Santa Cruz Indymedia Censorship Discussion on FRSC Sunday

I just started using indybay and have not had these problems. I have heard similar complaints and concerns regarding this forum. It concerns me greatly if comments are being deleted because some editor disagrees. For me, it makes this whole forum both useless and senseless. Dissenting views should be welcomed unless they are infringing upon the free speech of others.

There are lots of views presented on Santa Cruz Indymedia. The only comments of mine that were ever hidden were ones that I really should not have posted anyway. It is kind of funny that you are directing your anger at a volunteer (activist) run website.

I trust the editors of this website to make difficult editorial decisions. I'm sure I won't agree everytime, but I get over it and move on. If there is some point that really needs to be made, then try making it again.

I'll be fighting the powers that be, not our local Indymedia volunteers and website.

Robert Norse also sent me a couple e-mails on this. By the way I am not an Indy Media volunteer in any way other than I post articles here, so these views are solely my own and not representing the collective. Here was my response:

Dear Robert and others he asked this question,

In response to your question I have not been having problems with my comments being deleted.

In your case, Robert, it sounds like you are defending the right of cops and other right-wingers to post on IndyMedia. I feel it is the right of IndyMedia staff to decide what kind of content their site displays. IndyMedia allows a broad variety of views and discussion, but most of us don't have the time or stamina to respond to or endure the kind of nonsense that can be spewed out by independent right-wingers and those that are working out of government offices (military and police) working full time against the cause on our tax dollars.

Likewise Becky Johnson and her Zionist friends have a site set up that is on a crusade against Indy Media. One thing they are doing is fighting against Google including IndyMedia in Google searches. I guess Becky Johnson prefers that people get their news from the corporate media. Their site also directs people to come to IndyMedia and make their posts against particular articles. Most recently I saw my article on North Korea was "discussed". Becky Johnson and her rightwing friends don't let me comment in their news sources (be it Frontpage or Fox News) so why should they be able to trash Indy Media all over the web and then come into the Indy house and shit on the floor?

Robert, your Yahoo HUFF site is also particularly hostile to Indy Media on its front page. In addition comments I have made there responding to Becky Johnson's racist attacks on the Palestinian and Lebanese people, as well as my criticisms of her supporting the democrats, have been deleted and not sent out to readers.

So why the double standard Robert? And why do you want pro-cop repression views posted on IndyMedia when our society is already saturated with such crap?

In closing I feel that the IndyMedia volunteers are doing a good job in providing a space for people to report on what is really going on in the world, and I do not feel the right, with so much corporate media at their disposal, should be guaranteed the right to invade that space and attack our work and defend government repression. Ultimately it is government repression and corporate dominated media that is the true violation of free speech, not the discretion of a people's media source in what they want presented on their site.

Sincerely, Steven Argue

I was a regular participant and a regular reader of Indybay for years. As the censorship of dissent grew more and more draconian, I simply gave up. For me, the comments section of Indybay was the most interesting part of the forum - it provided an opportunity for a true exchange of ideas.

Many of the articles posted are simply cut and pasted from elsewhere on the web- the comments section was where people began dissecting the published articles and contributing their own ideas.
For me, information is best served buffet style- you put everything out on the table, and people pick and choice among what appeals most to them. Indybay has gone the opposite direction- it serves its information pre-digested and spoon feeds it to you- no dissent permitted.

There is a certain arrogance to this that you wouldn't expect in alternative media. I'd like to believe the readers and participants here are intelligent enough to wade their way through all information, to come to their own understanding of the truth. Apparently, the editors don't feel that way.

I miss the full participation, no holds barred Indybay of the past.

Tia

No, But Fox "News" HAS Been Censoring My Comments
by Steven Argue

Saturday Oct 21st, 2006 12:55 PM

Robert Norse also sent me a couple e-mails on this. By the way I am not an Indy Media volunteer in any way other than I post articles here, so these views are solely my own and not representing the collective. Here was my response:

Dear Robert and others he asked this question,

In response to your question I have not been having problems with my comments being deleted.

BECKY: Steve Argue has not yet posted something that disagrees with the political views of the monitors. However, Argue does violate the editorial guidelines frequently. He is just ignored and allowed to do so.

In your case, Robert, it sounds like you are defending the right of cops and other right-wingers to post on IndyMedia.

BECKY: There is NOTHING in the editorial guidelines which prevent either "cops" or "right-wingers" from posting on IMC.

I feel it is the right of IndyMedia staff to decide what kind of content their site displays.

BECKY: Provided they follow the consensed indymedia guidelines, protect free speech, diversity, inclusiveness, and the spirit of open-publishing.


IndyMedia allows a broad variety of views and discussion, but most of us don't have the time or stamina to respond to or endure the kind of nonsense that can be spewed out by independent right-wingers and those that are working out of government offices (military and police) working full time against the cause on our tax dollars.

BECKY: Many of the censored posts are nothing like Argue's description. They do NOT allow a "broad variety of views" nor can they tolerate any criticism of themselves.

Likewise Becky Johnson and her Zionist friends have a site set up that is on a crusade against Indy Media.

BECKY: I had nothing to do with the indymedia watch website, however, there is a need for another site to monitor the excesses and faults of IMC's who refuse to allow those discussion on their own site. Freedom of speech allows all these sites to exist simultaneously. ITs a good thing.

http://indymediawatch.blogspot.com/


STEVE ARGUE: One thing they are doing is fighting against Google including IndyMedia in Google searches.

