Menu CATEGORIES

Connect with us

CATEGORIES Menu
All Articles

Spec Editors Halt Publication, Allegedly Over Lack Of Staff Constitution

The Columbia Daily Spectator hasn’t published any content since September 25, as the result of a halt on publishing initiated by the site’s Managing Board over Spec’s lack of a suitable gender-based misconduct policy, according to our sources.

In an email sent to the Columbia Daily Spectator staff on September 19, former Product Manager at the Spectator Cecilia Orduña (SEAS ‘21) sharply criticized the Spectator’s leadership for its “continued mishandling of sexual misconduct and their refusal to create any sort of policies to protect staff members.” According to the email, which was obtained by Bwog, the Spectator has an unofficial policy that they are not an adjudicating body, which means that members of the Spectator must report cases of gender-based misconduct through the university, even though the Spectator is an independent, registered 501(c)(3) organization. Additionally, Orduña questioned the Corporate Board for their inability to provide concrete answers surrounding Spec’s gender-based misconduct policies. She added that when she asked the Spectator’s Editor-In-Chief and President of the Spectator Publishing Company, Karen Xia (CC ‘21), for an update on this issue, Xia proposed a call with Orduña rather than give a written response, but never followed through with the meeting. Finally, Orduña asked the staff of the Spectator to hold the leadership accountable and details questions that staffers should pose in order to apply pressure to the leadership in order to create a change. The full text of the email can be seen below this post.

This email seems to have reignited a familiar conflict within the organization over transparency and the leadership’s handling of allegations of gender-based misconduct. According to sources with knowledge of the situation, Xia called a meeting with Spec’s Managing Board to discuss the lack of official policy. The Managing Board includes the lead editors of each of the Spectator’s sections as well as Xia, the Managing Editor, and Publisher (who separately comprise the Corporate Board, which manages Spectator Publishing, the parent company of the Daily Spectator, Spectrum, and the Eye). Managing Board members were reportedly not satisfied with said meeting’s results and began drafting a set of community standards which included suspending alleged perpetrators, a major point of contention. Our sources say the Managing Board has ceased coverage and publication until the policy is approved and released to the staff, though no public statement has been made regarding the recent halt in publication to confirm or deny this claim.

Spectator’s lack of a constitution and gender-based harassment policy has previously caused internal strife, most recently with the Fall 2018 resignation of the majority of the Spectator’s sports staff due to conflict with upper-level management. The conflict centered around the lack of transparency from Spectator’s Corporate Board regarding equitable board selection and whether allegations of gender-based misconduct within the organization were properly investigated and handled by leadership. The Spectator’s Corporate Board denied claims of impropriety, with the Editor-In-Chief at the time, Jessica Spitz (CC’19), writing in an email sent to the entire staff that “Spec has a clear procedure for handling allegations of misconduct by people on our staff, and CB [Corporate Board] has adhered to this procedure in the past year.”  

Spitz’s email, also obtained by Bwog, contained a summary of the Spectator’s 2018 policy as to handling allegations of misconduct. The email states that any report of misconduct should be stated to the Corporate Board, and that “if [they] are notified of misconduct, [their] policy is to immediately speak to all parties involved and determine the best way forward on a case by case basis.” If a complainant wants to remain anonymous, the email says they can also go through the Staff Director, and finally, if neither CB nor Staff Director are appropriate, they can contact the Board of Trustees. The email also encourages students to report to the university, stating “As students, you always have the option to make a report directly to your school’s office of gender based misconduct.” While Spitz’s successor, Katherine Gerberich (BC’20) claimed that “a major priority of Spectator’s 143rd managing board is to review and strengthen its own [sexual misconduct] policies and make sure they are effective,” it is unclear how the policy has changed since 2018. The full text of Spitz’s email is embedded below.

When contacted for comment, current EIC Xia wrote that “Spectator does not tolerate misconduct by or among staffers. Spectator has had written policies on the handling of complaints or concerns about misconduct for several years, and has discussed at various points in the past two years whether and how to revise them. At any point at which any adjustments or clarifications are made to those policies, they will be distributed to Spectator’s staff.” Xia did not elaborate on the cause of the halt in publishing, how long she expects it to last, the details of the current gender-based misconduct policy, or what changes to the policy are currently being discussed by the Corporate Board. 

