The IMC censorship debate rages on
Thomas J | 13.08.2002 20:31
There is a major debate amongst IMC-UK users on what should and should not be on the UK IndyMedia newswire.
There is a current debate over what should and should not be hidden from the IMC-UK newswire. There is a current editorial policy that removes posts for the following reasons:
Discrimination: posts intending to oppress - using language, imagery, or other forms of communication which promote racism, fascism, xenophobia, sexism, or any other form of discrimination.
Advertising: posts which are personally or product promotional in nature.
Infactual: posts which are obviously infactual or misleading.
Repeated posting: if contribution is reposted or text that was originally a comment was posted as a report
It's the reasons of 'discrimination' and 'infactual' that tend to be the most controversial. Some defination on the term 'discrimatory' is needed, cause practically all articles discrimate against one group or another, be it capitalists, fascists, Zionists, religous fundimentalists, and so on.
How much should be allowed before someone says "Enough"? Some have argued in the past that the IMC newswire should be left uncensored since censorship would lead to a politcal bias and it would cease to be "independent media". Other argue that there is no place on Indymedia for hateful views such as fascism, neo-Nazism, racism, etc.
Another problem is people who have started to spam the Indymedia for their own dubious motives, such as Jean's "Heinzreport" postings, which have annoyed many. Another problem area is what to do with conspiriacy theories, since many such theories have turned out to be true in the past, such as the US presidential election, however, anyone can make a conspiriacy theory on anything, without a grain of fact.
What's to be done? Many people have come out with their own views on this issue many times, myself included, however the current problem has not been solved, and a open debate is needed on this sensitive topic. Many articles have been hidden in the past because people found them offensive, and the authors cried foul. A recent example was hidden after three reposts, and when I e-mailed the person (I was not the author of the article) regarding why the article was removed, the reply was "maybe it shoudn't be removed", so even amongst the editorial team there is a debate over what should and should not be on the newswire.
Discrimination: posts intending to oppress - using language, imagery, or other forms of communication which promote racism, fascism, xenophobia, sexism, or any other form of discrimination.
Advertising: posts which are personally or product promotional in nature.
Infactual: posts which are obviously infactual or misleading.
Repeated posting: if contribution is reposted or text that was originally a comment was posted as a report
It's the reasons of 'discrimination' and 'infactual' that tend to be the most controversial. Some defination on the term 'discrimatory' is needed, cause practically all articles discrimate against one group or another, be it capitalists, fascists, Zionists, religous fundimentalists, and so on.
How much should be allowed before someone says "Enough"? Some have argued in the past that the IMC newswire should be left uncensored since censorship would lead to a politcal bias and it would cease to be "independent media". Other argue that there is no place on Indymedia for hateful views such as fascism, neo-Nazism, racism, etc.
Another problem is people who have started to spam the Indymedia for their own dubious motives, such as Jean's "Heinzreport" postings, which have annoyed many. Another problem area is what to do with conspiriacy theories, since many such theories have turned out to be true in the past, such as the US presidential election, however, anyone can make a conspiriacy theory on anything, without a grain of fact.
What's to be done? Many people have come out with their own views on this issue many times, myself included, however the current problem has not been solved, and a open debate is needed on this sensitive topic. Many articles have been hidden in the past because people found them offensive, and the authors cried foul. A recent example was hidden after three reposts, and when I e-mailed the person (I was not the author of the article) regarding why the article was removed, the reply was "maybe it shoudn't be removed", so even amongst the editorial team there is a debate over what should and should not be on the newswire.
Thomas J
Comments
Display the following 19 comments