A network of individuals, independent and alternative media activists and organisations, offering grassroots, non-corporate, non-commercial coverage of important social and political issues.

Indymedia

Gev | 14.01.2005 00:35

Indymedia states:
Indymedia UK is a network of individuals, independent and alternative media activists and organisations, offering grassroots, non-corporate, non-commercial coverage of important social and political issues.
However, is it really that?

If Indymedia truly believes that, and if we are truly confident in what we state then can we really allow the banning of posts that take a right-wing view?

I am from the left of the political spectrum (though I think left/right is too simplistic). However, I have always been brought up to think that if I am right (correct) then I can argue my point to the position that those opponents to that view have their real colours exposed.
For instance, if a neo-Nazi party posts something here that is abhorrent (I believe that with the anniversary of Auschwitz being liberated coming sooon then the far right will be bandying about their usual crap), then I believe that what I have to say on it will easily show them up to be ridiculous, stupid and wrong.
I say this because many of the posts I see are not news but more or less promotion from the far left. I have seen praise for the terrorists/freedon fighters/real Iraqis etc (call tem what you wish) that has not been censored but items that are from the righ deleted. OK, so if it is clearly racist then by all means the moderators on here should hide it but this must be applied fairly.

I could go on (yet you probably don't want me to!) but I just think that in the light of the Iraq travesty and other things, INdymedia has left behind its belief in open debate on news issues. I don't sewe this happening all the time but enoughto make me concerned. Either we all support freedon of speech no matter how abhorrent (remember freedom of sppech also has to have peranters but it must be set farly) or we have something that is just a sounding board for the far left.

(will this post be hidden? Wouldn't that be an irony?)

Gev

Comments

Hide the following 12 comments

Not ironic

14.01.2005 02:06

No. If your post was hidden it would not be irony, it would be the implimentation of policy based on published editorial guidelines.

And, personally, I wouldn't bother raising money and investing time and effort into providing a platform for rightwing views as they have enough of their own media thank you.

right on ?

14.01.2005 09:54

have to say I agree with Gev on this, I think!

i didn't think Indymedia was a "platform" for non rightwing views, I had it in my head that it was a forum for any and all in the community to publish and respond to info of interest.

like Gev, I'm quite happy to read and respond to comments by those in my community who i disagree with. In the same way that I don't pander to any particular 'wing' in my own posts.

the idea that Indymedia has to promote a sanitised preconceived idea of what is 'right on' suggests that we are unable to respond to the bigotry most of us oppose. There's also the danger of becoming traditionally 'media' in only covering events from the perspective of one group within society - may as well buy a paper if that's the case.

surely being able to rip a BNP post to shreds and letting it disappear into the archive is preferable to letting them rant elsewhere unchallenged. Personally, I find the views of such groups abhorrent but that doesn't mean i need them hidden from me.

i always assumed the editorial policy would get shot of any poisonous/threatening/abusive threads but i guess i ought to read through the published guidelines - I'd hope there wasn't a ban on misguided, ignorant bigots having their say.

rhedize
mail e-mail: joshstyx@yahoo.com

remove fascist posts

14.01.2005 11:37

You cannot 'rip their views to shreds' as the fascists are bigots and don't listen to argument. If they did then they wouldn't be bigots would they?

The only reasons facsists would come on to indymedia are:
1) To see what we are doing and planning
2) To deliberately disrupt indymedia, one of the left's most useful resources.

That's why they should be banned and sent back to the hole they crawled out of.

No Platform

This is NOT a free speech web site

14.01.2005 12:09

This same kind of thread seems to come up every month or so... perhaps people don't read the Editorial Guidelines?

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/static/editorial.html

This is is not and has never been a free speech web site, quite a lot of crap is hidden, see the view all posts page to find out what or follow the imc-uk-features list to discover why...

IMCer

Read the Editorial Policy

14.01.2005 12:18

Read the editorial guidelines
"Articles and/or comments may be hidden for the following reasons:

* Repeated : content that is reposted or text that was originally a comment posted as a report.
* Non-news : posts which are clearly purely comment, opinion or rants unrelated to a recent event or action etc.
* Discrimination : posts using language, imagery, or other forms of communication promoting racism, fascism, xenophobia, sexism or any other form of discrimination.
* Inaccurate : posts that are inaccurate or misleading.
* Advertising : posts with personal or product promotions.
* Hierarchy : The newswire is designed to generate a news resource, not a notice-board for political parties or any other hierarchically structured organizations.
* Disruptive : Contributions by individuals who habitually publish above mentioned discouraged content. Posts where topical or regional selections disrupts the utility of the sub pages (ie spamming regional and topic selections)."