Orduña’s email also includes a link to a Facebook post she wrote, published September 8,  2020, which references several internal Spectator scandals. It also pointed out that although the Spectator claims that they are trying to abide by university standards, a written constitution is a basic requirement for university clubs to be funded. The Spectator is not funded by the Student Life Fee and as such, has no requirement to have a written policy; however, given their claim that they cannot discipline members accused of gender-based misconduct in order to abide by university standards, their lack of a constitution contradicts that stated goal.

The post also says that Spectator leadership has claimed that after consulting with the paper’s legal counsel, legal repercussions could result if the Corporate Board did not abide by university standards when dealing with gender-based misconduct allegations. However, Gerberich’s statement from the start of her tenure as EIC noted explicitly that while the Spectator’s members are subject to University policy “Spectator is not subject to the same limitations that govern university-affiliated clubs.” Bwog has reached out to the Office of Student Conduct and Community Standards regarding what repercussions might emerge if Spectator implements a formal constitution that does not follow university standards given its independent status.

According to members of Spectator’s staff, leadership has advised staffers to be cautious in speaking with outside sources like Bwog about this issue, though no one was explicitly prohibited from speaking out. It also appears that some staffers have not been informed of the true nature of the halt on publishing and have been told that Spectator has halted publishing for the week in order to prepare for the coming semester.

Update September 30th, 7:45 PM: Edited to clarify internal guidance relayed by Spec leadership on speaking with outside publications.

This is a developing story. If you have any information regarding the situation, you are welcome to send an anonymous confidential tip, either at bwog.com/tip or to the email tips@bwog.com.


Full Text of the Anonymous Tip sent on September 30, 12:22 AM:

Got this link from the columbia confessions post. Following an all staff email sent out by Cecilia orduna a former member of spec calling out spec leadership for a history of mishandling sexual misconduct and refusing to implement policies, Karen Xia (EIC) reached out to specs managing board members to have a meeting discussing specs lack of policies. This meeting did not go the way specs MB members hoped so they began drafting a set of community standards which include suspension of alleged perpetrators. All section editors informed specs CB that no coverage would be published until the policy is approved and released to staff 


Full text of Cecilia Orduña’s email, sent September 19th to all staff members of The Spectator:

Subject line: HOLD SPEC ACCOUNTABLE

Hi everyone, 

My name is Cecilia Orduña, I’m currently a senior and have been part of Spec since January 2018. I served as Lead Product Designer last year and quit during my tenure as Product Manager due to Spec’s continued mishandling of sexual misconduct and their refusal to create any sort of policies to protect staff members. (If you have not seen my Facebook post, I recommend you read it https://www.facebook.com/100012562428160/posts/1021833304912074/?extid=OgyUHmFeqoxSWuuP&d=n )

Spec currently has an unofficial policy that they are “not an adjudicating body”, therefore members of Spectator must report cases of misconduct through the university even though Spectator is independent from Columbia. When asked by myself along with multiple MB members to implement any policies or protections for staffers, any and all ideas have been shot down due to legal concerns (apparently they’ve consulted multiple lawyers). How can HR style policies meant to protect staff be a liability issue? How is creating a constitution unfeasible when other school papers that are independent from their universities (Harvard, NYU, Syracuse) have them? (Note: Syracuse’s policy even includes restricting alleged perpetrators from working on staff until the situation is resolved) 

Why is it that MB members are unable to provide concrete answers surrounding Spec’s “updates” sexual misconduct policies referenced in the all staff email from August 2nd. Why is it that when asking our EIC for an update on changes related to misconduct over a month after that same email, that she was unable to give me a response in writing and ghosted me after she proposed that we instead have a call to talk about it? 

PLEASE ASK QUESTIONS: to your MB member, to CB, to the trustees. If something feels sketchy, it probably is. Spec Corporate Board’s have a history of gaslighting staff members with concerns, they have a history of trying to keep “drama” silent (check out this article they were scared staff would see back in 2018 http://www.theblueandwhite.org/2018/12/17/columbia-daily-spectator-sports-staff-gutted-by-resignations/) and  they have a history of promising changes with no follow through. HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE. 

