MARSHFIELD – A since-deleted website advertising a three-night event for “minor-attracted persons” has ignited fury and fear in Marshfield and Plainfield, though local leaders say there’s no evidence such a gathering is going to take place in those communities.
The outrage boiled over at Tuesday night’s Marshfield Select Board meeting, during which more than 100 people gathered online and in person to decry the unconfirmed event that has made the rounds on social media.
“To some extent, the cart may have got in front of the horse today,” Lt. Thomas Howard, Vermont State Police’s Berlin Barracks commander, told the crowd. Though Howard called reports of the gathering happening in the two towns “unfounded,” he said that “people having certain thoughts does not necessarily mean that they’ve committed a crime.”
The website advertised a Sept. 19-22 gathering called “MAP Camp 2024” at a campground “in Vermont when the leaves are changing.” Some language on the site sexualized children.
Although the website did not specify an exact location, a number of Facebook posts alleged that it would be in the Marshfield/Plainfield area. VTDigger was unable to confirm whether the event was associated with a specific town or a specific individual.
MAP stands for “minor-attracted person” and is a synonym for pedophile, one that some have argued is less stigmatizing. Others argue the language normalizes criminal behavior.
After word of the event got out, a Facebook firestorm ensued, with hundreds of concerned comments and engagements across post after post. Some residents said they would keep their kids home from Twinfield Union School, which serves both towns, for fear they could be in danger.
The Marshfield Select Board sought to confront the anger head on, addressing the controversy at its regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday.
Though some speakers at the meeting hungered for immediate action, Justin Campbell, chair of the Marshfield Select Board, tempered expectations.
“There really is no resolution to be offered here tonight,” he said, noting the board lacked authority to issue or revoke zoning and event permits.
Throughout the hour of heated dialogue, Campbell allowed discussion, interjecting to prevent people from talking over and repeating each other.
Board member Christopher Whalen encouraged concerned citizens to take actions available to them, such as proposing a town ordinance, or lobbying local representatives to pass statewide legislation.
Howard, the state police lieutenant, said that police had been in touch with Twinfield school administrators and expected to continue communicating, and police might be present at the school at the end of the week. School on Friday could involve “some small tweaks,” he said.
Some in the crowd questioned Howard’s apparent coolness, with one asking if he had children of his own. Howard acknowledged that the website, which he said police were looking into, was “upsetting.”
“The biggest concern,” Howard said, “is making sure that everyone’s safe.”
Even if the event were to take place, according to Howard, holding the “viewpoint” of being attracted to minors is not against the law.
“I don’t want to leave you guys dealing with the impression that we’re not doing everything that we can. We have certain guidelines that we have to operate in,” he said. “We have to respect everyone’s rights, whether or not we agree or disagree with certain things that they did or did not say.”
Nothing about the situation, Howard added, was “100%” clear.
News of the alleged event reached the highest level of state government the next day.
Asked about the alleged “minor-attracted persons” gathering at his weekly press conference on Wednesday, Gov. Phil Scott said he had “no idea” about the event.
Responding to the question, Dan Batsie, deputy commissioner of the Vermont Department of Public Safety, said state police were investigating “conflicting reports” about the apparent gathering, with the Vermont Intelligence Center involved in that work.
“The challenge, of course, is that no laws have been broken,” he said.
Police are prepared to respond if there are “allegations of laws being broken,” Batsie said, “but we also want to be sure to protect the First Amendment rights regardless of how distasteful those opinions might be.”
