated man to Sun City Anthem, and if he chooses to believe what he has written despite what so many others have said...and experienced...he should be allowed to do so.

Is being the husband of a board member who fully supported the financing of Vic's at all times, a bit biased?  

That is for you to decide.

But...following that comment, another was made by another resident  has offered cost effective advice in various community bidding projects.

Written by that resident: 

"George, I am very surprised with your comments condemning other blogs expressing their views in disagreement with the establishment.  I just happen to be one of those “bad mouthing” the poor decisions made by a few that tend to dictate everyone’s way of living in SCA while wasting our dues because of lack of knowledge, not listening to good advice, or never look back so as not to make the same mistakes again and again.

Had the simple rules been followed with operating a business like SCA rather than the way we do, we wouldn't be discussing Vic’s apparently failing attempt to operate a restaurant in SCA that is supported by only a few.

The blame can't be placed on the few bad mouthing individuals; only those that made the bad decision for the fifth time to create another failing restaurant.

Those other “bad mouthing blogs” have a readership of a few hundred, what about the balance of the 13,000 residents living in SCA?  It is obvious they have come to the same conclusion without “ blog knowledge” that a restaurant is not what they want to support.

How many times does it take a reasonable person to figure out that a restaurant will never survive in SCA, if Vic’s fails?  So far five times…hopefully not six."

And so, I ask all of you....

...if this is his opinion, has he the same right to post it on the SCA official website? 

We see this as merely a resident stating what he believed, and whose opinion has every bit the same merit as Mr. Meese's initial comment.

NOT SO...ACCORDING to some individual who "polices" the SCA website.

That resident subsequently received this email...AFTER HIS COMMENTS WERE REMOVED from the SCA website.

"I have had to delete your recent posting on the SCA message board. Your comment contains the allegation that Vic's is a failing restaurant when there is no evidence that this is the case. Though it is a fact that Vic's has cut back on hours during certain days this cannot be interpreted as evidence of failure but merely the actions of a new operator to adjust its schedules to meet the needs of its customers and manage its own bottom line. Are you privy to the restaurant's finances? Alleging that the restaurant is failing is potentially defamatory and could be interpreted as interference with a business relationship. If you wish to post a comment expressing disagreement with the opinions posted by another resident you are welcome to do so minus the unproven allegation that the restaurant is failing."

There was NO NAME attached to the email, and comment of "potentially being defamatory and could be interpreted as interference with a business relationship" is in our opinion, PRACTICING LAW.

The resident subsequently sent this email back to the party who made the determination to remove his comment.

"I suppose it is approved for a board member's spouse to write defamatory information about other blogs bad mouthing "everything in  SCA." You know as well as I that is a false statement without any substantiating facts.  I take that as an personal attack on my/others character and demand George Meese's post be eliminated as defamatory, misleading, and false. 

Alleging that the restaurant is failing is potentially defamatory and could be interpreted as interference with a business relationship.

Don't blow smoke...I am entitled to my opinion based on observations and documentation.  I did that in a non-threatening, non-defamatory, non-interfering manner.  Your petty threats have no merit and any normal person would be aware of that fact.

By-the-way...to whom am I speaking?

Anxiously awaiting your response."

That resident  HAS YET TO RECEIVE ANY RESPONSE AS TO THE IDENTITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL who made the determination to remove his comments.

And so...we ask of you?

Is this unfounded CENSORSHIP? 

Has Sun City Anthem communications gone too far?

And...should the person who removed his comment, and perhaps PRACTICED LAW, be IDENTIFIED and immediately REMOVED from Sun City Anthem official communication?

Dick Arendt