BECKY: Perhaps posts like this are a reason?

MY NAME IS BECKY JOHNSON AND I LOVE TO BE RAPED IN MY ZIONIST ... BECKY JOHNSON by LOOK AT MY GAPING ZIONIST BUTTHOLE! Monday October 09, 2006 at 06:35 AM. MY HOLE IS OPENED FOR JEWS ONLY, JUST LIKE ISRAEL. ...
utah.indymedia.org/news/2006/10/21660_comment.php - 25k - Cached - Similar pages


BECKY: I do think posts like this shouldn't be allowed to come up on google searchs. But that is FAR from saying that I favor Google not showing IMC articles. In fact, I am very much in favor of having Google continue to show IMC posts, but NOT those like those above.

STEVE ARGUE: I guess Becky Johnson prefers that people get their news from the corporate media.

BECKY JOHNSON: I prefer that people can read all kinds of opinions across a spectrum of sources, and that IMC reflect its readers and not just the narrow position of anonymous monitors with the censor button.

Their site also directs people to come to IndyMedia and make their posts against particular articles. Most recently I saw my article on North Korea was "discussed". Becky Johnson and her rightwing friends don't let me comment in their news sources (be it Frontpage or Fox News) so why should they be able to trash Indy Media all over the web and then come into the Indy house and shit on the floor?

BECKY JOHNSON: I am not Fox News or Frontpage. I have never had a report or article published on either. I AM a founding member of SC.IMC and a member of LA.IMC since 2000.

Robert, your Yahoo HUFF site is also particularly hostile to Indy Media on its front page. In addition comments I have made there responding to Becky Johnson's racist attacks on the Palestinian and Lebanese people, as well as my criticisms of her supporting the democrats, have been deleted and not sent out to readers.

BECKY: Steve, HUFF is about homelessness. If you want to post something on the DAFKA.org site, I'd be willing to do it, with my same-page number-response.

So why the double standard Robert? And why do you want pro-cop repression views posted on IndyMedia when our society is already saturated with such crap?

BECKY: Steve, as long as the censors continue to post EVERYTHING you write, and continue to censor all your critics, then you support them.
You are the one with the double-standard!

In closing I feel that the IndyMedia volunteers are doing a good job in providing a space for people to report on what is really going on in the world, and I do not feel the right, with so much corporate media at their disposal, should be guaranteed the right to invade that space and attack our work and defend government repression.

BECKY: That is not what I, or most of the people I know who have been censored have been doing. My posts are not "invasions" nor are you required to read them. But my point of view should be equally allowed to be expressed on IMC's as yours provided it violates no editorial guidelines.


Ultimately it is government repression and corporate dominated media that is the true violation of free speech, not the discretion of a people's media source in what they want presented on their site.

BECKY: I thought IMC's were supposed to be the anti-dote to corporate media monopolies, not their evil twins, censoring even more broadly. Save IMC's!!! Support diversity of opinons, dialogue, debate, and tolerance rather than ad hominem attacks, censorship, and narrow confines for "allowed" material!

Sincerely, Steven Argue

BECKY: The Oct 22nd radio show where Robert Norse, Tim Rutherford, Tony Treadway, Earth Mommer, and Becky Johnson discussed censorship on Indybay.org is archived at:

http://www.huffsantacruz.org under "Bathrobespierre's Broadsides" for Oct 22, 2006

Re: "it's called moderation of a website"

My experience with the Bay Area Indymedia and others is that the so-called moderators will censor anything with which they disagree, IN DIRECT CONTRAVENTION OF THE POSTED RULES AND GUIDELINES, as documented here.
http://www.israpundit.com/2006/?p=890

This includes links to the following censored postings, which proves that Indybay.org's support for gay rights (the basic right to live, for example) and women's rights ends where the militant Islamic world begins.

http://www.indybay.org/news/2006/03/1809003.php
"The treatment of women in countries under fundamentalist Islamic rule ranges from degrading to life-threatening. While domestic violence is a crime in all civilized countries, it is condoned by Sharia or militant Islamic law. Palestinian culture sanctions the murder of women for "unchastity," which can include being raped, while Iran actually sentenced a young woman to hang for killing her would-be rapist."

http://www.indybay.org/news/2006/03/1808880.php
"Oppression, physical violence, and even murder of gay people is very common in Middle Eastern countries with violently homophobic cultures. Unfortunately, gay organizations like QUIT (Queers Undermining Israeli "Terrorism") and Boycott World Pride are so eager to attack Israel at any price that they are actually working for the brutalization and oppression of gays, lesbians, and bisexuals."

On the other hand, this posting was left online, at least through last April or so; it's possible that the collective chose to hide it after I paraded it on IsraPundit as evidence of the collective's double standards, because I don't see it any more. By the way, I and not he inserted the asterisks; he spelled the word out very explicitly.


==============
" True Racism
by Nordic Vengence Wednesday, Jul. 24, 2002 at 7:02 PM

This is what us so called Neo-Nazis stand for. We belive in the White aryan race. We belive that n****rs are reducing the world into one big third world slum. King BushII is a n****r loving ass kisser to the Jew and the republican party as well. N****rs are non-white trash that also include black n****rs, gook n****rs (excluding the Japanise), spic n****rs and towel headed sand n****rs. I would be happy if Isreal and the Arabs just kill each other as much as possable. We also belive that Adolf Hitler was the greatist man who ever lived and his dream lives through us. WHITE POWER! "

====================

Note that Indybay.org’s editorial policies say that comments like this one should be hidden, as opposed to articles that discuss the abuse of women, gays, and religious minorities by Iran and the Palestinian Authority.

