PGHIMC - Pittsburgh Independent Media Center

IMC Attacks On Free Speech - SUBSTANTIATED
by Ewan Kenkesmearse Sunday, May. 25, 2003 at 8:46 AM

IMC has been referring to my claims of censorship and IMC's intrusive tracking of IMC users as nothing more than lies without substantiation. Yet, IMC has continued to actively preclude me from responding to those claims. Below is further information on my claims.

It has been over a week since I first posted regarding the issue of censorship. However, I have read the responses and interest and support that my postings have received. I noticed that someone even tried to post my original post a couple more times, but it was removed by IMC. I assure you this was not me trying to re-post my statement. How can I give this assurance? Because IMC�s tactics of dealing with dissenters has kept me from contributing to this discussion.

Yes, even though IMC�s �editors� have expended great efforts to discredit me, to call me a liar, to try to make each of you believe that I am an isolated case even though many other people have posted relating similar concerns, I have not been allowed (by the dictate of the �collective�) to post anything at this site. Even though the IMC �editors� have posted large red policy statements above my posts and those of others challenging the veracity of our claims, the same �editors� have actively prohibited me from refuting their slanderous assertion. IMC says that my claims are �untrue� and �unsubstantiated� but they will not allow me the right to provide the substantiation that they know exists. So let me offer some more detail on how your rights are being attacked by IMC, how IMC violates its own policies, how the �editorial collective� arbitrarily applies its �standards� and how the �collective� is exposing IMC and each of the discussion participants to potential legal harm.

THE BACKGROUND

A couple of weeks ago I was reading and posting to IMC. I usually do this where I have access to the Internet at work. I do not always post views that could be called part of the �majority� at this site, but I thought that dissent was what this site was about. If I recall correctly, I had posted something that was contrary to the typical leftist mantra of a particular string. However, this posting was not abusive, racist or otherwise patently offensive, it was only counter to the general discussion. About three hours later after lunch I logged back onto IMC and wanted to comment on the Phelps protest (which since Mr. R. was a friend, I was supporting, but again not in the manner proposed by some of the more radical posters). I was not permitted to post and received a message that said I was precluded from posting for �spamming.�

Spamming !!! What the hell was that. So I did some leg work and found that the IMC policies permit them to exclude persons who repeatedly �attack� the IMC site, but nothing about what exactly they consider spamming to be. I guess that spamming means anyone that they don�t like. If you want to read some discussion among the editors about �spamming� during this time period go to http://howard.indypgh.org/pipermail/imc-pgh-editorial/2003-May/subject.html. Granted, some of the people that they refer to in their discussion may be posting strong views, and even poking fun at other posters, but I do not see any reason to call this spamming. If IMC is a free and open discussion then let the discussion rage on. We are all adults and don�t need IMC to tell us when someone is being a lout. We also don�t want IMC making that decision for us.

I tried to comment on the IMC site several times that day. But some how they had identified me and were able to preclude my from commenting. Since I use a lap top computer I was able to try logging on from someplace away from work to see if this changed anything. It did not. Whether I accessed IMC from Starbucks, home, or through a dial-up I was locked out and got the same message. IMC could not have tagged my particular computer without identifying me. (Wait, it gets worse.)

The very next day I began receiving several emails that I thought were spam (from the URL of the email). This was several more than I had ever received in the past. I also received an email that I thought was not spam. It contained a virus. I was able to shut down before too much damage was done. When I had my company�s IT staff try to fix the problem, they told me that they had been busy that morning with an attack on our server, but I was the only person at the company that received the virus email. That was too much coincidence for my tastes. First I was identified and excluded at the IMC site, and then almost immediately this happened.

THE SUBSTANTIATION

First of all, IMC tagged my PC. To do this IMC had to be logging, tracking, or otherwise watching IP addresses. I have only been able to comment on the IMC site when I can get access to another PC. Also, since my laptop belongs to my employer, I am wondering what IMC may have done that is going to cause other issues with IP access and possibly get me in trouble with my employer.