Don’t know where to start? Here are some ideas of questions you can ask:

  • Why doesn’t Spec have a constitution / code of conduct that formally states staff expectations and outlines policies and procedures surrounding things like sexual assault, discrimination, etc.?
  • How can we hold leadership accountable without any policies in place?
  • Spec does a great job reporting on other cases of sexual misconduct on campus. Isn’t it hypocritical for the organization not to reflect inward and address its own issues?
  • How can HR policies be a liability issue for Spectator? Don’t you want to protect your staff?
  • If you’re scared of legal repercussions, why can’t employees agree to the constitution as part of the onboarding process?
  • Why haven’t you provided an organization-wide platform for staffers to state their concerns anonymously? Other Columbia clubs have done this and MB members have suggested that Spec does this as well.

Change won’t be made unless members of staff at all levels apply pressure on the organization. If you made it to the end of this, thank you for reading and please demand tangible change + accountability


Full text of Jessica Spitz’s email, sent December 3, 2018 to all staff of The Spectator.

spec-email-2

Click to show comments
61 Comments

Write a comment

Your email address will not be published.

 

61 Comments

  • Not misinformation says:

    @Not misinformation WHO reports that approximately 10% of the world has been infected with SARS-CoV-2.

    This means about 780 million people have been infected.

    COVID-19 deaths worldwide = 1 million.

    Calculated Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) = 1M/780M = 0.13%

    IFR = 0.13%

    Anyone want to guess the flu’s IFR?

  • Anonymous says:

    @Anonymous Please revamp spec to be a real Ivy League quality newspaper and not a rag.

  • Former MB says:

    @Former MB Ignoring how badly written this article is, glad to see the kids at Spec are finally doing something about this. We had this fight with leadership and the “board of trustees” at least twice while I was in leadership there and they have an incredible ability to shut shit down. Spec quite literally destroyed my college experience during my senior year because of this same exact fight so I’m glad people are holding it accountable – not to mention the stress culture and actual cult mentality (“you need us, we need you”) that’s so pervasive.
    Fuck Bwog and Fuck Spec

    11
    1
  • columbia confessor says:

    @columbia confessor I made that post hoping more people would look into this situation, but never could I have expected an article as lazily written, shoddily sourced, or as utterly lacking in journalistic ethics as this. I have my fair share of issues with spec, especially concerning this situation, but did you even speak to a single actual source? because this article reads like you took my two-line post and the anonymous tip, and just ran with it for as many words as you could on a google doc and posted it.

    People would be better off just reading Cecilia’s email and fb post – this is a new low, even for bwog.

    7
    2
  • Anonymous says:

    @Anonymous my section head has been totally transparent w/ us about the reason for the strike, and none of my friends from other sections have been told anything but the truth. also we were just asked not to speak so that we could release a comprehensive article straight from the source

  • cuckcumon says:

    @cuckcumon wOOOw #canceled Spec is #canceled!who i next?? Bwog?? (known cumb shills Bwog??) CUBhangra?? Greek Lide?? well anyways, me, I’m hear eatin poppcorn, watching this all go down. yeah that’s me your probably wonering how ai got in this situatin – pretty simple its bc Organizations Only Write Rules That Keep The People In Charge In Power. #truth. #you can take that one to teh bank.

    sksksks ok anyway stan Lee Bollinger toupee

  • Anonymous says:

    @Anonymous No wonder bwog hasn’t been publishing anything. Couldn’t copy spec

    8
    3
  • confused alum says:

    @confused alum why is everyone so mad in the comments? spec isn’t publishing (and no one noticed), here’s a BWOG article saying why. idk why the article had to be this long but why is BWOG the bad guy here ?

    11
    3
    1. Anonymous says:

      @Anonymous >why come people mad on message board
      Is this your first time on the interwebs?

      2
      1
    2. agreed says:

      @agreed the article literally explains the situation i dont understand why people are tripping so hard in the comments

      5
      1
      1. disagree says:

        @disagree this article does not have any credibility to it, they literally misspelled someone’s name and had to say everything was alleged because they couldn’t confirm it.

        3
        1
  • Anonymous says:

    @Anonymous the fact that the headline is “alleged” and no point in this “article” is confirmed is truly concerning. do better.