Members of the Editorial Collective are permitted to hide posts or comments as long as that person’s decision is based on at least one of the following three points:

* The post or comment constitutes abuse of the newswire (see note below);
* The post or comment undermines the Principles of Unity of the SF Bay Area IMC; e.g., right-wing propaganda or hate speech; or
* The post or comment constitutes a spam attack (see below) on the newswire.

===================

Becky Johnson and her "Zionist friends" were not the ones who were waging a campaign against Indybay. I was the one doing that, by posting proof of the medium's ongoing violation of its own posted editorial policies, and apparently its stated privacy policies as well. As shown here, in fact, the Indybay collective was just fine with hanging people for being gay, as long as this was done in Iran.

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/03/22/18099701.php (status = HIDDEN)
Iranian gays fear "pogrom." Ahmadinejad says, "Kill a gay for Allah."
by Bill Levinson Wednesday Mar 22nd, 2006 7:10 PM

Iran punishes gays and lesbians by flogging for the first, second, and third "offenses," and with death for the fourth. More information is available from the Persian Gay & Lesbian Organization. http://www.pglo.org/

http://www.gaypeopleschronicle.com/stories...

There is a difference between moderation and censorship. Moderation means banning things like spam, physical threats (an illegal form of speech), and gutter language, especially gutter language directed at people because of their race, religion, or ethnicity. Saying that the Palestinian government oppresses gay people and mistreats women is not hate speech or uncivil, and the moderators' decision to remove such postings is proof that Indybay was lying about its "progressive" stand on these issues. You are either for women's and gay rights (rights = the basic right to not be killed or brutalized for being who you are) or you are not, and that team of Indybay moderators showed where they stood. This was of course very damaging to Indybay's credibility.

Indybay should be aware that the reputation of MoveOn.org has been devastated by a similar issue. Its moderators were censoring civil if dissenting material while letting anti-Semitic, racist, and anti-Catholic hate speech stand at its Action Forum. In fact, we can get rid of the passive voice and say that I was largely responsible for doing this to them-- or more precisely, making them do it to themselves. All it took was to document proof of the censorship by tracking postings that the moderators were very diligent in deleting, and then to post the hate speech that they hadn't deleted all over the Internet. "Exercise of editorial control" (Google on it to see what I mean) made MoveOn.org responsible for the hate speech and now it is being used against them.

Hopefully Indymedia has gotten a new team of moderators who will permit free discourse. My own policy toward replies to my blog entries is to delete absolutely nothing except for spam or illegal speech like physical threats. I have had to do this exactly once. If I can't answer criticisms of what I post, I shouldn't have posted it in the first place so censoring criticism simply proves my opponents right and demolishes my credibility. If a conservative (actually a Libertarian but doubtlessly a fascist by Indymedia standards) can endure criticism and free speech in open debate, then Indymedia's progressives should be ashamed not to do so.

Were I a Muslim living in the West, I'd be mad as hell. Not to mention terrified.

Were I a Muslim living in the West, I'd begin to believe that a new Inquisition had begun. An inquisition aimed at no one but Muslims.

Were I a Muslim living in the West, my wife, or my sister, or my daughter might well decide to wear a headscarf or a veil when she went out in public.

Perhaps it would be because she was tired of men and boys ogling her, objectifying her. Perhaps it would be because she felt she was entitled to her dignity. Perhaps she simply might prefer modesty and privacy to fashion slavery.

Perhaps she just thought it was a free country.

And perhaps, on that last point, she would have been mistaken.

For years, and especially since 9/11, law-abiding Muslims have been verbally and physically attacked across North America and Europe. They are scorned for their faith, shunned for their piety, falsely condemned for dual-loyalty, blamed for the crimes of terrorists they abhor.

Of late, however, there has been a disturbing new trend, particularly in Europe, where cabinet ministers and influential lawmakers have increasingly made it their mission to combat, of all things, the head scarf and veil worn by growing numbers of Muslim women and girls.

# In Germany, the states of Baden-Wurttenberg and Bavaria recently introduced legislation to outlaw the wearing of head scarves in schools.

Bavarian Education Monika Hohlmeier said the head scarf was increasingly being used as a political symbol. To the understandable ire of Muslims, Hohlmeier went on to say that it was acceptable to wear Christian crosses or Jewish symbols.

# In Spain, home to the original Inquisition, Minister for Social Affairs Juan Carlos Aparicio was quoted as having said that the Muslim veil was "not a religious sign but a form of discrimination against women," and having compared it to genital mutilation.

# In Britain, the government minister for race and faith relations, Phil Woolas, was quoted this week as demanding that Muslim teaching assistant Aisha Azmi, 24, who refused to remove her veil at work, be fired for that reason.

"She should be sacked," Woolas was quoted as telling the Sunday Mirror. "She has put herself in a position where she can't do her job."

Azmi worked at the Headfield Church of England junior school in Dewsbury, which took pains to state that her suspension had nothing to do with religion.

The scarf issue had already taken center stage when former British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, now an MP and Leader of the House of Commons, voiced public objections to the wearing of the niqab, a full-face veil, at face-to-face meetings with his constituents.

The national debate has since widened, with David Davis, a top Conservative Party official, taking the anti-veil stance to a new level.

