C-Span to Cover 9/11 Truth Talk

 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/04/309206.html

Something seriously wrong with this IMC. This article was in the newswire an hour or so ago. Now it isn't just hidden, it is deleted, along with several others.

So, one branch of the franchise censors (sorry, there is no other word for it) another branch. At least in McDonalds the toilets are clean - this place stinks.

so which contradicts the guidelines? mentioning 9/11 or referring to another imc?

This article was hidden by one imc uk volunteer, and unhidden by another. None of them are part of any "branches of the franchise". To the contrary: the practice to hide and unhide shows that indymedia volunteers are a very mixed bunch with different political backgrounds. One person's joke is homophobia to another person. What seems a fair reporting about the Israeli occupation in Palestine to one volunteer, is seen as antisemitism to another person. Indymedia has no party program, and no central commitee that directs what gets hidden and what remains. Rather, this is being decided in a consensus process. If that stinks to Daryl, he is welcome to amuse himself in McDonalds nice and clean toilets.

The article was never deleted. The fact that Brad was obviously able to post the comment above proves it, no? Maybe Brad should revise his internet skills.

So if you want a media that publishes one clear line rather than the crazy mix you find on the indymedia newswires, go and look at some party's website.

exasperation, If you read my post you would know I was referring to this article:

C-Span to Cover 9/11 Truth Talk

 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/04/309206.html

Which is, incidentally, currently giving a blank page with 404 Not Found, just like several other posts which look like they might not pass the Thought Police. Once you have checked this out, maybe you should take an evening class in 'checking the facts before taking the piss'.

In fact, if Indymedia admins bothered to check the facts about 9/11 before they bulldozed any reference to it with their Caterpillers - maybe we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Unfortunately, refering to any particular body of work appears to breech the guidelines (when it suits) otherwise I would recommend a perfect source of information which is an academic analysis of September 11th and does not rely on conjecture to make its case.

"Which is, incidentally, currently giving a blank page with 404 Not Found, just like several other posts which look like they might not pass the Thought Police."

Pleeese. If you use this site you will have noticed that the computer used to generated it is well and trully broke. Here you seem to be displaying a level of paranoia that makes you unable to see the relality and the straight forward answer!

I've forced the producer program to regenerate the page. It's there now. FWIW.

So to be clear about this - there is no policy for Indymedia to be hiding posts which question the official version of 9-11 etc. Is that right?
But individual volunteers are in fact hiding these posts? Exceptionally or generally?