Tuesday, January 17, 2006
The Spectacular Denial of Indymedia
Continuing from yesterday's insight into the Indymedia mindset, comes further comments on this disgraceful Sydney Indymedia post which shine a spotlight onto the mindset of an Indymedia advocate.
To the question:
However, one of the (confirmed) Indymedia moderators justifies the decision not to hide the post as follows:
There are additional comments on the page pointing to double-standards, and these have certainly been demonstrated on UK Indymedia and other sites. What's amazing though, is how Indymedia advocates believe they are furthering the cause of "free speech" by allowing such crap, nearly always in countries where speech is essentially free anyway. So what exactly is their contribution again?
To the question:
according to your very own [editorial] guidlines..."IMC Sydney is primarily a news website. Articles posted on the imc newswire should contain an element of news or journalistic commentary.The post in question, features this paragraph:
Anything posted on the newswire that does not contain an element of news or journalism is prone to being removed."
Care to tell me which bit of the post on this page has any news or journalistic commentary, or relevance to Indymedia?
Medical observers say sharon's failure at having the ability to wake means the inbreed comatose condition is due to his total lack of a brain function, which can be traced back to the imbeciles inbred origin that began for all the zionazis back in Rome a few dozen generations ago by four lunatic zionazi whores working the brothels of Rome which is probably the root cause of the insane brain-dead imbeciles lack of abilities.Fairly typical for Indymedia, but surely not 'newsworthy'.
However, one of the (confirmed) Indymedia moderators justifies the decision not to hide the post as follows:
I leave it up because of this:There you have it folks.
"The editorial board believes in the spirit
of free speech. Such denigrations against large chunks of humanity are better out in the open where they be argued against than hidden away."
I would rather know that the person who posted this can see the reactions it provokes, than hide it and have them feel vindicated by the censorship. Obviously the person is not living in the realm of rationality. If nobody every tells them that, they will be more likely to remain deluded.
There are additional comments on the page pointing to double-standards, and these have certainly been demonstrated on UK Indymedia and other sites. What's amazing though, is how Indymedia advocates believe they are furthering the cause of "free speech" by allowing such crap, nearly always in countries where speech is essentially free anyway. So what exactly is their contribution again?
