well, mr anonymous contributor (or is it ayouze? - these postings seem to be funnily linked): you have nicely laid bare the weaknesses of what imcuk tried to achieve with the ongoing editorial policy.

pity only that you think you need defamatory language for this, and that you have hijacked the open posting system instead of asking the collective at least ONCE directly. i know this as i am one of the imcuk'ers, even though i'm writing this on personal terms. your hijacking of the wire is EXACTLY the reason why i personally think editing the wire is important. i'm definitely not interested in your way of dealing with this whole censorship issue. it seems that you are now bombarding the wire with tests to see where imcuk ideologically stands. i can't formulate a policy for imcuk and i'm not even interested in it. i am more interested in a 'life' report of an action than in endless ideological rants about how bad capitalism is. concerning your paranoia with imcuk'ers being in the swp, or at least blairistas (i didn't really understand from your postings what you actually think is worse): i can assure you that in the imcuk group i don't know of a single person who has any party book, and neither sympathies for any of these crap organisations.

but it seems you are successful in your tactics of forcing us to accept your monologues - i personally think your postings should stay as long as we haven't got a discussion forum yet on the site, even if i think that your methods are revolting. but not everybody in our collective agrees with this - the imcuk group is a far more fluid collective than you think. we are in discussions, and nothing is final here.

i have to admit that in our aim to focus on reports we haven't provided you with an alternative to discuss, and we have been inconsistent in how things were formulated on the site. i wish we had an open posting system for discussions as well: then we could easier argue to have the other wire focussed on reports.

similarly, it was probably an error to remove the link to the story admin page, browse to  http://uk.indymedia.org/display.php3?led=y. the link is restored now (don't panic yet, it's not just in this posting but prominently in the 'editorial guidelines'.) the reason was that the majority of us thought it was a possible security risk, and we removed it without realising that we robbed ourselves of a great level of transparency. the email group we set up doesn't really work, true. but i still think we should in the end come up with a page where everybody can see at a glance what has been removed from the top level, without seeing a password field.

but i DO think that it's OK to remove postings. why should the 'blair's third way' posting appear on the prague and the belgian site? o my god, yeah, because lots of reformists on the continent see in this crypto-thatcherite a figure to follow. i agree. but why then not actually posting an item which makes that issue more country-specific? i think the main reason that this happened is mr ayouze's frustration. i honestly think that postings should have some regional or local context. similarly: why should a smokey bear picnic APPEAL for 13 august be posted on the atlanta site ON 13 august? I think that's crap, and an abuse of the trust the indymedia's have by opening a lot of sites for open posting.

in disgust,

andi

This is an improvement on your previous position. But not much. The words are there but the spirit is absent.
I had no hesitation in being a 'crybaby' [as one of your chums put it] when i saw that certain pieces were vanishing from the site. At first it seeemed like clumsiness, then censorship and frankly then like a wholesale liquidation. To remove this many articles deserves a Stalin Prize Second Class in Creati ve Editing. Both myself and my friends went to bed with a nagging feeling; we were sure that these articles had existed at one time, but now they seem never to have existed at all. That is, yes, ORWELLIAN and having become accustomed to the open debate to be found on the Mayday USA site, your p;olicy is certainly to be condemned. I think you had better ask them about how to go about it.
How naive can you be, to set up an INDEPENDENT website and then cut it to pieces, just because it doesnt quite fit with what you would like to see ? You might do better to set up your own site, where you can post piccies of the Queen Mother if you so wish !. Free speech is too important to be left to mere protocols, and if you dont like the content of what ive written, there's nothing in these pieces that is precluded under general left thinking. You can always slip in a quick [ editor does not agree] if its so bloody important to have everyone agree with you. I wrote these articles for the international readership, not you in partic. Perhaps its you who needs to grow up ?
What is 'free speech' ? Have you a clue ? As Orwell said [and he should know] it is the right to expression, to organize, criticize and oppose.
Unfortunately, you've dicredited yourselves, and i cant imagine how you can repair the damage. Thats not my problem. Sorry.

Hello. I'm actually the person who called you a crybaby. And let me make it clear. I HAVE NO AFFILIATION WITH THE IMC. I'm just a reader, who occasionally posts.

