Freedom of speech and censorship...

So someone mentions the local elections in Liverpool article on "ALTERNATIVE VOTES", and we inform one another of who's standing where ie the non-mainstream parties, ie the ones without megabucks or media/press backing. Yes so now I know there is a Communist standing, people know there are 6 not 5 SLPers standing, then of course we know there is Democratic Socialist Alliance, then we know there is a party called 'Liverpool Labour Community Party', OK so it's taken off the main page, which I disagree with, then it's taken off the Liverpool Newswire as if it didn't exist, so tell me something what makes Indymedia any better than the capitalist/establishment media/press who deny working class people coverage of our daily lives and struggles, like Thomas McKay who's facing eviction, who deny working class organisations fair and balanced coverage.

The article "Alternative votes", so tell me what makes Liverpool Indymedia any better than the Liverpool Echo / Daily Post, or the BBC or ITV? One of the fundemental UN human rights is the right to freedom of speech, providing it doesn't encroach on the rights of others, ie racist propaganda, anti-muslim, anti-catholic or anti-protestant, sexist, homophobic, ageist, or even that one our wonderful bourgeois (middle class) society chooses to overlook "CLASS PREJUDICE", so tell me Liverpool Indymedia, you block, censor and deny freedom of speech to parties who aren't part of the capitalist system, sure they're hierarchical, just like the family is heirarchical, ie a mother and a father, head of the household. Just like Indymedia is heirarchical, at least I can complain to the press complaint commission if I'm bothered, I can complain to the Liverpool Echo's editor, or I could organise a protest and encourage the press/media to give a issue coverage. So tell me Liverpool Indymedia who are the shadows in the dark deciding what postings get censored, and which one don't get censored??? Who do I appeal to, what's his/her name, etc...