~ archived since 2018 ~

Pictures and contact information for Julian Assange Rape Accusers

avoiceformen

December 15, 2010

0 upvotes

/r/MensRights

http://www.avoiceformen.com/2010/12/15/pictures-and-contact-information-for-julian-assange-rape-accusers/

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Post Information

Title	Pictures and contact information for Julian Assange Rape Accusers
Author	avoiceformen
Upvotes	0
Comments	10
Date	December 15, 2010 12:15 AM UTC (15 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/elx60/pictures_and_contact_information_for_julian/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/pictures-and-contact-information-for-julian.1045213 https://theredarchive.com/post/1045213

Comments

[–]kloo2yoo 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]avoiceformen[S] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]kloo2yoo 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]avoiceformen[S] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

I am not seeing it. Here are the only rules that you posted, other than the caution not to insult mods.

The new ban policy follows. Spam will always be removed. Spam is defined as off topic posts (far off topic), solicitations, excessive posting of a single idea to get attention. Spam and spammers will be removed immediately without consultation with each other, and the action will be noted in the mod queue. People who feel they are wrongly banned for this may make their case by sending a message (click on the letter and then Compose) to #MensRights. If you find spam, please send a link of it to the modqueue Revealing personal information about another user will result in an immediate removal of the information and likely of the user. Personal attacks against other commenters and the mods generally do not contribute to conversations, and may result in some kind of disciplinary action. In cases where a mod is involved in the conversation and feels actions is necessary, the mod will put a message in the mod queue and the other mod (who is not involved) will determine whether a ban is warranted. The ban may be temporary, as a way of cooling all parties down, and the user will be messaged as such. IF the issue gets serious enough, and the user continues to berate and insult, and the other mod is not available in a reasonable amount of time, the involved mod will implement a banning and then discuss it with the other mod. In general, we are going to direct any and all mod requests to the mod queue, and suggest users do the same. Messages about moderation sent in private to one mod will be replied with a request to send it to the mod queue (compose a private message to #MensRights rather than to one of our names). Advocacy of child porn cannot be tolerated. It is morally repugnant and socially indefensible. There is room for discussion about the over-reach of certain laws, and controversies, such as the intersection of cp laws and TSA screening of children, but none of us advocates or would want to be seen as advocating the abuse of children for any reason, including sexual gratification, either directly or through the trade of images involving children. Images of pedobear are not welcome here. Report them and they will be removed. If you should ever see cp images posted here, report it directly to law enforcement.

If, since you are not being direct with me about the nature of the violation, the problem is posting personal information, please note that your rules specify personal information about another user

I see no reason to believe that either of these women, who are now newsworthy public figuresin the arena of men's rights since this is a possible false allegation, are users of reddit- men's rights.

If I am mistaken about that please correct me. Or if the nature of my post violates some other clause, please advise.

[–]kloo2yoo 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Firstly, I recognize that you are a frequent, positive contributor to this reddit.

Secondly, you are right when you quote:

that your rules specify personal information about another user

and where you say:

I see no reason to believe that either of these women, who are now newsworthy public figuresin the arena of men's rights since this is a possible false allegation, are users of reddit- men's rights.

This is true; there is no reason to believe that they are /mensrights users. Even so, this is not a precedent that I want to allow. This cannot become a place for naming rape accusers and enlisting an internet army to send them hate mail - or worse - at their home address. If you want to print a judge's office address, that's not a problem. If you want to show that that is their local equivalent to a P.O. box - and thus not where they reside - no problem. But this is almost inviting an internet retard bombadier to do something violent. I'm a big supporter of FRS, who discusses individuals by name, but afaict, they don't print individuals' addresses.

If, since you are not being direct with me about the nature of the violation, the problem is posting personal information, please note that your rules specify personal information about another user

I'll work with Ig on rewording the rules.

[–]avoiceformen[S] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Thank you for the clarification. And I assure you that the moment I am aware of any TOS have changed here, I will comply without question. I respect that this is your house, and I also believe you do a good job running it.

Now that I have that out of the way, let me also respectfully suggest that you could be entering into very questionable grounds. That same information made it to the main reddit last week, generated 50k hits for another blog, and not a problem that I know of was raised by mods. (I know, this is a different reddit, with its own rules.)

But I don't think there is precedent that supports this kind of censorship anywhere else I know of, and for R/Men'sRights to initiate that, especially citing this case as motivation, is a precarious matter of judgment.

It puts you in the position of enforcing de facto rape shield laws, even where such laws are not applicable. And it puts you in the position of refusing to post information, germane to the MRM, that is already available across the net.

I have a fair amount of experience being in similar shoes to yours, and I appreciate that there plenty of arm chair quarterbacking, including this, lol, but I also believe that you are not one just to easily dismiss your readers freedom of posting, without a very well vetted reason.

I am only suggesting that this matter deserves more than a knee jerk reaction and a quick policy change because it bothered you.

Regards,

Paul

[–]kloo2yoo 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

That same information made it to the main reddit last week, generated 50k hits for another blog, and not a problem that I know of was raised by mods. (I know, this is a different reddit, with its own rules.)

I'm aware of that.

But I don't think there is precedent that supports this kind of censorship anywhere else I know of, and for R/Men'sRights to initiate that, especially citing this case as motivation, is a precarious matter of judgment.

Reddit Admins have come out strongly at times in the past (sorry, don't have links though; it was over a year ago) about posting personal addresses. IIRC, now that I think about it, it was kids and their families. Another mod who became very unpopular had her home address published, and was frightened because of it, and may have gotten some irl hatred because of it. I personally cherish my anonymity here, because although most of them know I'm generally antifeminist, I'm not ready to tell some of the women in my life the things I've said here. I also treasure my anonymity because I've also gotten threats.

especially citing this case as motivation, is a precarious matter of judgment.

We've made removals before. One was a copy-paste of the data on your site; another was the malicious embarrassing revelation of someone's dating profile from another site. I recognize that these things can be found, but I don't think it's appropriate here.

It puts you in the position of enforcing de facto rape shield laws, even where such laws are not applicable. And it puts you in the position of refusing to post information, germane to the MRM, that is already available across the net.

It puts me in the position of defending privacy, even if 'defending' only amounts to condemnation of the breach, in this tiny little alcove on the net. The issue pf privacy is independent of the issue of false rape claims.

[–]avoiceformen[S] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]kloo2yoo 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]avoiceformen[S] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Comments

2.