    3
    3
  • Anonymous says:

    @Anonymous Take the tip down you leeches

    6
    2
  • lol come on bwog says:

    @lol come on bwog lol this didn’t turn out exactly like you were hoping for your big “scoop,” did it

    i’ve got nothing to do with spec but dear god is this some lazy blogging

    11
    2
  • hypocrites says:

    @hypocrites If you are a bwog member who was in cumb and you’re sharing this article on your personal page i honestly have to fucking laugh…. Ive never seen more hypocritical shit in my life

    15
    2
    1. confused says:

      @confused Would you rather cumb members support the injustices in spec? lmfao what do you ppl want

      1. Anonymous says:

        @Anonymous For bwog to hold itself accountable and its eic to stop pretending that they’re innocent

        13
        2
        1. lol says:

          @lol what happened to innocent until proven guilty? I guess we have to take your word for it anon? lol

          1. Anonymous says:

            @Anonymous I’m a former member of the cumb. She was there for numerous initiations and nbbs alongside many other members of bwog. They knew what was going on in terms of peer pressure and sexual harassment and even participated in it. They’re not innocent

            4
            2
            1. hypocritical says:

              @hypocritical that means you were there too…lol

              11
  • Anon says:

    @Anon I find it funny how much investigation took place into sexual misconduct allegations within Spec for this article, yet not even half as much was done for the numerous allegations of misconduct against the marching band. Just because half your members were involved in the marching band doesn’t stop the remaining members from conducting a comprehensive investigation like this one (if it does, then it’s clearly because said marching band people have a hand in it). Not sympathizing with Spec either, but it’s clear you only want to stand against predators when it benefits you. Your entire publication thrives off its rivalry with Spec; y’all don’t give half a shit about these concerns.

    17
    2
    1. Anon says:

      @Anon Oh, and Justice for Malika!!!!

      8
      2
  • Anonymous says:

    @Anonymous Justice for malika! Bwog never apologized

    11
    3
  • Anonymous says:

    @Anonymous Justice for malika

    10
    2
  • Anonymous says:

    @Anonymous Justice for Malika!

    11
    2
  • Tired of this shit says:

    @Tired of this shit Bwog only cares about abuse when it benefits them and makes them look good. When cumb shut itself down bwog —which made up like half the marching band— wrote a 200 word bullshit article that didn’t address the problem or even reference the systemic culture of abuse. It didn’t even write at the bottom how it’s own editor in Chief and many other members of its leadership (who might have written it, we don’t know because no one took credit on their website) were not only members, but leadership in the band. You can’t only care about abuses of power when you’re not involve and can tag it #fuckspec…if you care about survivors then care about ALL survivors and call out members , even when they’re in your own community which in the marching band case they were

    30
    4
    1. You don't know shit says:

      @You don't know shit If you knew how impartial journalism works, you would know that it would absolutely make no sense for anyone involved with the CUMB situation to write about their own said situation. That would obviously come off biased and not be credible journalism. This can be seen from the fact that you are reading what occurred within Spec on Bwog’s website, because they are impartial to their situation. It would be the same vice versa. This reasoning would explain WHY Bwog cannot just simply write a report on themselves, because even if they DID, people would point out the biased nature it holds. It is easy to assume organizations simply don’t care because there is no one person to shift credibility to, since it is an organization. But, this comment shows that you clearly don’t know what it’s like to RUN one of these organizations like Bwog or Spec. Just like solving abuse is such a big issue, there is NO quick fix to years of systemic abuse or racism, which is seen in our very country. If you think that people genuinely want to benefit off of catching each other in scandals of systemic abuse, YOU are part of the problem. The quickness to be negative and resort to cancel culture rather than to pick each other up in scenarios like this is quite disgusting.

      5
      18
      1. YOU don’t seem to know shit says:

        @YOU don’t seem to know shit Actual journalist here. It is actually very common practice for news organizations to report on themselves when cases of misconduct arise. Here is an example https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2020-09-21/la-times-shaken-by-a-summer-of-turmoil-and-scandals?_amp=true deadspin also had articles that described the process of its staff’s resignations last year. Moreover; it is common journalistic standard to note when editors or other people involved in the reporting process are involved in the organizations you are reporting about. Most real publications mark this for any article based around groups or organizations to established unbiased report. Its important to always write that on articles applicable. It’s great you’re learning up on your journalistic ethics, but unfortunately your comment is traditionally incorrect. Please don’t say I don’t know what it is like because I was you. The commenter may have not been been polite, but they were entirely correct that it should have been noted

