[IMC-bristol] COMPLAINT

[James Venables]

I don't have to justify to you why I am gradually withdrawing my email 
from circulation. It is a matter of my privacy to do so, & absolutely 
none of your business what I choose to do with it.

I did make  complaints about threats of violence on this list, & the 
off-topic baiting which urged that on. I've already explained that 
repeatedly & was the first person to acknowledge it

Threats of violence are not free-speech, & the off-topic baiting which 
created it were simply not on topic, & consisted of extended diatribes. 
This latest thread largely remains on-topic, with short comments, & no 
threats of violence made. So to conflate this with the need to roll out 
a patronising policy of language control across the forum is a 
disturbing joke.

If you think that the toned-down, pale, & consumer friendly path you all 
now appear taking IMC down is free speech, then the difference between 
yourself & the authoritarian left is only paper thin.

James

In message <20031201125741.14014.qmail at web10804.mail.yahoo.com>, Sam 
rossiter <ozzysamuk at yahoo.com> writes
>Hello James/all
>
>Your e-mail address is well and truly in the public
>domain- it could be found via bristol.indymedia.org,
>this e-mail list, bristol stop war group or just via
>google
>
>http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&cr=countryUK|countryGB&ie=UTF-8&oe=
>UTF-8&q=james+venables&spell=1r
>
>
>So i'm not sure that you really have a substantial
>complaint about privacy, It was maybe thoughtless for
>crash to include it in a e-mail, but given the already
>public nature of that information I cannot see it as a
>'substantial' complaint.
>
>I can see that it's probably irritating and a polite
>e-mail to this list would probably have elicited a
>apology for that.
>
>However look at the kind of language that you use
>James:
>
>"> & I demand an immediate apology from
>crash at subsection.org.uk, or
>> the suspension of
>> his/her IMC access codes while this abuse is
>> addressed. "but I  will not tolerate a clumsy
>infringement of my right
>> to privacy,"  "& will therefore in absolutely no way
>> shape or form agree at any level"
>
>It's all demands and how there is no room for
>comprimise, It is hardly an approcah that can fail to
>raise hackles- but why take this approch?
>
>As you acknowledge we tread a fine line between
>freedom of speech and maintaining a useful newsource:
>
>  "As you all know I
>> have made complaints before on issues of baiting"
>
>If you accept that 'baiting' or deliberately setting
>out for an arguement is inappropriate behavior then i
>dont see why you have taken such an issue when crash
>has sent you a perfectly polite and appropriate e-mail
>(addmittedly thoughtlessly leaving in your e-mail
>address on Jographers copy) asking you to consider
>what you have written.
>
>We are trying to broaden the appeal of the site - and
>this cannot happen when people do not respect the
>freedoms that the software grants-
>
>Sam
>
>
>
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
>http://companion.yahoo.com/
>
>--
>This email has been verified as Virus free
>Virus Protection and more available at http://www.plus.net
>

-- 
James Venables