''What Jack touched on was the fundamental issue of whether in Britain we are developing a divided society,'' Davis said. ''Whether we are inadvertently encouraging a kind of voluntary apartheid.''

The anti-veil arguments dovetail with a parallel campaign, which takes as its premise the concept that Islam itself renders its adherents incapable of integrating into Western societies.

"If you are going to have Islamic schools, the question is whether they are going to embrace Western values," Patrick Sookhdeo, a Pakistan-born Anglican priest in England who converted from Islam, told the New York Times this month.

"I would argue that Islamic values are not compatible with Western values," he said.

And what Western values might these be? Are they the time-honored Western values of intolerance for people of color, suspicion and marginalization of non-Christians, fear and loathing of non-Whites? Exploitation of and contempt for the residents of former imperial possessions and colonies?

At this point, there will be a pause for the springloaded Islamophobes among us to suggest that it is any society's right and duty to protect itself against elements that may foment terrorism. There will be those who will argue that the veil may both mask and encourage extremism.

Perhaps it is time for us in the Western world to declare that Islam has a right to exist.

Perhaps it is time for us to recognize that non-violent, non-Judeo-Christian religious observance is a right, not an act of war.

More
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/775898.html

Its hard to see how you can post such stuff and not realize how racist it sounds.

Would you be offended by a posting sayings " Olmert says, 'Kill a Palestinian for Moses.'?

Of course most of us would find a post titled "Bush says, 'Kill an Iraqi for Jesus.' as mere hyperbole but there is a difference when it comes to playing on historical stereotypes and hatred. Sure Ahmadinejad is homophobic and directly opressing (and killing) gay Iraqis, but one can say the same about Israel and the Palestinians and that doesnt justiofy the use of antiIslamic or antiSemitic themes when one is trying to confront the problem.

Both antiSemitism and antiIslamic trends have been problems in Europe for thousands of years (Dante even placed Muhammad in the 9th circle of Hell in his Inferno)

I tend to see posts about homophobia in Iran as opportunistic and extremely counterproductive (and those writing the propaganda not only dont care about gay Iranians but dont mind that the propaganda makes lives for gay Iranian worse since it associates them with the US and Israel)
Iran has some openings for change. Sex changes are permitted by religious courts with the religious courts ruling that people can be born of the wrong gender and that strikes me as a better opening than what one has in the fundamentalist Jewish and Christian communities since it seems a small step from that to saying that one shouldt be requierd to get operated on since that doesnt fundamentally change who one is.
When it comes to the treatment of women, Iran is probably one of the more positive hopes in the Islamic world (with a higher percentage of women going to collge than most countries) and the fight for womens rights having been a major force before Bush's Axis of Evil speech (which allowed the conservatives to try to paint the women's wovement in Iran as being tied to the US thuis setting it back a few years)

Gay righst and Woments rights definitely need a lot of advancement in Iran but having rightwingers in the US and Israel speaking out for women's rights activists and gay righst activists in Iran is about as productive as having an Al Qaeda spokesperson speak out for change in the US.

Inst this equivalent to saying:

While domestic violence is a crime in all civilized countries, it is condoned by Jewish law.
While domestic violence is a crime in all civilized countries, it is condoned by Christian law.

Afterall

"If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out onto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city . . . But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die . . . For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her" (Deuteronomy 22:23-27)

"When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies . . . And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house . . . thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife" (Deuteronomy 21:10-13).

plus a lot of hateful stuff in Leviticus that goes way beyond anything in the Koran.

see http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0301/answers.html
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news1001/answers.html
and
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0102/answers.html
(its a satire site making fun of fundamentalists but the quotes are real)

As for other religions a lot of the early conversions to Islam in India were by women because of Sati (at least with Islam at the time it was illegal to throw wives on their husbands funeral pyres)

All religions have hateful stuff in the holy books. Islam is not really better or worse than any other religion. Some people take the cultual norms of 1000 or 2000 years ago as law today and some dont. Speaking out against fundamentalists is in everyone's interest but when one singles out a religion (especially ones that are the subject of ethnic hatred like Islam in the West today, Judaism in 1930s Europe, or Hindusim in Pakistan) and focuses on its holy books as if they alone are problematic one is playing into racism and ethnic violence (and even genocide as one has seen in Bosnia and Gujarat in the past decades).

racism? wrote,

"Its hard to see how you can post such stuff and not realize how racist it sounds. Would you be offended by a posting sayings " Olmert says, 'Kill a Palestinian for Moses.'?"

If Olmert actually said something like that, I would repudiate him as a dictator every bit as bad as Ahmadinejad (or Hitler) but neither he nor any other responsible Israeli leader has said anything like it. There are some ultra-right-wing Israelis who believe this sort of garbage and I consider them every bit as reprehensible as Islamofascists, but they are a tiny minority and Israeli law does not condone their position. In contrast, Israeli law would punish them for killing innocent Palestinians.

The Palestinian Authority's laws sanction and condone the brutalization and murder of gay people, and often look the other way when a woman is killed by her family for "dishonoring" herself through sexual intercourse, which included being raped.

"When it comes to the treatment of women, Iran is probably one of the more positive hopes in the Islamic world (with a higher percentage of women going to collge than most countries) and the fight for womens rights having been a major force before Bush's Axis of Evil speech (which allowed the conservatives to try to paint the women's wovement in Iran as being tied to the US thuis setting it back a few years)"

An Iranian court actually sentenced a teenaged girl to hang for killing her would-be rapist with a knife. The court apparently did not contest her argument that he was indeed trying to rape her but it condemned her anyway. Any civilized country would call this justifiable homicide.