If you wish to read facist content and posts, go to the BNP's web site, there will be plenty of examples there

lazy_Lob

Except

14.01.2005 13:43

"There's also the danger of becoming traditionally 'media' in only covering events from the perspective of one group within society - may as well buy a paper if that's the case."
The problem being that I can't buy a 'paper which covers the events which are reported on Indymedia (that would encourage disobediance and resistance to power and exploitation), and no organ of 'traditional media' shares my perspective. Therefore, Indymedia, it's so in tune with what I believe and want to know, it's ME!

anarchoteapot

allow ALL posts

14.01.2005 13:54

ALL posts should be allowed on the site. how do we know that these comments arent being cut right now?

anarchkit

Listen up

14.01.2005 17:08

This topic always amazes me …”Do right wing views have a right to be heard.”

It’s like arguing that cancer has ‘rights’ in a human body.

Let’s pose an alternative question to clarify our thinking on this subject.

Do Nazi’s have rights?

You only have to pose the question to realise the insanity of such an idea.

But isn’t censorship a blow to everyone’s freedom?

Not if what you are censuring is attacks on particular groups or on society as a whole.

Take homophobia for example.

If you act to suppress instances of homophobic hate being publicised you strike a blow for the cause of gay liberation.

If you allow homophobic hate to be spread under the cover of “free speech” you damage free speech because homophobic hate adds to the oppression of gays and curtails their freedom and consequently lowers the level of tolerance ad freedom in society as a whole.

Do you get it?

zdszy ze57 zzhze y ezy aez5y 5y y h556y7yu7zx

Indymedia shows its sides

15.01.2005 10:42

The difference with indymedia is that is is honest about what it hides and why - you can look at the site and see what the admin vollunteers have hidden and if you disagree with their work you can challenge them. Other media pretent they are balanced and show all the sides of teh argument and we plainly know that is untrue. By stating indymedia's political background, the public can chose to read the site knowing what has been hidded (and by the way indymedia sites do not delete posts they only hide) The e-mails list show all the discussions that go on internally and they are there for you to read and follow (if you have the time!) and challege if you disagree.

That is why it is an interesting set up, but at the end of the day indymedia relys on you to post the news, so you are the media not the admin, they are just trying to kep the site running smoothly, without too much spam of crap.

And i would like to support the indy crew for their work, it is a great site.

maddy

NO Platform Unanswered

15.01.2005 22:50

'No Platform' is wrong:
".... the fascists are bigots and don't listen to argument."
They do listen, and because of that they are running rings around all the lefties.
And when someone who penetrated their Conspiracy writes about it on IndymediaUK, it isnt just hidden, it vanishes.
In any case, you cannot defeat Fascism by turning yourself into a Fascist.
And nobody asks who needs a 'Nazi / fascist' scare?
Or why the people who funded the Social Democrats did so, or who they fund now.

YKW

Stalin would be proud

16.01.2005 03:46

It does make me sick seeing how regularly stuff is 'hidden' aka censored on here. As if the readers are not considered intelligent enough to determine what is valid and what isn't, as if minds need 'protecting' from 'dangerous' views...truly sickening and hypocritical

It's astonishingly moronic to pretend that we can easily say what is right wing, evil and deliberately disruptive and what is 'acceptable', where do we draw the line? Because there's a very real, or even realised, danger that the Left will stop questioning, stop debating and ultimately be slaves to an ideology. If I was to criticise Castro and his dictatorship, would I be considered a right wing agent? Or if I was to question whether Palestinian suicide bombings were morally acceptable/productive, would that be evidence of my involvement with Mossad??

Andrew

reply

16.01.2005 23:08

I was initially responding to the question Gev put:

"can we really allow the banning of posts that take a right-wing view?"

I freaked at the thought UKIM might actually be a back-slapping, lentil-soup love-in where 'incorrect' thinking was 'banned'.

However, having looked through guidelines (cheers L_L), I see I shouldn't have worried - a "right wing view" isn't a basis for stuff to be 'hidden'. The 'promoting discrimination', 'inaccurate or misleading' and 'advertising' reasons for hiding posts would pretty much cover everything I'd have concerns over in regards to bigoted posts.

Plus, nothing seems to be 'banned' as it's only hidden but still accessible elsewhere on the site.

What posts do you think were hidden/banned because they were 'right wing', Gev? Is this a continuation of some debate on the email thing?

Cheers,

p.s.

"This is NOT a free speech web site" - IMCer

lol, nice ad line for UKIM.
However, I think the fact that all the 'crap' is still there, somewhere, makes it 'free speech' to me. It is a web site, I can say what I want without it being deleted altogether and I don't have to pay = free speech web site!