IMC has developed some method of excluding persons that IMC does not want to have you hear from on this site. IMC does not want you to know about this and does not discuss this process on its policy pages. You will need to review the discussion of how this process should be implemented as it appears in an editorial collective discussion. You should be interested in the fact that the editors specifically did not want to discuss this process further in the online discussion. Please take a look here: http://howard.indypgh.org/pipermail/imc-pgh-editorial/2003-May/000699.html and here; http://howard.indypgh.org/pipermail/imc-pgh-editorial/2003-May/000700.html and here - http://howard.indypgh.org/pipermail/imc-pgh-editorial/2003-May/000701.html and here -http://howard.indypgh.org/pipermail/imc-pgh-editorial/2003-May/000702.html - http://howard.indypgh.org/pipermail/imc-pgh-editorial/2003-May/000703.html.

In all of this, it is interesting that one of the members of the �editorial� collective had this to say about the �secret� tactics which IMC intends to use against others such as myself:

�My biggest concern is that some public resource would be blocked. It would be bad if the CPL system were blocked or something. Is this possible under the proposed secret ;-) system?�

THE REQUEST

I would request that IMC post big red apologies over each of my postings at this site.

THE PROBLEMS

IMC�s credibility is seriously tarnished with these actions. IMC is squelching the voice of dissent and the voice of opposition to its own views. I certainly hope that this is not the only way IMC believes that its favored political ideologies can survive, if IMC keeps all attacks of these ideas hidden away. Let this site be free and open as you say it is.

By this conduct IMC has said that some ideas are more important than others, some ideas are better than others, and some ideas are more dangerous than others. Is that really IMC�s decision to make for us all. And IMC is oblivious to the hypocrisy and danger that it has created. In fact, IMC or others posting in support of IMC have stated that they believe the �undesirable� voices on this site are only from a couple of (obviously very busy) posters. This line of rationalization appears on the news strings and in the editorial board discussion postings.

What is worse is that now that IMC has demonstrated that IMC can identify the users of its site and that it does in fact identify the users of its site, the IP�s of IMC posters is obtainable by law enforcement. So it is possible that rather than just using the postings of an IMC participant who openly identifies himself at a trial, the FBI or the DA could obtain the logs of IMC. Just think how angry we would all be if the FBI tried to get the names of the books we bought at our favorite bookstore (as they did from Kramer Books in D.C. during the Monica Lewinsky fracas). But we are not outraged when IMC does this for the purpose of taking action directly against a participant in the �free� and �open� discussion here. When we each log on here we have an expectation of anonminity and privacy that IMC has told us they would respect. IMC has not lived up to this promise.

And the legal problems don�t end there. Since IMC is actively overseeing the discussion and content posted to its site, IMC is now a publisher and not just a passive vehicle for distribution of content. This distinction is important because now IMC can have legal liability for the material posted at this site. For example, regardless of what you may think about the whole Rich Mackin discussion, some of the postings could clearly be legally actionable by Rich Mackin if he chose to pursue a claim for slander and libel. IMC is a potential defendant in that action because of the level of editorial control it exercises here and the fact that it did not censor the potentially slanderous statements or exclude the slandering posters.

Similar legal actions could arise for other activities discussed at this site. For example, the marchers that engage in acts of civil disobedience that are illegal could be prosecuted for such actions. If IMC allowed discussion and planning of those actions to occur on this site then IMC is potentially criminally liable as a participant in the conduct. This was a favorite tactic of the feds against the right wing militia types. I bet no one here thought that was a problem when the law was used against the website that facilitated criminal actions to plot to blow up abortion clinics, to deny a woman access to a clinic, or to tell some lunatic how to make a fertilizer bomb. But you should have problem with it when IMC is walking itself and each of us into this risky world of all things Patriot Act.

THE CONCLUSION

IMC should stop its arbitrary, senseless and reckless conduct of stifling dissent, opposition or the free and open exchange of ideas and debate. IMC should immediately undo the intrusive exclusion of all participants which it subjected to its �secret� policy and technical sabotage. IMC should acknowledge that it has not disclosed the IP�s or ID�s of any users who were subject to the �secret� editorial punishment. IMC should develop clear and unambiguous editorial policies. IMC should allow for open debate on this site to discuss the appropriate and unambiguous policies regarding the hiding of posts. IMC should add a clear link on each page (at the side with the policy links) to all hidden posts and offer reasons for the hiding of the posting. IMC should have an open comment string available at each hidden post allowing users of this site to voice their objections to the application of the editorial policy as to any post.

add your comments