        18
        4
        1. Anonymous says:

          @Anonymous Yeah…. I don’t really know much about journalism but I feel like it’s important to know that the editor in Chief (who I would hope is reading stories as severe as the marching band article) was leadership in the band. I don’t know why no one thought to write that she wasn’t involved in reporting

          15
          1
        2. detective journalist over here says:

          @detective journalist over here Bottom line for everyone about organizations being organizations, it is bold to assume that everyone in cumb was involved with the cumb scandal. Same with bwog members and spec members. Because its an organization, you generalize, which disregards the several people who may be sparking change from within or who don’t agree with the inner issues that occur. Not sure why anyone had to be Nancy Drew Girl Detective with the strict journalism ethical codes, but the part of the problem here is that people are never satisfied. You don’t know shit (I’ll continue the theme) either “actual journalist” about the journalism inside any of these organizations unless you are a part of them. It’s easy to say what you would do differently or what they did so wrong when you are an outsider.

          5
          11
          1. Admitting you’re wrong is okay! says:

            @Admitting you’re wrong is okay! I don’t see why this bwogger is fighting so badly with everyone about this. You tried to “but actually” someone about how they didn’t know journalism ethics but when they sent a link that proved you wrong and then tried to hit the comments with an uwu don’t be the journalism ethics police. Bro you made claims and he proved you wrong. Like no one is saying all of cumb was directly involved with some of the abuses, but things like the unpantsing and the flashing happened at least more than once a semester so obviously some of you were there and knew what was going on. Just like frats if you know in any form and do nothing about it you’re complicit. No one is saying they know shit about the journalism that happens inside of bwog or Spec. He just said that in terms of standard ethics (which I would hope bwog was trying to follow if they’re dealing with such serious topics) there were small issues that should be sorted out

            10
            3
            1. being right or wrong shouldn’t be the goal! says:

              @being right or wrong shouldn’t be the goal! If only people wouldn’t care so much about winning and losing or being better than each other, everyone could step aside, listen to one another, and come together to spark change. These comments have become a battle of journalism fact checking rather than about the real problem of not always assuming malicious intent with actions and allowing people to grow.

              3
              3
              1. Anonymous says:

                @Anonymous preach!!!

  • oop says:

    @oop Bwog saw a confession about Spec and said “story time!” without any actual corroboration, sources, …. ethical journalistic practice. Very low editorial standards. Very unimpressive.

    16
    3
  • Anonymous says:

    @Anonymous So Spec is handling its own internal affairs with strikers working toward actual policies for everyone’s safety and Bwog just wants the scoop. Cool, now let’s talk about how Bwog is going to handle misconduct itself. Or do they only report on it when it benefits their engagement?

    18
    3
    1. Anonymous says:

      @Anonymous why’d it take so much effort from members of specs staff for this to happen though?? glad they’re finally doing something but only because their writers had to twist leaderships arm??

  • Spekky says:

    @Spekky I’m on Spec…I had a section meeting yesterday. Spec is functioning lol

    11
    2
    1. Anonymous says:

      @Anonymous Wait so what was the point of this fucking article?

      10
    2. Anonymous says:

      @Anonymous I am also on Spec and I just came out of an editorial meeting for an article I might publish tomorrow if I edit it well enough. There isn’t a strike going on????

      6
      4
    3. Anonymous says:

      @Anonymous the fact that leadership is still trying to keep this hushed by not telling their staff is concerning…

  • Anonymous says:

    @Anonymous I’m never submitting a tip to bwog again if they’re publishing them like that rather go to the blue and white or her Campus or some shit. This is disappointing to see anonymous tips being used like that

    11
    4
  • blueandwhitefan says:

    @blueandwhitefan Damn at least drop the blue and white link in the article

    https://www.theblueandwhite.org/2018/12/17/columbia-daily-spectator-sports-staff-gutted-by-resignations/

    2
    1
    1. Anonymous says:

      @Anonymous ….. it was hyperlinked in the post but ok

      4
      1
  • Anonymous says:

    @Anonymous Who thought it was a good idea to paste the tip? That’s unethical and defeats the purpose of it being a tip. It’s not supposed to be your evidence that this happened but a starting point.

    20
    5
  • Anonymous says:

    @Anonymous Spec needs to completely revamp their staff and learn to report on unbiased news and some positive stories here and there. Really sick of the constant Columbia and administration bashing from our own paper.

