community-based, non-corporate, participatory media
Protest Assault on your rights of free speech and privacy
by Ewan Kenkesmearse
Friday, May. 16, 2003 at 9:06 AM
<span style="color:#cc0000;">Most readers will be aware that this story is unsubstantiated and untrue. Please refer to IMC Pittsburgh editorial guidelines for reference: <a href="http://indypgh.org/process/openpub.php#ed">http://indypgh.org/process/openpub.php#ed</a> This site is not a "bulletin board," it is a newswire, and posts here are subject to be legitimately removed for a variety of reasons. -IMC Editorial</span><br><br> Your rights of free speech and free expression are being attacked by IndyMedia. The arbitrary application of fluid editorial standards by the IMC editorial collective is an unjust assault on your rights and a violation of IMC's own policies and statements on privacy and access.
IndyMedia actively censors the voice of opposition to its favored viewpoints on its website. IndyMedia has taken an active role in blocking the views and voices of persons who post statements which IndyMedia does not believe support IMC's preferred political and social viewpoints. In doing so, IMC has violated its own policies on privacy and access. IndyMedia�s malleable definition of �spam� appears to include only those posts which it disagrees with, rather than postings of the �attack� type normally associated with spamming or of the type which is promoted by IMC and other posters at this site against other website operators with the use of �peacetool� and �wartool� software programs. Notably, the use of �peacetool and wartool could be legally actionable conduct, yet it is actively promoted at the IMC site.
By its conduct, IMC has also stepped up its involvement in the discourse on this site from that of a mere passive bulletin board to one of active publisher with involvement in content. This increases IMC's potential for liability to persons harmed by the activities at the IMC site (including liability for slanderous and libelous statements posted on this site). IMC�s conduct as an active participant or moderator in the �open� discussion at this site also exposes IMC to potential criminal liability for criminal conduct which may be facilitated through this site. For example, if �diverse tactics� at a protest are coordinated on these pages, and such �diverse tactics� result in criminal conduct, then IMC could become a co-conspirator in the criminal activity. This is not a novel legal concept, and has resulted in legal liability against other websites where the site operator has been involved in the acceptance, editing, or editorial oversight of the content on its site.
IMC and its editorial board profess to promote free and open discourse, but the actions of the editorial board do not evidence a commitment to this purpose. Clearly, IMC is not a fan of free speech or open discussion. It seems that any views expressed which IMC determines do not fit with its own political views, which might challenge IMC's political views or those of posters at this site, or which may be deemed "offensive" to the delicate sensitivities of IMC's chosen few, are cause for censorship. Notably, IMC�s editorial involvement clearly goes beyond hiding or censoring posts which are racially, ethnically or inherently offensive. It is only those posts which might be offensive to an alternative point of view which appear to obtain the editorial ire of IMC. Thus, IMC is exercising editorial control over the content and discussion on this site, which means that the site is anything but an �open� discussion board.
IMC does not apply these standards and practices uniformly. Certain posters at this site are permitted latitude to use language and conduct which would have posters voicing a less "leftist" view banned from the site. Where the favored posters are allowed to post a rather vile picture of a large naked man at a computer, other less favored posters would be denied their right to voice their ideas or opinions for far less offensive postings. Voicing an alternative to the leftist refuse common to the IMC pages is not �spamming,� it is merely part of �open� discussion. But clearly, IMC and its supporters are afraid of �open� discussion, since this would erode IMC�s hold on the monolithic ideology of its sheep-like supporters.
IMC has stated a policy of not tracking internet access, but this is not true. IMC does actively track this information and uses it against those that IMC finds �undesirable� to the leftist party guest list. What is more troubling is that IMC's conduct of tracking internet access gives IMC the exceptional opportunity to abuse that information. IMC's proces of denying access involves tracking tools and invasive tecniques which we would all be up in arms about if such conduct were undertaken by the government or some corproations. Once denied the opportunity to speak at IMC, it is peculiar that the affected poster should then become the subject of an assault on their own internet account. Is IMC sharing this information with others who undertake such activities as those that the posters of the naked fat man at the computer urge all to undertake against various websites that IMC and others might find ideologically objectionable? Or is IMC undertaking this electronic espionage on its own?
What is IMC afraid of? Are the ideas of those that voice an alternative to the typical diet of inch-deep leftist analysis and diatribe at this site so threatening to IMC's existence that IMC must act in contradiction of its own stated principles and written policies. IMC's conduct offends the expectation of privacy that visitors to this site should be afforded and led to believe would be respected by virtue of IMC's own policies. Everyone, even those that voice a different opinion than you, should not have to be subject to IMC's assault on civil liberties.
Regardless, IMC's conduct is disappointing and should be offensive to anyone who values the rights of free speech, open discourse and privacy. Even Faux News and Bill O'Reilly do not exercise this offensive level of censorship of opposing viewpoints. All that IMC accomplishes with this conduct is to prove that IMC and its supporters are hypocrites who are afraid (yes, shivering and frightened like kittens in a storm) of the ideas of opposition that challenge their poorly thought, but tightly held, views of the world. You may say that you support our rights to free speech and to voice ideas with which you disagree, but you are lying to yourselves and the world. You are truly afraid of the enlightenment that comes with our voices, our vision, our ideas.