You are 100 percent right about the things in the Old Testament, and there are even worse ones-- like Jehovah-sanctioned genocide of Canaanites and other people. The ancient Hebrews admittedly behaved little better or worse than their contemporaries like the Assyrians, Greeks, and Romans. Medieval Christians also behaved like Nazis, not only toward Jews but also the wrong "kinds" of Christians. You fail to recognize, however, that modern Jews and Christians do not act that way. Civilized modern Muslims do not act that way. Only militant Muslims use the Koran to justify horrific medieval-style atrocities against infidels and even the wrong kinds of Muslims.

The problem with you is that you are a racist and as with mopst racists you just cant see it since you actually believe that Muslims are evil and thus cant understand why stereotyping a while religion is bad.

"modern Jews and Christians do not act that way"
In just the recent few decades we have had: Baruch Boldstein, Bosnia, the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda and a rise of Christian Identity Nazis in the US and Europe
so I dont see how you can say "modern Jews and Christians" act any better than "modern Muslims"
In terms of the treatment of gays and lesbians Zimbabwe (mostly Christian) seems as bad or wrose than Iran and its not Muslim.
In terms of women's rights Saudi Arabia is much worse than Iran and for all its problems (which are really horrible problems) Iran at least encourages women to go to universities and has many strong women leaders who may at some point be able to help change things (although Bush has made that much much harder since the women's rights movement really was starting to movde before the axis of evil speech).

Jerry Falwell has a lot of supporters in the US and the Christian right has many ties to those in power in DC and if you listen to his "gays caused 9/11" thing its hard to say hes any saner than any fundamentalist Islamic leader. There are crazies in all communities (Baruch Goldstein, Yigal Amir, the JDL and people running sites like http://www.masada2000.org/ show that there are even Jewish fundamentalists who sound and act as bad as the ocassional issolated Islamic figures who appears in videos and are assumed by the Right to represent all Muslims)

Iran definitely violates a lot of human rights but thats not because its Muslim (the Shah was pretty secular but had a worse human rights record that the current government).

Asking why there are few modern Muslim countries is I guess the logic behind much of the current racism against Muslims. But such a question ignores Turkey and India (which has one of the largest Muslim populations) as well as the fact that there are many backwards nonMuslim countries. In a sense the question would be as ridiculous as insinuating that Israel reflects on Judaism or India on Hinduism.
But I guess in terms of the Middle East it deserves an answer. Muslim countries in the Middle East are "backwards" because of how the British divided up the Middle East after WWI and then imposed monarchs and dictatorships. While coups have made some countries less firendly towards Europe the style of rule is more tied to what the British imposed than to the (about as bad) conditions under the Ottomans. Africa and parts of SE Asia havent done much better than the Middle East (and in some cases are doing worse) but one can also blame oil for providing the monarchs and dictators with a way to buy their way out of change. Even though it means little its worth noting that Pakistan and Indonesia (about half the worlds Muslims live in those 2 countries) have both had women play more major political roles than any women has in the US (Im thinking of Benazir Bhutto and Megawati Sukarnoputri).

Anger against the US in the "Muslim world" is half about how the US and Europe have supported the local dictatorships while claiming to be for democracy and half about recent US actions (like Iraq, Gitmo , the general level of antiIslamic racism online, and US support for Israel). Those hatred are not at all related to Islam. If one has Islamic fundamentalists playing off the anger one should see that as one does in any other part of the world. In the US fundmanetalists build hatred against minority groups but are largely playing off changes in the economy that have added to the workingclass' sense of insecurity. In the 1980s one had revolution theology in Latin America where people voiced their anger at US attrocities in Centeral America in Christian terms (was Christianity the driving factor or was US support for various death squads the reason people were angry at the US?)

What does that even mean?

Perhaps you missed the point of the comment above.

if someone posted that "Israeli President Moshe Katsav raped women for Judaism" that would definitely be antiSemitic even though he may be a rapist (and at least sexually harassed a few women) and happens to be a leader of a Jewsh country.

Anti-Islamic racism hides in the tone of both rightwing smears and even mainstream news stories.
One has "Islamic" suicide bombers and Islamic terrorists in Iraq but what does one get when a massive suicide blast occurs in Sri Lanka? What religion were the bombers? You can say its different since the conflict is of ethnic identity not religion but the Tamils do tend to be Christian and Hindu while the Senhalese tend to be Budhists.
Before 9/11 how many sucidide attacks took place wordwide in the previous 20 years and where were most of them concentrated (hint the number of dead in Israel due to suicde attacks pales compared to the number in Sri Lanka)
Yet if you look at a New York Times cover story from last week when a massive suyicde attack occured in Sri Lanka I would guess that the way the story headlines and first few paragraphs weere worded would leave most readers guessing that the attack was by Islamic fundamentslists.

Even on the Darfur story you have the tone of the US coverage portraying the attacks as Arab Muslims attacking black nonMuslims when the Darfur victims are almost all Muslims (and the rebel groups fighting the government are in many cases even fundamentalists and trhe JEM was the group that brought Bin Laden to the country).
Personally I hold the Rightwing in the US responsible for the genocide in Darfur because of the way they have tried to use the struggle to demonize Muslims which has resulted in a defensiveness among many Muslims that has complicated the conflict and made a resolution harder. In the case of the Christian RIght a lot of the problem is just stupidity (the conflict 10 years ago in Sudan was one of Muslims against Christians but that peace agreement is holding). In the case of the proIsrael groups talking about Darfur I think its a form of opportunism where the plight of Muslims in Darfur is being used as an excuse to enflame hatred for Muslims and Arabs.

