Indymedia: whose media?
X | 18.10.2002 11:42
Why does Indymedia delete comments advocating direct action, but keeps racist, sexist and homophobic remarks? Read this before it gets deleted.
Last week I posted an article on using organised revolutionary tactics by anarchists, instead of tit-for-tat violence against the police and shop windows on demonstrations. The article was deleted by IMC censors without any explanation. This week, in response to an article on using DA against parliament on an anti-war march on parliament, I advocated the use of arson against the property of those supplying and aiding the arms industry. I argued that this, not symbolic demonstrations, was needed to undermine the Western war machine. The comment was deleted, again without explanation.
Although on both occasions, these comments disappeared pretty quickly, other articles and comments that advanced prejudiced views were kept on the newswire. In particular, a torrent of violent homophobic abuse was allowed to stay on Indymedia, despite a number of complaints.
So, Indymedia's priority is to shut down any call for revolutionary action, while allowing the publication of fascist viewpoints. Why? Is it simply because Indymedia is concerned that it might get raided for incitement to violence? If Indymedia is so scared of police action, then why allow posts inciting hatred against racial and sexual minorities? If Indymedia's editorial policy is reacting to possible state action, then can it be seen as a truly open publishing forum?
By all means, delete posts that don't conform to the editorial guidelines. I don't think anything I have said contavenes these guidelines, unlike the right-wing posts which are allowed to stay on the newswire.
I think there is something sinister about IMC UK, an editorial collective that no-one can bring to account but has recently won awards from the mainstream media. I don't know who these people are - perhaps they are police collaborators and passing our IP addresses on to the authorities. Perhaps this is too paranoid, but IMC UK's partiality in the implementation of its editorial policy makes me believe there is another agenda going on here.
Although on both occasions, these comments disappeared pretty quickly, other articles and comments that advanced prejudiced views were kept on the newswire. In particular, a torrent of violent homophobic abuse was allowed to stay on Indymedia, despite a number of complaints.
So, Indymedia's priority is to shut down any call for revolutionary action, while allowing the publication of fascist viewpoints. Why? Is it simply because Indymedia is concerned that it might get raided for incitement to violence? If Indymedia is so scared of police action, then why allow posts inciting hatred against racial and sexual minorities? If Indymedia's editorial policy is reacting to possible state action, then can it be seen as a truly open publishing forum?
By all means, delete posts that don't conform to the editorial guidelines. I don't think anything I have said contavenes these guidelines, unlike the right-wing posts which are allowed to stay on the newswire.
I think there is something sinister about IMC UK, an editorial collective that no-one can bring to account but has recently won awards from the mainstream media. I don't know who these people are - perhaps they are police collaborators and passing our IP addresses on to the authorities. Perhaps this is too paranoid, but IMC UK's partiality in the implementation of its editorial policy makes me believe there is another agenda going on here.
X
Comments
Display the following 17 comments