Has IMC learned NOTHING from the great S.Odamninsane Day of Healing and Reflection ???
Please join in an indefinite protest of these IMC practices and support a return to free and open discourse by posting frequently on this string and others at this site your own voice in opposition of IMC�s practices. We must continue the struggle to have IMC lift the iron fist of oppression from our keyboards and remove the probing eye of illicit surveillance form our web-access. We will not stop until ALL persons affected by IMC�s arbitrary exercise of its authority are once again free to post at the IMC website. IMC MUST STOP ITS TYRANNY !!!
Back to your TV
by -
Friday, May. 16, 2003 at 9:33 AM
You have a dozen cable news stations, thousands of newspapers and magazines, and millions of party-line websites. Why isn't that enough? You don't hear me complaining that FAUX won't give me a show.
I'm lost
by -
Friday, May. 16, 2003 at 10:50 AM
A little more background on the objectionable posts, please, and the cyber-warfare or whatever.
Unlike most of the trolls who defecate here, you seem to put some thought and effort into your postings, so I can see why you'd take exception to your work being deleted or hidden. The best advice I can come up with is to join the editorial collective to try and steer things in a more personally agreeable direction.
I too have been a 'victim' of consensus based censorship. During the spat with the frat boys, I copied and pasted their phone numbers from a publicly accessible web page, and it was deleted pending committee deciscion. I posted a link to the same page. Life goes on.
The corporate media in its role as fourth branch of government is to blame for many of the world's ills, with the use of official press releases as news and staged incidents such as the Jessica Lynch affair, and the toppling of the Saddam statue.
So what if Faux News Doesn't Give you a Show
by Bob Rosh
Friday, May. 16, 2003 at 11:00 AM
brosh@aol.com
Faux News is a private commercial publishing group. We all know that they don't and wont give any of us a show or publish our views. Faux News exercises editorial control and we expect that. IMC holds itself out as a forum for open discussion and not a private news organization. It is supposed to be news by the people of the community. Not just news by people with certain beliefs in the community. That would be counter to the purpose and sense of community that we want to create.
IMC also has a policy of privacy and respect. If what the person who started this article is describing is true it is very disturbing. I remember on one of these discussions that someone asked IMC to track the IP's of persons that were expressing a view contrary to the more popular view or who were just plain heckling, and IMC responded that IMC did not do this and would not do such things. I beleive IMC also said that they did not have the ability to do that.
What bothers me more is that IMC posts were recently used at the trial of the peole arrested at the downtown protest. If IMC tracks the IP and logons of contributors so that IMC can exclude them from the site, then IMC has information about the contributors which law enforcement would be able to subpeona. I think it would be best if IMC were able to say that they don't track this information. But if IMC is using it to idenitify contributors for IMC's purposes, then IMC could be required to give that information over to law enforcement. This is one of the reasons that a lot of contributors prefer to remain anonymous. If I post something at Faux News I can expect them to come after me if they don't like it (like they did a couple of years ago to some guy who was sending in comments that Sean Hannity didn't like). But I don't expect to be censored or excluded for anything I say at IMC.
what?
by me
Saturday, May. 17, 2003 at 9:03 PM
It is definately unfair if Indymedia hides and deletes posts, but I see both sides of an argument when I read the posts.
Matter of fact, I think about half of the people who post are posting to argue, but that's okay. Let them eat cake. I want to read all sides.
What is right !
by you
Saturday, May. 17, 2003 at 9:20 PM
Yeah, there is a lot of shit on this site form both sides. Some freepers show up and post shit. Some regulars here post shit. Some people attack the left and some are attacking the right. And then, in and amongst it all, there are actaully some good points being made by both sides. As is always the case, intelligent people can read through the bullshit and adolescent crap and see hte good arguments and opinions on both sides. That is what IMC is supposed to provide. I really don't think IMC should be censoring or hiding anyone's posts. We are not children out here. We can determine the difference between BS and valid argument. IMC does not need to protect us. But as some of the posters here have said, maybe IMC is trying to protect itself if it is doing these things. I would be really upset if what the person that started this article is saying is true. I would like to hear more from that person .. AND from IMC.
Another Voice
by N.N.F.F.O.S.O.R.
Sunday, May. 18, 2003 at 8:59 PM
I too have seen IMC's editorial abuses. IMC actively screens the posts on this website. IMC can not say that it has no oversight in the content of the posting at this site. IMC allows postings that it find acceptable to stay, while removing posts and even blocking some individuals from contributing to the IMC website. This is crap. IMC DOES NOT support the values that it says it does. Hey "Editors"...not everyone shares your EXACT view of the world, so wake up and come out of junior high school. This is not the school newspaper.
So true !
by .....n.n.f.f.o.r.o.s--2......