When one is in the US (which has engaged in a war that has resulted in over 600,000 extra deaths in Iraq in the last few years) focusing on the problems of Muslims countries (while antiIslamic hatred is driving the US violence) seems like it falls almost as low as if one were highlighting bad things done by individual Jewish Russians in the 1800s or Jewish Germans in the 20s and 30s. In Europe one has movements to ban Islamic dress with little outcry despite the similar tone in the arguments to discussions of Hassidic dress in the 1800s. The public political discourse is definitely behind the antiSemitism of the late 1800s and early 1900s but its building and has many similarities (the "Islamic problem" now becoming an acceptible topic of discussion in Europe even among people who have never meet a single Muslim immigrant) One even has issolated cases of actual genocide in Europe against Muslims (Bosnia) with EU troops standing by and watching as thousands of Muslims were massacred. Outside of Europe Chechnya, Sinkiang and Gujarat have shown that massive killings caused by hatred against Muslims is becoming more common globally (with few cases of Muslims massacring nonMuslims but the world press almost universally portraying Islam as the problem)

if you were in Nazi Genramy in the 30s and antiSemitism looked like it was going to result in a lot of deaths would you go publish articles in all the papers about the problem of domestic violence by Jewish men (even though it no doubt existed at the same level as among any other group of Germans and thus was a real problem) enflaming hatred against Jews and helping build stereotypes)? If you were a white in the US South during the early 1900s would you go out of your way tp publish stories about rape commiteed by black men? No doubt some occured at the same rate as among any other group and was thus a real problem but with hudnerds getting lynched based offf stereotypes and bigorty it would be hard to see such stories as neutral and intended as solely a matter of concern for the safety of women.

Re: "The problem with you is that you are a racist and as with mopst racists you just cant see it since you actually believe that Muslims are evil and thus cant understand why stereotyping a while religion is bad."

I did not say that Muslims are evil. I made a very clear distinction between Muslims and militant "Muslims." In fact, I said explicitly that "modern Muslims do not act that way." Turks do not act that way. Muslim-Americans do not act that way. Hezbollah, Hamas, Fatah, Al Qaida, and similar terrorist groups do act that way. Many Palestinians raise their children to act that way, although other Palestinians are victimized by the militants.

You are right about flaky and even violent Jews and Christians, but they are a tiny minority. The vast majority of terrorist acts are perpetrated by those who identify themselves as Muslims and use the Koran as justification, although their actions have about as much to do with modern Islam as the Inquisition had to do with any of Jesus' teachings.

Bill Levinson says, "The Turks don't act that way." So Bill Levinson would have us believe that the good Arabs are the ones that are not being invaded and forced to fight back. Hezbollah is not a terrorist organization. The unprovoked invasion and bombing of Lebanon was a terrorist act killing over 1,000 Lebanese people. Like I said earlier, we can tune in to Fox News or look at Frontpage to get the kinds of factual distortions that the Zionists insist they have the right to post here, but they will never let us post in their media.

"The unprovoked invasion and bombing of Lebanon was a terrorist act killing "....

It was provoked by the repeated bombing of northern Israel, and by the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers, who are still being held in violation of their Geneva Convention rights.

But these issues are tangential to the topic of censorship on Indymedia

The Israeli invasion and bombing campaign against the people of Lebanon was not provoked.

The Israeli soldiers were captured when Israel began its invasion of Lebanon.

Besides Israel already held thousands of Lebanese prisoners kidnapped in the earlier invasion Lebanon.

Hezbollah's missile attacks were part of Lebanon's attempt to defend themselves from the bombing and invasion by Israel.

It is exactly Bill’s kinds of distortions and others, like Becky Johnson's racist justifications for the Israeli government's murder of Palestinian school children, that people can find in the corporate media such as Fox News or other racist press such as Frontpage. Those media sources do not tell the truth and they do not allow anyone to respond to their lies in their airtime or on their pages. If people want those kinds of lies they can go to those sources, but Indymedia is under no obligation to make those racist lies and justifications for mass murder available here.

The following is a good response to the lies of the corporate media on Lebanon.

George Galloway on SKY News
9 min 18 sec - Aug 6, 2006
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9071731896689197790

Nasrallah admitted he did not anticipate the Israeli response to the kidnapping of the two soldiers. His invasion and attack was planned and well documented.

Under International law, all prisoners are entitled to, among other things, Red Cross visitation. The captured Israeli soldiers are being deprieved of their international rights under the Geneva convention.

STEVE ARGUE WRITES: "like Becky Johnson's racist justifications for the Israeli government's murder of Palestinian school children..."

BECKY: Here is another reason against censorship. Steve makes this outrageous accusation of me, and I cannot defend myself because I am repeatedly censored.
How is this fair? If someone is criticized, its only fair to allow them to respond.

