PGHIMC - Pittsburgh Independent Media Center

On PGH/IMC censorship.
by n.n.f.f.o.r.o.s.--2 Monday, May. 19, 2003 at 7:08 PM

<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 target=_top 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> This response, originally given on a "hidden" post, is re-posted here so EVERYONE can read and decide for themselves. In the cause of true freedom of expression

For backround, please view Ewan Kerkesmerase's post--which was unfairly hidden by IMC editors.

It seems they [Pgh/IMC] would have to keep track of IP's if they are able to determine that one poster is using different names to post. Problem is...somebody down there at the collective is getting hold of these tracking numbers, and making use of them for attacks against private web pages and e-mail accounts. Maybe the editors of the "collective" need to look within their "organization" to find the individuals who are violating their policies.
As for the IMC policy of "hiding" or deleting posts that they find objectional, this policy seems highly arbitrary and unbalanced. For example, a long paranoid screed that insisted that the holocaust never occurred was allowed to stand on this site. That the editors found this babble inoffensive came as quite a surprise. (And probably surprised the families of many holocaust survivors as well !) Such Anti-jewish slander is offensive to many Americans--of all backrounds. But apparently it wasn't quite offensive enough to be hidden or deleted. Contrast this with that fellow who calls himself "two-balls." His critiques of the "Men against Patriarchy" group, though sexist and derogatory towards the "ARA dudes" was far less offensive and stayed on the point of discussion. His views were censored quickly and thoroughly--because they were critical of the collective. So the arbitrary exercise of the "collectives'" editorial "decision" seems to rest on a set of variables that have little to do with the news value of a particular post, and more to do with the particualr predjudices of the "collective" members.
Kenkesmearse is correct in his assertion that this exercise of editorial powers by the IMC can create a number of signifigant problems. First and foremost is the problem of crediblity. If the "collective" continues these practices, how can they then claim that IMC is a place of free private discussion? They can not. When dissenters are silenced, IMC becomes no better than Faux news....IMC's censorship is akin to an O'Reilly "shout down" of opposing viewpoints. Something that any free thinking person must hate, and fight against.
Secondly, by steering the editrial content of the IMC boards, the editors are then issuing "approval" for certain viewpoints that appear on these pages. This could be legally problematic. For example, there have been postings here that give instructions to would be activists on how to bring physical harm to police. (Something that is grossly offensive to most peace loving members of both the "movement" and society at large.) By "approving" the techniques described, and allowing them to remain posted, IMC must assume a level of responsibilty for any actions that arise from such a posting. There could be potential legal ramifications.
Third, the squelching of "unpopular" critiques runs counter to aims of PGH/IMC. All opinions must get a chance to be read and considered for IMC to fulfill it's primary mission. Without the presence of dissenters--no matter how "immature" the "collective" may find them--IMC becomes little more than rooting section for a small group of like minded individuals who tolerate no beliefs but their own. If that is going to be the case, then there is really no reason for IMC to exist--for it does not offer a true, free alternative to mainstream media.
Lastly, if some members of IMC are tracking IP numbers without the full knowledge of the "collective," and using these numbers for personal attacks, IMC must ferret them out and remove them from the process! I would hope that they take visible steps to accomplish this before somebody has their ISP investigate the attacks by back tracking. One angry poster, who enlists the services of a powerful ISP could wreak havoc on IMC. Once one of those providers get involved in an investigation--they won't stop till they find something--then the feds will be involved...etc.etc.
So I strongly urge the PGH/IMC collective to take one of two steps to rectify their current problems...
1.) IMC should reconsider their arbitrary censorship policy and allow ALL unpopular posts to remain as posted. This would be true to IMC's primary aim of a free and uncensored alternative media source, and would allow the viewers of media to DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES what they chose to view and what they chose to comment on.
2.) Or... PGH/IMC should drop the charade of being "free and private" and simply be a news board for those that espouse one particular viewpoint. Establish a platform of beliefs and values and edit this site accordingly and consistently. By abandoning claims of "free" expression--IMC would abandon it's primary mission, but at least it would be an up-front, honest way to deal with the issue.
I hope that these ideas are met with open, thinking minds.

add your comments