UPDATE: Ban Lifted on Reporter for Creation Conventions

CreationConvention

The ongoing situation about our reporter banned from Creation conventions over an out of context tweet has had a few updates in the past several days worth noting.  First and foremost, the lifetime ban from conventions appears to have been implemented by a volunteer who did not have the authority to do so.  Our reporter Emily was removed from this specific con for this specific day.  They have released a statement to clarify what happened and have also invited Emily back for a future convention of her choice.

Security removed an attendee from our Chicago convention last Sunday morning. We regret that this occurred and have reached out to the attendee to discuss this matter in private and have refunded all convention purchases. In addition, we would like to clarify that the attendee has not been banned from future conventions of ours. Our main objective remains the safety and enjoyment of all those who attend our events.

At this point we are very satisfied with how quickly and thoroughly Creation handled this incident.  We are very grateful that they’ve invited her back as well as she is one of our primary Supernatural convention reporters.  We are very proud of her work and as soon as she decides which convention she’ll be attending we’ll be adding it to our convention calendar.

The tweet by Clif that posted a screen cap of Emily’s out of context tweet has also been removed.  We tweeted a thank you to him, only to realize that he’d blocked us, Emily, and many other supporters.  This fact is not meant to pass judgement as Twitter users are free to block whomever they wish for whatever reason, but we are disappointed that our appreciation towards Clif’s action to remove the tweet was not seen by him.  We are truly grateful for the action and view it was progress towards a resolution, but the rejection of further communication implies to us that we won’t be having any more conversation with him over this matter.  We wish this weren’t the case, but it’s not our decision to make.  Whether he is done discussing the matter or only wishes to discuss it through more official channels such as PR representatives is not something we have an answer to.

At this point it’s still unclear if our ability to report on other CW or WB properties at other conventions has been affected by this situation.  We are grateful to be able to cover Creation conventions going forward, but we attend over a dozen conventions a year, including New York City Comic Con and San Diego Comic-Con.  It is our hope that we can continue to cover Supernatural and many other shows that are owned by the same companies and we will be working hard to be sure that we can continue to do so.

Outside of these developments, there are no facts to report.  We understand that rumors are flying all over the place, but we are only here to report on the facts and not perpetuate false information.  We hope that we’ve managed to clear up some of the misconceptions and rumors that have begin to develop over these last few days.  We apologize for the lack of official statements on our behalf, but we were hoping for a more thorough follow up before writing further articles on the manner.

We’d also like to thank supporters who have have been tweeting in support of our reporter, but we kindly ask that you do so in a polite and civil manner.  Basically, if the tweet would violate our website’s policies, we’d prefer that you not tweet it.  We are incredibly thankful for the more than 20,000 tweets in the #IStandWithEmily tag and that many have chosen to contact people involved with the show on our behalf, but if you aren’t doing so in a way that represents the civil discourse that we encourage you aren’t accurately representing who we are or what we stand for.  We are happy that most of the conversations we’ve seen have been civil and we’d like that trend to continue.  Thank you for your support.  It’s been overwhelming for both us and Emily.

UPDATE: This article previously stated that the ban was never in place, but has since been corrected to reflect that it was simply implemented by a volunteer who didn’t have such authority.

Author: Angel Wilson

Angel is the admin of The Geekiary and a geek culture commentator. She earned a BA in Film & Digital Media from UC Santa Cruz. She’s contributed to various podcasts and webcasts including An Englishman in San Diego, Free to Be Radio, and Genre TV for All. She’s written for Friends of Comic Con and is a 2019 Hugo Award winner for contributing fanfic on AO3. She identifies as queer.


-

Read our policies before commenting.
Do not copy our content in whole to other websites. Linkbacks are encouraged.
Copyright © The Geekiary


About the author

Angel is the admin of The Geekiary and a geek culture commentator. She earned a BA in Film & Digital Media from UC Santa Cruz. She's contributed to various podcasts and webcasts including An Englishman in San Diego, Free to Be Radio, and Genre TV for All. She's written for Friends of Comic Con and is a 2019 Hugo Award winner for contributing fanfic on AO3. She identifies as queer.

Comments

  1. I didn’t know the ban was an overstatement from a volunteer and that no such ban was ever put in place. I thought their “hands were tied.” Creation has not said “I’m sorry,” though.

    1. We have corrected the article. It was a ban put in place by a volunteer who overstepped her authority. But the point is, she is no longer banned and we are satisfied with Creation’s resolution.

      -Admin Angel

  2. I hope y’all talk to a lawyer and see where you can go with this. Whoever told Kosterman about the false threat did a lot of damage to Rose and y’all and could’ve done more. There’s a lawsuit there for that person for sure. It may be why they haven’t answered and are cutting off all communication. Right now Kosterman and the CW network are protecting a criminal.

    1. We appreciate your concern but at this time we aren’t discussing lawsuits. It’s not something that anybody involved in this situation wants to do. We are also weary of taking legal advice from people we do not know over the Internet because we have no idea where the advice is coming from or what type of law experience is coming behind it. So again thank you, but this isn’t a path we are pursuing.

      -Admin Angel

      1. That I understand. Y’all shouldn’t take legal advice from people on the internet. All I meant was that I hope either of you talk to a lawyer in person at least so you’re aware of your rights. Y’all have rights and options in this case is all I meant and no matter if y’all just let this be forgotten or go down a legal path it should be because y’all have all the information and can make an informed choice. Not from me or anyone else on the internet but from a trusted legal expert. Good luck in whatever y’all decide to do.

  3. Creation hasn’t said what they will do to prevent this from happening in the future or apologized for treating Emily like a criminal.

  4. At what point did Emily speak to a volunteer? I don’t understand how a “volunteer” told her she was banned, on her account of the story it doesn’t say anything about speaking to a volunteer. She made it seem like she only spoke to security and Creation staff.

    1. The volunteer was with the security staff and we know her name and many of us have interacted with her before, but we’d like to not throw her under the bus by outing her. This part had been confirmed by at least 3 sources, including Emily and creation itself when speaking to Emily.

      1. Why can’t we? She sure helped to throw Emily under the bus by overstepping her authority, according to Creation. Who BTW, haven’t said what they will do to prevent this from happening in the future (but other than that they’re at least trying to make amends).

        1. We can’t because we are better than that. This volunteer is someone that many of our friends have had positive interactions with in the past. She’s not a public figure. She hasn’t commented publicly. She probably feels awful enough that this issue got so big and that Creation has already placed the blame on her, so why should we throw her to the wolves even further? We have zero reason to reveal her name.

            1. Would you apologize publicly if you risked being doxxed, spammed with hate, or fired from a position?

              Part of what makes security effective, is that they can observe situations impartially.

              We all make mistakes, but if people are only pressure to make /ourselves/ feel better, rather than to the injured party, the apology really means less than nothing, the offending party hasn’t learned anything, and there’s no personal assumption of responsibility to stop a similar event from happening in the future.

              And, as much as I love fandom, there are far too many of us–on any side– who are far too eager to attack and harass someone under the guise of social justice, just for the chance to say they were a part of “taking that offensive person down”.

              These sorts of things aren’t meant for the public eye.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: