Debate has been censored

by C. Wed Apr 24, 2002 22:44

>and I for one did not join Indymedia to allow it to become filled with electioneering spam.

and do you get badges and cards and everything?

I've been to a few Indymedia meetings and have spent some of the past few months reading about it and writing (poorly). My wife gives me grief over how much time I spend on the net doing this. But I didn't think I was 'in' anything - always seemed a lot looser than that.
I just thought i was putting some time into creating a space.

personally (cos everything you read here is personal - even the stuff with loads of names and phone numbers and pagers and all) I couldn't care less whether SP / SWP / SF / FF / whoever want to try electioneering here. If they do and I'm bored I'll take this piss / or bait them. So will others and thats why this is cooler than other media. But it's not really a big deal.

Yes we need to get rid of some of the shit that turns up on this newswire - not just to avoid alienating newcomers but because there's no way me (or anyone else i reckon) will put time into distributing some of the more disgusting shite that turns up. But cop on here. There's no way election campaigning is in the same category as what I thought the editorial system was for.

Best way to divert attention - swamp it with other content. Or take the piss out of it. But don't get on the 'i didn't join so that..' high horse. Cos nobody joined.

Final comment - funny how the only election everyone on the board seems to be really into is the one to the editorial committee - given that nobody wanted the job.

Anybody want to call a public meeting to
a) debate this issue and come to a consensu
b) let people see how it works?

by Aidan O'Brien Wed Apr 24, 2002 19:23 aidanobrien at esatclear dot ie

>Okay, so if the post was incorrect about >Indymedia inviting the SWP to present >information on its candidates, then is it not >the role of Indymedia volunteers to correct the ?>poster by using the ‘add a comment’ peer >evaluation system, it is the same system used to >verify postings on all issues on this site.

You'll notice I did that.

As it is we're testing and developing our "events calender", it should be up, in fact it is up as of about 5pm.

We're now asking people who have forthcoming events to publish them on the events calender.
We've been allowing articles on events up because theres simply no other place for them, and one of the key roles of Indymedia is to inform activists of upcoming events

As for the forthcoming NCAD etc..., that wasn't that recent is was quiet early on in the sites existance, and there was stiff debate on the list over it. It's one of the ways we develop our editorial policy it's open for debate, You're quite keen on exploring editorial policy please join the list. For the record I wasn't keen on the NCAD feature, win some lose some.

>Was it ‘a demand to censor anarchists who >suggested the alternative’? I don’t think so. >Even if it was a demand, it was just that, it’s >up to Indymedia to answer such a demand with a >resounding NO! The issue here should not be what >is ‘implied’ but what was carried out and that >is a very selective act of censorship, and what >is ‘implied’ by that is indeed a complete >degradation of the direct publishing ideals >behind Indymedia.

You're missing the point, the post was hidden because it's a reposting of a comment as an article, after clearing that up, I gave my "personal" opinion on the piece. Those reasons were not the reasons for why it was hidden, you'll notice that now that it's back up a comment it's remained.

Again I repeat, join the list get involved give your opinion, Indymedia is open to anyone who wants to partcipate.

As for the whether or not Indymedia should allow campaigning, we're still arguing this out, but the fact is this debate wouldn't be occuring if a Fianna Fail supporter had posted "Vote FF" and a list of candiates.

If Indymedia allows one party to post, it must then allow all parties to post, and I for one did not join Indymedia to allow it to become filled with electioneering spam.

by Barry O'Donovan Wed Apr 24, 2002 19:19

See the attached link, a reposting of a gaurdian article, even the corporate media are aware that the newswire is not for "advertising or party political sloganeering"

http://www.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=172099&group=webcast

It also occours to me, the only other place where I have recently seen people writing under no name or aliases have been poor quality college rags.

by anti-censorship Wed Apr 24, 2002 18:51

Okay, so if the post was incorrect about Indymedia inviting the SWP to present information on its candidates, then is it not the role of Indymedia volunteers to correct the poster by using the ‘add a comment’ peer evaluation system, it is the same system used to verify postings on all issues on this site.
If advertising is a breach of Indymedia guidelines, fair enough. But isn’t there something of a difference between campaigning and advertising? And if not when will Indymedia’s unelected Editorial committee start to censor postings from campaigns like the recent Alliance for a no Vote or any campaign for that matter?
If the post was ‘contradictory to the ideas and philosophy behind Indymedia’ then it seems that that philosophy is an extremely pliable and selective belief system…no advertisements, yet ad ad after ad for events such as Reclaim the Streets and whatever other ‘Saturday Special’ is been organised. How do you Aidan, an Indymedia volunteer, justify the rampant breech of the ‘ideas and philosophy behind Indymedia’ that was the Advertisement Feature on the video nights in NCAD presented to us all on the front page feature column by Indymedia recently? Would that feature not constitute a breech of Indymedia Guidelines, it was also as well as blatant advertising a re-posting from the Newswire?
Was it ‘a demand to censor anarchists who suggested the alternative’? I don’t think so. Even if it was a demand, it was just that, it’s up to Indymedia to answer such a demand with a resounding NO! The issue here should not be what is ‘implied’ but what was carried out and that is a very selective act of censorship, and what is ‘implied’ by that is indeed a complete degradation of the direct publishing ideals behind Indymedia.
Like the previous poster said, this is not my idea of democracy, and it is not your role to interpret the Indymedia ideals and guidelines as selectively as they are being exercised.