Israel does not "murder" Palestinian children. They are killed in the crossfire as they live in a war zone. They are killed when bombs go off by accident in their daddies bomb factories. they are killed while carrying guns and amunition from place to place. They are killed when they themselves, shoot guns. They are killed when they volunteer to become suicide bombers. They are killed while they vandalize property or steal (See: Gaza Strip by James Longley). They go and throw rocks DAILY at IDF positions. While the IDF is under orders to not fire if its kids throwing rocks, if they feel threatened they can and do. They are killed when the IDF targets a truck carrying rockets driving thru town and accidently kills them. The case of Iman Al-Hams, that Steve Argue is referring to, the 13 year-old girl walked directly onto the closed military zone of the Girit outpost, staffed by IDF soldiers. She walked straight towards them, angrily speaking in Arabic, pulled off her backpack, and threw it at them. She was then shot. The backpack did not contain any explosives.

Steve calls this "the Israeli govt. murder of Palestinian school children." It isn't murder. Its self-defense. And its the Palestinians who think its okay to use children for combatants. That is sick.

I'm glad Santa Cruz indymedia is allowing this spirited discussion of censorship versus moderating.

But it seems that posters are getting into specific disputes about Middle Eastern issues instead what is the original issue for me:

Allowing as free an on-topic discussion as possible and when posts are deleted, having the respect to inform the person deleted the specific policy being violated (when volunteers have time to do so).

I don't have any clear sense of the amount of work that goes into posting the massive volume of photos, sound bytes, videos, and commentary on the UCSC PD attack on the demonstrators last Wednesday.
But I imagine it's a lot. Still, it would reassure me if volunteers could set aside time to respond--even belatedly--when they feel it necessary to delete posts.

I'm also wondering--since L.A. Indymedia has a "hidden post" section, why can't Santa Cruz indymedia?

Perhaps someone connected with the website can respond.

I also suggest that indymedia feel free to move the discussion to a second heading if it's really going off-topic. This isn't censorship, but traffic management.

Thanks again for this discussion.

Recognizing that this is a controversial topic, it's still a Santa Cruz local one and specifically has to do with Santa Cruz indymedia. It's also ongoing. Hence, I wonder why this discussion is not in the upper third of the "Publish Your News" section (along the right hand column of the site). Instead of being in "Local News", it's relegated to the bottom third as "Other".
Please move it to the upper section as a regular discussion, or let us know why it's being "doghoused" at the bottom.

Finally, I'd like to know from posters how many want to continue a discussion of this subject on FRSC Thursday night 6-8 PM or Sunday morning 9:30 AM - 1 PM?

Thanks to both posters and volunteers for making this discucssion possible.

I'll tell you what's sick Becky Johnson. What's sick is the Israeli government murders all the time, lies about what happens, and then blames their victims.

Example:

VIDEO: Israeli Soldiers "Shoot to Kill" at Israeli Anti-war Demonstrators
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060816&articleId=2982

Please look at the number of comments posted so far on his thread. Mine is the 22nd.
Indybay.org/santacruz SHOULD be a very active place with lots of input and discussions going on all the time.
Robert Norse (rightfully) asks why this thread has suddenly shifted to a discussion about the mideast.
Many of us, including Steve Argue, know that if we post on other articles, our comments will be censored,
and only those who reflect the personal bias of the moderator will be allowed to stand.

I did not start a shift to the mideast, but only defended myself from Steve Argue's accusation, which is only
his own personal opinion of what he THINKS motivates me. I can assure readers: Steve is no mind reader.

My point of view has ALWAYS been, that IMC is a valuable resource for any community its located in.

Its effectively a "People's Newspaper" for which the editorial board is composed of a rotating board of local people,
of which anyone could join. Editing should ONLY be done according to the consensed guidelines.

Allowing elitist takeovers, virtual disregard for the guidelines, rampant censorship, "secret" or private meetings,
refusal to allow dialogue, using IMC to smear others, knowingly posting false information, and
blocking the IP addresses of those you can't debate on a level playing field are HUGE problems with Indybay.org/santacruz
and perhaps the whole indybay.org site.

Censorship is NOT freedom of speech, fair, or supportable. Censorship is NOT what readers ask monitors and editors to practice
(Steve Argue may be the exception, here. He's perfectly willing to have his critics censored!! He didn't even find it worthy of
comment when he posted directly under a death threat directed at me).

I urge all readers to pressure anyone you know who is involved in Indymedia to back off on the censorship!!
Most of the articles currently posted have zero or one comment!! that's pitiful!!
When censorship is removed (as Robert Norse was able for a brief period to get removed FOR THIS THREAD ONLY!!) look at how many
people have things they strongly feel the need to say.

This is such an important issue. It is instrumental for the health and vibrancy of community oriented independent media to allow a forum for debate and discussion. Even the mainstream media allows letters to the editors.

Bring back free and unfettered discussion. Bring back the multiplicity of voices. Bring back the hidden comments section.

"If you don't believe in free speeech for those you despise, then you don't believe in it at all"
Noam Chomsky

Look no futher than wise Robert Norse and Becky Johnson. Indybay SUCKS! This is such a shitty website! I have no idea why it is so damn popular! Why do all these people keep publishing NEWS and upcoming events to this horrible website where the power-hungry rulers control everything? Robert and Becky have got everything worked out already! They KNOW how to run a Peoples Newspaper damit! Maybe you didn't hear me. Let me try again. Folks, this website is irrelevant! From now on, everyone should use the HUFF site for all their INDEPENDENT, CENSORSHIP-FREE, NEWS and VIEWS! If you don't start using the HUFF site right now... then YOU SUPPORT CENSRORSHIP!!!