You're absolutely unbeleivable. You seem unable to relate to other people in any kind of constructive manner, and you just don't seem to grasp what people say to you.

I don't now why you keep insisting that IMC has some sort of solid editorial position, even after Andi has told you otherwise.

I personally think the IMC has had a lot of patience with you, considering how rude and vitriolic you've been.

If you're so concerned about your articles disappearing, and not being preserved for time immemorial, then don't post them to a newswire!! Post the to a site that archives essays. Or better yet, create your own website.

I get sick of hearing people (such as yourself) complain about how IMC doesn't support free speech. You seem to think you know a lot about George Orwell, but you seem to know very little about the concept of free speech. Free speech implies that no one curtails your right to say something. That does not mean that people are obliged to help you disseminate your message. Your right to free speech is dependant on you to go and spread your message. Just because someone doesn't want to help you doesn't mean they're resticting your speech.

Perhaps you've noticed that IMC has particular goals they want to accomplish with this website. It makes sense to have editorial guidlines to facilitate those goals. The sites weren't designed to be bulletin boards for every topic under the sun. That would be ridiculous and unproductive. If you don't like the topics that are discussed here, you are free to create a website that covers your particular interests.

In the meantime, you should appreciate the fact that the IMC people are donating their time an energy to a project such as this.

All we're doing now is to tie up a few points of debate concerning the matter in question.
Strangely, you purport to be entirely independent from the IMC editorial board [ just like ourselves] and yet in your impassioned plea you seem to be fully in support of the policy thereof. 'Quite right too, Sir !' you seem to be calling from the floor of the hustings. Presumably you havent had any of your items 'removed' , and indeed, nor would we want them to be. Yet you seem presumptiously prepared to admonish ['crybaby ' &c] and even issue cautions ['IMC have been very patient'], oddly enough, the kind of talk that wouldnt be out of place in a Commons Select Committee, not a website devoted to free speech.
Anyway, there is more to censorship than the blatant variety you mention. The more subtle kind is precisely to be found in the myriad places where the wrong ideas are simply not disseminated. Until the arrival of mass communication, bigots would openly retort 'Go to Hyde Park and tell it there', of course, if you're not shouted down by masses of American tourists. I never said that there should be NO policy on IMC stories, merely that it should cater for as broad a range of democratic leftists as possible, and which I honestly assumed would include the kind of things we were writing.
Its not as if IMC Uk has been inundated with items. We feel that there is always room for debate, even if the site wants to carry predominatly activist reports, the odd piece of analysis can only help to clarify our ideas. We must be on our guard for the next moves that the Labour party will make, including new ideological developments and new military action. Were you dismayed in 1999 at how readily party members fell in to support NATO ? Well, then, you must ask youself WHY THIS SHOULD BE ! Nothing simply happens; deep motives underlie all human activity, particularly in the political field: 'Anthropon Estinai Zon Politikon' after all.

of all the Indy sites available, this one does seem to be a bit, well, 'different', rather a lot of strictures involved. i must \say i dont fee comfortable with it.

This was posted to the latest news newswire - it follows on from the comment above and belongs here, as a comment.
------------------------------------------------------------
Neither side of the debate is tenable !
by Martina 8:10am Fri Sep 1 '00

In the debate on censorship, a fascinating paradox has emerged: neither the position of censorship, or of unrestricted 'free speech' prove to be absolute ideals.
In the circumstances, where one can certainly promulgate one's own message, if one has a printing press, distribution network, and the guarantee to be left alone by the police, but where, in practice, one can never compete with the outpourings of Mills n Boon or Readers Digest, it is important to 'err' on the side of openess.
It seems that the general stance on censorship changed somewhat in 1998. 'Index on Censorship' openly pontificated on whether it should be allowed after all, incidentally, permitting themselves the use of 'hate' words ' that they would condmen in others.. Was it merely coincidence that Labour had recently been returned to power ? But I certainly don't feel comfortable with all these 'guidelines'. Someone seems to want certain ideas kept firmly under control, and that is not healthy for the left, is it ?

add your comments

Hey ! You guys don't mess around telling everyone where to find their proper place, do you !