Could be more about acting as a member of the media and recording for commercial purposes without prior permission, or refusing to take down allegedly disparaging material on request.
Bans are often used to curtain disruptive or impulsive behaviour. They sometimes work quite well for this purpose. They do not work well when people are willing to spend years on a passion project.
Likewise, a shut-out might work for the commercial news media, but action against fan media is counterproductive; it just hardens their attitude, while not stopping them from doing what they're going to do. They just look for different ways to do it.
Many who are serious about documenting the fandom won't follow the conditions Anthrocon and some other conventions wish to place on them; and you don't need to film at cons to do a reasonable piece on furries, particularly if you're a) in the fandom, and b) talking about a limited-purpose public figure, involved in key decisions and debates, who regularly posts hours of video.
This particular kind of commentary is interesting because it speaks to people both inside and outside the fandom, and because it is, in part, about a particular person and organization, rather than using one of those organizations as an example of the fandom. Perhaps the best individuals can hope for when they're the subject is being able to put their own position in their own words, on fair-play grounds; but if you cut off lines of communication when people aren't willing to play by your rules, that's unlikely to happen.
It doesn't help when your own words are part of the issue. At that point you can either stand by them, or reconsider your position. I think either of those would have been preferable to what actually happened, which was a futile attempt to squelch promotion.
Could be more about acting as a member of the media and recording for commercial purposes without prior permission, or refusing to take down allegedly disparaging material on request.
Bans are often used to curtain disruptive or impulsive behaviour. They sometimes work quite well for this purpose. They do not work well when people are willing to spend years on a passion project.
Likewise, a shut-out might work for the commercial news media, but action against fan media is counterproductive; it just hardens their attitude, while not stopping them from doing what they're going to do. They just look for different ways to do it.
Many who are serious about documenting the fandom won't follow the conditions Anthrocon and some other conventions wish to place on them; and you don't need to film at cons to do a reasonable piece on furries, particularly if you're a) in the fandom, and b) talking about a limited-purpose public figure, involved in key decisions and debates, who regularly posts hours of video.
This particular kind of commentary is interesting because it speaks to people both inside and outside the fandom, and because it is, in part, about a particular person and organization, rather than using one of those organizations as an example of the fandom. Perhaps the best individuals can hope for when they're the subject is being able to put their own position in their own words, on fair-play grounds; but if you cut off lines of communication when people aren't willing to play by your rules, that's unlikely to happen.
It doesn't help when your own words are part of the issue. At that point you can either stand by them, or reconsider your position. I think either of those would have been preferable to what actually happened, which was a futile attempt to squelch promotion.