Monday, May. 19, 2003 at 4:21 AM
I've got to agree with Ewan here. There is no doubt that PGH-IMC censors posts that are critical of their views. Case in point... During the time that the Rich Mackin debate was commanding three strings of comments on IMC boards, numerous comments were selectively deleted from the strings. I know because I logged on and was able to read them one day, and the next day they were gone. Since then, I have noticed PGH-IMC becoming more active in the censorship of comments that criticize or question the "accepted viewpoint" of the IMC collective. Photos of barenaked "freepers" are allowed to stay on the boards, but the posts that inspired the "freeper" response have strangely disappeared. Several comments that were posted in critique of the tactics of the critical mass ride were also summarily deleted. After hearing previous rumors of IP "tracking" and e-mail "attacks" against those critical of IMC, hearing Ewan describe such actions lends some credibility to those complaints.
It must be certainly clear that PGH-IMC is NOT a place of freedom or privacy. That these actions fly in the face of PGH-IMC's own policies seems to matter little to the members of the "collective" who actively suppress views that differ from their own.
disturbing
by .............
Monday, May. 19, 2003 at 4:44 AM
Mr. Kenkesmearse has commented on some of the things I have seen at IMC/Pgh. Most distrubing is the tracking of ISP numbers which IMC does to prevent postings that are critical of their views. Sounds like a John Ashcroft techinique to me. Especially if those numbers are used by collective members to attack personal website or e-mails. Such tactics are deplorable for an organization that rests ALL of it's credibility on the unfettered, free exchange of ideas.
highly misleading.
by IMC editor
Monday, May. 19, 2003 at 11:52 AM
Unlike virtually all other websites on the Internet, the IMC does not log IP addresses of website visitors. This post, and the many comments clearly posted by one immature person, is a very poor attempt to spread misinformation.
The IMC editorial collective does take action against spammers and other abusers of the web site. Our purpose is not to give a personal messageboard for a certain immature racist and sexist poster who poses as many seperate people in an attempt to disrupt the IMC. If people want to get move involved in IMC descisionmaking, express concerns, or to "Protest Assault on your rights of free speech and privacy", they are invited to attend IMC meetings or correspond with the editorial collective at imc-pgh-editorial@indypgh.org
thank you.
indypgh.org/process/openpub.php
Super Wow!
by you'regonnahidethisanyway!
Wednesday, May. 21, 2003 at 2:18 PM
Wow ! The vigorous efforts of PGH/IMC to discredit Ewan Kenkesmearse as "unsubstantiated" and "untrue" reveal a great deal about the true nature of IMC censorship. Look guys, let me clue you in on something...half the crap that is posted as news on this site is unsubstantiated. Examples? You guys have posted stories that claim the holocaust never happened! Now you've got a post up that claims Stalin was a "good natured country peasant." What's next? An article entitled, "Hitler: Misunderstood Man Of The People?"
You're just pissed 'cause Kenkesmearse is RIGHT! That's why you busted out the bright red font to discredit him! That's why you hide the posts of his supporters with similar claims.
You guys HATE it when the truth crashes your little party, and your spiteful childishness is showing!!
spiteful childishness?
by Michael
Wednesday, May. 21, 2003 at 8:00 PM
I am sure that IMC readers are perfectly able to identify spiteful childishness when they see it. Please understand that in an ideal world, where IMC Editorial Collective members had unlimited time to maintain this community resource, that more patently false stories would be prepended with a disclaimer. In this case, it was viewed as particularly necessary, as the efforts of misleading posters are designed to cripple this valuable information source.
free speech my butt !
by n.n.f.f.o.r.o.s
Thursday, May. 22, 2003 at 4:47 PM
To dismiss Kenkemearses concerns as "patently untrue" and to characterize supporting posters as "misleading," is grossly unfair to the people who use this site. Attaching bold red disclaimers to those who are critical of IMC is an overkill attempt at DISCREDITING people with genuine concerns about the censoring of free speech. Your thinly veiled propaganda is not going unnoticed! You accuse people of trying to disrupt the flow of information, but IMC editors are the guilty ones here. When you fear the free exchange of ideas, and censor ideas you don't agree with--you have failed yourselves and the users of this site. You might as well hang with the Christian Coalition and burn some books! IMC eds must dig down deep and find the courage to let contrary posts stand as posted! The autonomous observers of media are then free to use the information as they see fit. Free to decide for themselves if posts are reasonable or misleading. The numerous deletions and hidings of unpopular comments gives PGH/IMC a HUGE black eye and raises serious questions about the credibilty of this site. What does it matter if some idiot wants to make a offhand comment? Keep it posted! Let your audience comment or ignore. Be brave enough to let free ideas stand or fall on their own merit.
rage, rage...
by Michael
Thursday, May. 22, 2003 at 7:26 PM
It's hard to claim gross unfairness while at the same time accusing the IMC Editorial Collective of fearing a free exchange of ideas. I understand the legitmate concerns of IndyPgh users about censorship, and I share those concerns. The IMC Editorial Committee attempts to follow the published editorial guidelines without stifling discussion. Please read my post at the following link for more detail. > definition of censorship Thanks for supporting the IMC!
![[masthead]](/images/masthead_140.png)