by Brian Cahill Wed Apr 24, 2002 18:36

As Daithi pointed out there is an open editorial email list which, amongst other things, discusses the removal of newswire posts which break the indymedia guidelines.

The removal of the original advert for SWP electoral candidates was debated there.

Some wanted it removed, others didn't. I was one of the latter group - not because I thought that the post added much to the newswire but because I think it is inconsistent to remove articles which call for people to vote in a particular way while leaving up ones which call for people not to vote.

Anyway, the post was discussed there. If you want to take part in the discussion, join the list - don't accuse the editorial team of censorship.

by Daithi Mac Sithigh Wed Apr 24, 2002 18:02 macsithd at tcd dot ie

This is Indymedia. We have an editorial list, to which anyone in the world can subscribe. We also have an editorial policy, which anyone can read.

Got a problem? Join the list and put forward your suggestions as to how it could be modified.

Otherwise, go some place else. Then you'll find out what *REAL* censorship is like.

That address again - [email protected] .

by Barry O'Donovan Wed Apr 24, 2002 18:02

I can understand the need for aliases when a person is exposing a truth which may leave themselves or their loved ones open to retaliation, but in the case of both "Solidarity - Irish Left" and "Direct democracy - Section 31" and the other aliases under which the same messages were previously posted(I've already forgotten) I hope it's not embarasment at being seen to support the SWP. If you have beliefs or principles then at least put your name to them.

by Aidan O'Brien Wed Apr 24, 2002 16:25 aidanobrien at esatclear dot ie

The post was hidden because it is a reposting of a comment as an article, a breach of Global IMC Editorial Guidelines.

If you disagree with this stance you are welcome to join the editorial list. You can do so by mailing;

[email protected]

A few personal points;

The Post was incorrect when it suggested that Indymedia invited the SWP to present information about it's candiates, when the opposite is true, the SWP were not invited and advertising is a breach of Indymedia editorial policy.

Alos the post claims that there were attempt by anarchists to censor the debtae, instead they merely commented, posting opinions.

It's my opinion that any debate about the election on the newswire is welcome, but out and out electioneering by any party on the newswire is contradictory to the ideas and philosophy behind Indymedia.

Finally claiming that the post was a debate is eronous, it was a plea to vote for left wing canditates and a demand to censor anarchists who suggested the alternative, it implied that the only parties and viewpoint that should have a voice on Indymedia are SF, SWP, SP and the Greens.

>I think it is good that INdymedia invite the >smaller radical parties of the Irish left
>to participate and inform activists through this >news wire, and I would vote against any attempt >to censor SF, SP, Green or SWP information."

Yes the newswire should have election coverage but it should also be free of the kind of blanket advertising we are recieving through our letterboxs and on the streets.

However I should again state that those are my opinions and not the opinion of the IMC Collective.

Aidan O'Brien
IMC Volunteer.

by Direct democracy - Section 31 Wed Apr 24, 2002 16:04

A growing amount of young Irish people are looking for anti establishment electoral alternatives. Many young voters are checking out the Greens, Sinn Fein, Joe Higgin's Socialist Party and other left wing radicals and independents like Seamus Healey. I was not aware that the SWP were standing as they are a revolutionary party but I found this posting informative. Bigger parties that are pro business get plenty of coverage- look at the four pages the Progressive Democrats got in today's irish Times. I think it is good that INdymedia invite the smaller radical parties of the Irish left to participate and inform activists through this news wire, and I would vote against any attempt to censor SF, SP, Green or SWP information.

As to those from an anarchist position, you have no authoritarian right to censor this discussion for those of us who are going to exercise our vote. I believe registering our protest is important- I voted No to Nice and No in the Abortion referendum. To abstain here in referendums would be criminal. I want to register my anger at the PDs and FF's squandering of the economice boom, and I will support any party that calls for an end to racism, more public housing and transport etc etc etc. Its just not good enough to sit on the sidelines- look at the shit France is in. If the Irish radical left increase its share of the vote- most Irish people who have not read Bakunin or Trotsky or whatever will see that as a real tangible barometer mark that dissent is rising in this country. As such, I would prefer if this news wire realised that, like it or not, the election is a fact and we should not bury our heads in the sand ignoring it. SF, SP SWP, Green and left wing independents should be free to air their policies and there should be no political censorship for those of us who want to use our vote