PGH IMC -- The Local Left Version of Faux News : Pittsburgh Indymedia

PGH IMC -- The Local Left Version of Faux News
by Ewan Kenkesmearse Sunday, Jun. 08, 2003 at 10:19 AM

The IMC Editorial Collective continues to pursue a biased and self interested policy with respect to the rights and freedoms of participants at this site. IMC's policies of censorship and exclusion continue. The Collective's practices in this regard are arbitrary and abusive. The Collective has made PGH IMC less "fair and balanced" than Faux News. PGH IMC's slogan should be "We Distort. We Deride."

The Editorial Collective�s double secret �precise� and �concise� method of dealing with �spammers� is nothing more than the Collective�s arbitrary application of its authority and ability to deny a member of this community access to what is supposed to be a free and open website for news and discussion. Although the Collective claims that this is a �brilliant� (http://www.indypgh.com/news/2003/05/6759_comment.php#6791 ) solution that only excludes spammers, I have contended that the Collective�s �brilliant� solution goes far beyond that and excludes persons who are not �spammers� (of course, that does depend on how you define �spam�, but we will get to the later). I have also stated that I am none of the �spammers� that IMC intended to exclude from this site ( http://www.indypgh.com/news/2003/05/6734_comment.php#6820 ). And it appears that in the anti-opposition zeal of the Editorial Collective, they succeeded in excluding many many more people from the IMC site than the few �spammers� that they were after.

In addition to specifically targeting my computer with some intrusive technology, the Collective�s �brilliant� techno-death penalty actual hit the internet gateway that I use and excludes everyone who uses that ISP. I have tried to access the IMC site from several PCs that use this gateway, and all of them are similarly excluded. So, in an effort to �precisely� and �justly� eliminate a few undesirables from the IMC site, the Collective has excluded over 1,000 people. That is correct, the indiscriminate nature of this �brilliant� technology has excluded every person that accesses the internet through this gateway. Sounds exactly like the broad brush prejudice that characterizes the �justice� that we so frequently hear of on these pages. Unless you are of the same mind as the chosen few of the IMC Club then you have no right to �justice� or �freedom� that the rest of the chosen few enjoy.

THIS IS A VALID NEWS STORY

The Editorial Collective�s unilateral and abusive exercise of its ability to silence the voice of even one person IS news. It IS the most important news item here. These actions by the Collective diminish the effectiveness of IMC overall and its credibility. Although many people here have been quick to resort to personal insults directed towards me and others who posted in support of me (http://www.indypgh.com/news/2003/05/6634_comment.php#6889 ) or to call me a liar (see the postings by members of the Collective and the bright red label attached to posts on this issue http://www.indypgh.com/news/2003/05/6734_comment.php#6820 , http://www.indypgh.com/news/2003/05/6634_comment.php#6889 ), I have presented supported information to validate my assertions. Yet, the same people that feel your voice should be silenced at their whim only try to ignore and shout down this criticism.

The IMC Editors told us that their exclusionary tactics specifically identified only the �undesirable� element as determined by the Collective. But they were wrong and their mistake is keeping others from posting here. Some people here have expressed a view that it is okay to exclude me and others who would be critical of IMC simply because they are opposed to our views and believe that these views should not be expressed at this open forum. Others say that this is a �newswire� and is not a forum for discussion and debate. But if that is truly the case, then IMC should apply that to all persons here and remove the opportunity to comment on news or have discussion. But wouldn�t that just prove that the political views of the IMC Editorial Collective and Chosen Few cannot always withstand the scrutiny of debate and discussion? Maybe that is what IMC is afraid of.

It seems that the Collective has used the ability to exclude entire ISPs to keep the access to this site the hands of the Chosen Few and to eliminate (or at least minimize) potential for any opposition or critical thought in the oh so sacred consensus process. Or even forget about consensus, how about just letting the discussion and comments reflect some diversity of thought.

IMC�s POLICIES ARE NOT FAIRLY OR UNIFORMLY APPLIED

The Editors and the Chosen Few try to say that it is the �spammers� that are abusive to this site and others here. They try to say that the IMC Collective is acting to exclude people who use �abusive� language or �personal� attacks or �racist� comments. But it seems that if you are one of the Chosen Few you are permitted to use personal and hateful attacks (for example, postings by puhleeeze at the various strings discussing this issue; posts by Wolverine and F#%$ the Yunzer at http://www.indypgh.com/news/2003/05/6803_comment.php#6910 ; comments at http://www.indypgh.com/news/2003/05/6814_comment.php#6857 ; posts by Steve Argue at http://www.indypgh.com/news/2003/05/6580_comment.php#6832 for just a few examples). It seems that if you threaten someone or insult someone but you do so from the favored leftist pulpit of the IMC Collective, then it is just hunky-dory. But if you are critical of anyone or anything on that favored left and do so from the right or middle you are labeled a hater, racist or idiot and should be banished. Banished I guess until you are re-educated.

I first noticed this incredible depth of hypocrisy during the Rich Makin debacle. Not only did the IMC Collective facilitate the (legally actionable) slander and libel of Rich Makin, but they demonstrated that threats of violence and statements of hate from the favored few are squarely within the editorial policy of the IMC. While at the same time any voice of moderation or even cries for an end to the lynch mob mentality were labeled as racists, sexist, ignorant and hateful. My personal favorite was the statements by an Elina (it seems that she may be quoting a Branden in her post) where Rich Makin is called a �rapist� and he is threatened with physical harm to be kept out of the Project 1877 venue http://www.indypgh.com/news/2003/04/4393_comment.php#6601 ). Yet a �spammer� seems to be anyone who posts anything that is even mildly offensive to the (apparently sensitive) views of the Chosen Few. This is the hypocrisy that characterizes the Collective and the modern American Left.