    4
    7
    1. Anonymous says:

      @Anonymous My dude, name the last good thing Columbia did? Gentrify Harlem? Kick it’s studens already quarantining back to their home states without compensation for their plane tickets? Not handle sexual assault. I don’t like spec writers but you can’t say they’re not reporting the reality of Columbia’s actions

      14
      3
  • rip says:

    @rip first the ssi ad fiasco (https://jewishjournal.com/news/united-states/322030/columbia-student-paper-apologizes-for-running-ad-against-bds-referendum/) now this? spec should take a few weeks off to sort itself out

    2
    5
  • Jess Spritz says:

    @Jess Spritz *Spitz. It literally says it in the email y’all put right there

    11
    1. Zack Abrams says:

      @Zack Abrams We’ve corrected the typos in the article, and we regret the error

      2
      1
      1. Anonymous says:

        @Anonymous that really should be listed as a correction. I see there’s an update to the story but where’s the correction?

        15
      2. SEASerasure says:

        @SEASerasure also Cecilia is in SEAS…

        1. Zack Abrams says:

          @Zack Abrams Fixed, thanks!

  • Anonymous says:

    @Anonymous They are an independent organization. Why does bwog report on hearsay and gossip? Awful.

    16
    4
  • Anonymous says:

    @Anonymous This is classy coming from bwog that has a history of harboring abusers and even putting them in power.

    19
    8
    1. Anonymous says:

      @Anonymous like when

      2
      3
      1. Anonymous says:

        @Anonymous I’ve been sexually harassed by a member of bwog. I met others who have had similar experiences with former and current leaders of bwog. There are at least 2 cusurvivors posts about it. Just because you don’t know that it happened doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen

        5
        1
      2. Anonymous says:

        @Anonymous its Current EIC and former EICs were all leadership in cumb that literally had a culture of secrecy to protect its MANY rituals that involved sexual harassment and it’s other editors were also leaders in cumb. When your leaders are involved in a club and are leadership positions that involve sexual harassment in abuse…you are elevating abusers to power

        1. Anonymous says:

          @Anonymous I was in Bwog and treated like shit.

  • The Dark Hand says:

    @The Dark Hand spec has not been daily for more than 5 days if you have been paying attention which you have. why is Bwog only reporting this now? #specsucks

  • 1030 says:

    @1030 The point of anonymous tips is that they are a tip not the only substantiation that your information came from a real staff member. If you cannot get a single source to speak on this even anonymously it’s weak reporting. Posting the tip is low, even for bwog.

    20
    6
  • Bollinger says:

    @Bollinger So it’s scandalous for them to stop as they write misconduct bylaws…I think this is a good thing. Maybe Bwog should learn something and not try to shame others for doing the right thing

    18
    2
  • Ad

    Have Your Say

    What should Bwog's new tagline be?

    View Results

    Loading ... Loading ...

    Recent Comments

    WHY WOULD YOU PUT NUDES AS YOUR BACKROUND, you will get in trouble in like 0.02 seconds, this is (read more)
    How To Impress Your Class Crush On Zoom
    October 31, 2020
    You really expect me to put a nude as my bg in class??????????????? WHAT KIND OF- (read more)
    How To Impress Your Class Crush On Zoom
    October 30, 2020
    Oh goodness This happened to me today but worse becuse my friend scream out "ooouuu you farted!!!" ahh it (read more)
    How To Recover From Farting On Zoom: A Step-By-Step Guide
    October 30, 2020
    I need to know what kind of bread you have. Please. (read more)
    Dress Up As Alma (And Other Statues) For Halloween
    October 29, 2020

    Comment Policy

    The purpose of Bwog’s comment section is to facilitate honest and open discussion between members of the Columbia community. We encourage commenters to take advantage of—without abusing—the opportunity to engage in anonymous critical dialogue with other community members. A comment may be moderated if it contains:
    • A slur—defined as a pejorative derogatory phrase—based on ethnicity, race, gender, sexual orientation, ability, or spiritual belief
    • Hate speech
    • Unauthorized use of a person’s identity
    • Personal information about an individual
    • Baseless personal attacks on specific individuals
    • Spam or self-promotion
    • Copyright infringement
    • Libel
    • COVID-19 misinformation