Free speech and criticism
- This topic has 54 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Is free speech and criticism restricted to the bourgeoisie? Within capitalist parties members are free to question the people in positions of power, yet it seems to me that the spgb restricts this right with the absurd assertion that it would question the integrity of a member.
Clearly this is why Vin has been banned because he believes that some members of the internet committee are corrupt and using their technical knowledge to subvert the democratic procedures of the party.
What chance of democracy when such members are silenced by the very people he seeks to expose?
alanjjohnstone wrote:Shouldn't this be in another part of the forum, reserved for internal discussion of the WSM.Most members I'm in contact with are absolutely sick to the back teeth with this relentless paranoia and just want to get on with propagating socialist ideas. I know every individual member of the Internet Committee and have every confidence in them.
No one has 'positions of power' in the party, as there are none.
Clearly the "forum" is contributing to the ongoing death of the SPGB. In fact if anything the forum is hastening the demise…
Ozymandias wrote:Clearly the "forum" is contributing to the ongoing death of the SPGB. In fact if anything the forum is hastening the demise…If the forum is contributing to the death of the SPGB that merely proves the case against it.
As far as paranoia is concerned, you may alter your opinion if you were warned and expelled for petty misdemeaners that everyone is guilty of.
Matt wrote:No one has 'positions of power' in the party, as there are none.The evidence of the use of power is there.Internet Committee prevented branch and individual on line activityExecutive Committee ignored branch nominations to appoint their own members on those committees.
Nonsense. The individual deliberately set out to fall foul of guidelines everyone else respects.The individual had no concern for others, in his branch, or on the forum, or in the party.A branch member remonstrated with him prior to the event of suspension on this forum.To the effect ."Are you really going to set out to be suspended".EC decisions are accountable to the members via the branches.
Matt wrote:Nonsense. The individual deliberately set out to fall foul of guidelines everyone else respects.The individual had no concern for others, in his branch, or on the forum, or in the party.A branch member remonstrated with him prior to the event of suspension on this forum.To the effect ."Are you really going to set out to be suspended".EC decisions are accountable to the members via the branches.This is insendiary. You have accused a comrade and I suggest you withdraw your abuse of a hardworking volunteer.You know what the sad thing about all this is? Vin wanted to run a twitter account, make videos and use the forums to promote them.If he had been allowed to do that there would be no problem. back off
It is on the record if you trawl through the Forum. There was never a problem with the 'branch' having a designated twitter feed.
Matt wrote:Nonsense. The individual deliberately set out to fall foul of guidelines everyone else respects.The individual had no concern for others, in his branch, or on the forum, or in the party.A branch member remonstrated with him prior to the event of suspension on this forum.To the effect ."Are you really going to set out to be suspended".EC decisions are accountable to the members via the branches.Matt wrote:It is on the record if you trawl through the Forum. There was never a problem with the 'branch' having a designated twitter feed.We have it on record that the account @worldsocialism was refused. and is still refused and underused unlike the one later opened by Vin and later challenge by the IC https://twitter.com/World_SocialismIs there any hope that this will be left to propagate socialist ideas?
My comment stands. There was never any objection to the 'branch' having a designated Twitter feed.
Matt wrote:My comment stands. There was never any objection to the 'branch' having a designated Twitter feed.Hi MattSorry to contradict you but the following is an extract from the report by the Internet Committee, to the EC re the ongoing dispute about Twitter etc. and is dated 26-03-16"whether or not that account is being operated with the consent or NERB as a whole we urge the EC to take urgent action to enforce Rule 11. As a last resort the IC could file another brand impersonation dispute with Twitter"I am aware that you have probably not seen that report, it has taken our branch a while to get hold of it.YFSTim
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.