Indy Media Watch

Further to my post yesterday regarding the possibility of UK Indymedia censoring material its moderators disagreed with, comes absolute proof this is taking place. Additionally to a comment left on the above post, 'TH', a UK Indymedia contributor emailed me copies of two comments which were left on this anti-Israel news piece, given prominent visibility on the UK Indymedia 's front page.

The two pieces were not inflammatory, couldn't be called 'trolling' and simply disagreed with the substance of the article. They have now both been 'hidden' (which effectively means deleted as there is no means whatsoever to view them). This raises the question I asked yesterday, of how many other comments have been removed?

Unfortunately for UK Indymedia, I retain copies of them which I shall reprint in full. I'd be thrilled to hear what the problem was. To me, it appears damned obvious.

Denial of Truth

03.01.2006 09:23
Your article claims: "Clearly, Israel is afraid of the power of non-violence."

If it's that "clear", why is it that "two (UK) citizens were allowed to enter the country"?

Is it because you are lying?

"Clearly", if I may use that term, your article is propaganda not rooted in facts. It is this behaviour that Israel takes umbrage to, and with very good reason. Israel craves non-violence, which has been wholly absent from the Palestinian side. Instead, Israel receives terrorism and murder, aided and abetted by "useful idiots" such as the International Solidarity Movement and spinoff groups.

This group has lied in the past about their objectives and there is no reason for Israeli security to take at face value the claims of someone at a border security check that they are "here for a conference" and not in fact to interfere with legal military or police activity.

See: http://indymediawatch.blogspot.com/2005/10/saga-of-olives-more-ism-fraud.html for previous examples of exactly this.

See: http://indymediawatch.blogspot.com/2005/02/nonviolence.html on "Non Violence" and Indymedia dishonesty in its reporting of such and http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=7361 for the lowdown on the ISM's Solidarity with Terrorists.

TH

---------------------------------------------
Cynical Snakes

03.01.2006 09:28
They weren't going there to advocate peace, but to agitate violence.

Bobby

Anyone care to tell me what the problem or 'policy violation' with that content is?

In yesterday's comments, Annie writes:

they regularly delete or hide pro-Israel comments. I've lost count of the times that my comments have mysteriously (not!) disappeared.

and this has been discussed on UK Indymedia before, where someone made the point:

Whats going on here? I didn't agree with the missing posts but that doesn't mean they should be airbrushed from history. They don't even appear in the 'view all posts' section of the site. Its all a bit Stalinist and undermines the whole point of indymedia.

Any IMC'ers want to comment? Is this normal practice/policy or a one-off? What was that Volraire quote 'I disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it'. Censorship Stinks and undermines my trust in the otherwise valuble resource that is IMC-UK.

Unsurprisingly, that discussion itself was censored. How "otherwise valuable" is it again?

As I have said in the past, I am not opposed to good moderation, which I don't consider "censorship'. I have deleted comments from this blog which were offensive, off-topic or ten pages in length (yes, I've received those). If Indymedia did more of that, it would be a better place. I have not however deleted anything I simply disagreed with, and I've received plenty of that as well. Many Indymedia advocates have insisted that any control of their site is tantamount to censorship, and Sydney Indymedia demonstrates what happens in that wide-open situation. I disagree with this.

On the other hand, you have on UK Indymedia, what can not only be described as hypocritical, but an utter disgrace. The antisemitic overtones are obvious as well, from the prominence given to the anti-Israel article versus the stifling of any dissenting argument. Will the "anti-censorship" crowd speak up and do something about this? The history of Indymedia self-reform suggests probably not.