WHAT EXACTLY IS �SPAM�

What is �Spam�? Who is a �spammer�? I have been called a spammer just because I posted this issue on the site. That does not seem fair or right that people should say that I should be excluded because I have posted a critical news item about being excluded. More interesting is the extent to which the Collective will go to convince themselves and others that the protests to IMC�s actions which are contrary to freedom and individual rights are coming only from an isolated one or two people. This is amazing. There have been several postings which support exactly what I am referring to. There are even several other news items devoted to this issue that were posted by persons other than me The only strings started by me are at http://www.indypgh.com/news/2003/05/6572_comment.php#6735 (which had to be re-posted after IMC removed it once) and http://www.indypgh.com/news/2003/05/6734_comment.php#6820 . But there are four other strings started by persons other than me which deal with this issue http://www.indypgh.com/news/2003/05/6759_comment.php#6791 http://www.indypgh.com/news/2003/05/6662_comment.php#6831 http://www.indypgh.com/news/2003/05/6814_comment.php#6857 and http://www.indypgh.com/news/2003/05/6634_comment.php#6889. And this issue is not new and references to the Collectives arbitrary policies of censorship can be found in other discussions. The most notable of these was the discussion started by S. Odamninsane because that person�s postings where removed solely for reasons of voicing objection to the views of the Chosen Few (check out http://www.indypgh.com/news/2003/04/4668.php if you are not familiar with this). The S. Odamninsane protest was probably one of the more effective protests facilitated by these pages, and was undertaken by a person who seemed to be a regular poster that would not be characterized as a �spammer�. Did IMC also banish S.O.?

The Editorial Collective�s cries of �spamming� and �misuse� of the IMC site are laughable. Especially when IMC actively promotes (or allows to be promoted at its site) the use of Wartools and Peacetools for the singular purpose of spamming the websites of those persons or businesses that IMC deems to have political or social views different from those of the Chosen Few. Hypocrisy in action.

THE SEVERAL LEGAL RISKS OF THE EDITORIAL COLLECTIVE�S ACTIONS

Since the Editors have the ability to control the discussion at this site and have demonstrated their willingness (in fact it seems to be policy) to intervene in and even direct the discussion by controlling who may participate, IMC has become a publisher of material and not just a passive vehicle of the voices of others. This is meaningful since IMC then has the liability for the material that it permits to be published at its site. For example, Rich Makin could bring his claims for libel and slander against IMC and each of the persons that made the libelous statements on these pages. IMC would be legally obliged to disclose all information related to these persons which IMC has or can obtain. IMC would have to demonstrate how it was that IMC did not use the authority that it wields to stop dissenters to protect against further harm to Rich Makin (even in light of the several postings warning IMC of its risks). The Rich Makin case would be a plaintiff lawyer�s dream and could threaten IMC with the significant burden of legal costs and a possible judgment.

This same risk carries over when IMC allows criminal conduct (often disguised as �diversity of tactics� ) to be discussed at these pages with the intent that these actions will be undertaken at some protest or march. IMC is a co-conspirator in the criminal conduct. Postings at the IMC page were already successfully used in the prosecution of some of the 122. If only the prosecutors were aware of IMC�s role as a facilitator in the conduct they could have pursued an action directly against IMC and its editors. That too would be a prosecutors dream, complete with headlines and stories in the lawyer press. Think about all the stuff that IMC allows to be posted here and promotes. All of those videos of protesters vandalizing private businesses in Shadyside, the videos of protesters littering the streets with overturned dumpsters, the calls to action to confront people at Starbucks (in the process committing trespass and extortion).
And the same applies to the promotion of the spam software Wartools and Peacetools. This software has only one purpose. It is used only to cause economic harm and electronic sabotage to the private websites of those enterprises deemed �undesirable� by the Chosen Few. In some cases these websites are political. In which case it appears that IMC and the promoters of this software are working in coordination to deny the lawful legal rights of others to express their political views.

All IMC needs is for Starbucks or some other business (maybe some business that is the victim of Wartools) to get serious and demand that IMC be prosecuted. With its new policies of excluding persons who voice opposition to the favored political views of IMC, the Editorial Collective has given up its legal defense that it does not control the content and postings of private individuals at its site.

Another very important risk is that the Collective has put the tax exempt status of IMC at risk. That�s right, PGH IMC is a federally tax exempt organization (http://indypgh.org/process/wishlist/ ). For all that IMC and others here profess to hate the government and wish for anarchy, it is good to see that they are not to proud to accept a good government subsidy when they see one (but that is a news item for another day). However, one of the conditions of being a tax exempt organization is that the organization conduct itself in a proper manner, which includes that it does not discriminate against anyone for any reason, including for their political views or their exercise of their first amendment rights. And the conduct of the IMC Collective is infringing upon the free speech rights of many people including me and others that have been victim of the imprecise �technically brilliant� electronic muzzle of the Collective.

Some people here have tried to say that IMC has no obligation to allow anyone to speak here. They are wrong. IMC is not a private organization such as Faux News. IMC can not arbitrarily exclude the opinions of those it finds undesirable. If anyone truly had it in for IMC they could very easily challenge the tax exempt status of the organization. Or the government could do so on its own because of the actions of the Collective.

IMC ACT NOW

IMC should protect itself and regain its credibility. IMC should immediately stop using the Double Secret Techno Death Penalty and remove its effects from the IMC site. This would return the IMC site to the people. Return it to the open community at large. It would demonstrate that IMC is not afraid of dissent. It would demonstrate that IMC is not going to tolerate the hypocrisy of the left.

It would demonstrate that IMC is truly more �Fair and Balanced� than Faux News.

PGHIMC - Pittsburgh Independent Media Center