Robert and Becky are so damn smart!

Stop wasting your time where some elitist rules everything you can read, think and publish.

Please folks, pay no attention to all the local and global coverage Santa Cruz County activists are publishing on Indybay! Instead, let's all just set our homepage to http://www.huffsantacruz.org/

On Thursday or Friday when my original post at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/10/18/18321441.php was deleted and never restored. Also deleted was a prior post critical of some of the protesters and claiming to be an eyewitness). I think this critic has reposted on another UCSC Regents protest thread.

However my concern was that the deleted posts be restored so the thread can be more easily followed and understood. This has not happened. I also requested, both repeatedly in posts and on an e-mail to indybay.org/santacruz that the volunteer who decided to delete us explain what policy s/he felt we violated. No response.

Occasionally an anonymous indymedia volunteer will write that some posts are "hidden"--though, as far as I know, and as far as another indymedia worker who I've spoken with knows, there's no way of accessing hidden posts--unlike in other cities like laindymedia. Indymedia people, who I think should no better, have called in on my Free Radio Santa Cruz show and claimed that no posts are deleted, they are just hidden. This does not appear to be the case in Santa Cruz. Because it is still the case in L.A., and they both use the national indymedia system, I wonder if this wasn't a conscious choice made by our local santacruz indymedia? Did this also involve wiping out all the previously hidden posts? Again, I ask a volunteer to do us the courtesy of an answer. But, I don't think we have time enough and patience enough to wait endlessly for word from people in power here.

And yes, it is people in power--however local and limited and otherwise commendable santa cruz indymedia is. People in positions of power are anonymous taking decisions for which they can't be held accountable.

It's now been four days. Others have waited months for a response when their posts were deleted and received none on my questions about the original deletions and what policies were violated.

Accordingly I would ask the following: How many would like to set up a "Censored Santa Cruz" site. There we that relate to local issues and controversies can post stories which indymedia, the sentinel, or whatever other forums refuse to post.

I've already contacted two web-savy people who are willing to do this. Who would be interested in patronizing such a service?

Santa cruz indymedia is a private group that can pretty much do what it wants, no matter how loudy we complain. I believe their highhandedness detracts from their credibility and, as Becky Johnson has suggested, probably loses them readership. Instead of mourning, perhaps it's time, as old Joe Hill once said, to organize?

Let me know what you think and how much time/energy/resources you'd be willing to put into such a project. You can also call in to my Sunday Free Radio Show at 10 AM October 29th at 101.1 FM(http://www.freakradio.org) at 831-427-3772 and let me know if you'd be interested in contributing to this project.

Wow, Robert, just think how much good you could be doing if you were using this time to go after the police for their brutality at the UCSC event instead of supporting the right of someone who is completely anonymous and unaccountable for their words to make claims against protesters.

As for your “censored on Indymedia” page, will my responses to Becky Johnson’s anti-Arab racism be deleted there just as they currently are at the HUFF site? Really it is no matter to me anyway, because I have no desire to attempt to reason with her uninformed and stubborn racism.

As for any threat that was made against you, Becky, I’m sorry that happened and I don’t support anybody threatening you. I wish you would say the same about the Israeli government’s murderous attacks on the Palestinians, Lebanese, and peace protesters.

Figured I would clear a few things up:

-about 80% of whats hidden on this site is ad spam (for viagra, porn, online gambling...)
-most of the code we use to block posting is also aimed at ad spam
-the ad spam is setup to make it almost impossible to block programatically so editors have to hide things every few hours or it fills up the site

if we got rid of hiding and blocking the site would be full of thousands of comments and posts a say advertsing products and sites so it wouldnt really be possible for us to not hide and block

If you dont belive me, here are the last few posts hidden (there are dozens of more comments with similar content during the same few hours):
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/10/25/18323159.php
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/10/25/18323148.php
https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/10/25/18323136.php
Our code currently doesnt strip out links from hidden posts yet but just shows title and first line but as you can see the porn posts that are hidden still provide working links that keep the posts useful to those posting them in terms of increasing their google results (having a prominent hidden page would encourage the spam even more...)
sometimes our code that looks for common spam words doesnt work as expected and I just noticed the following post was hidden and unhid it:
https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/10/24/18323098.php

Another set of things hidden are clearly offensive posts. Taking a look at the past few days:
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/10/23/18322657.php (refers to the "Jewish mafia" in way that is probably antiSemitic)
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/10/22/18322488.php (denounces all nonMuslims)
https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/10/24/18323057.php (maybe was just too crazy sounding or could have contained something bad, not quoite sure why it was hidden)
https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/10/24/18322951.php (may be hidden for a reason but I notice 5 other hidden copies so Im guessing a copy isnt hidden and it wasnt an offensive post just a duplicate)
https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/10/23/18322579.php (the title doesnt reflect the content which starts with accusations that Indymedias are run by the government etc...)
https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/10/22/18322353.php (looks like a legitimate post but seems like its disguised ad spam; one spam engine looks like it pulls titles and first paragraphs from the site and then puts the viagra links after that and posts those assuming we wont notice)
https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/10/21/18322105.php (is a rightwing post that may have been hidden for politicalk reasons but the author name posted is a real local activist who didnt post it so thats a better reason for it to be hidden)

And I cant find any of the other stuff peopel complain being hidden in the past few days of posts (Im guessing there could have been some comments that were hidden due to rightwing content only).

I guess the point Im trying to make is that we have a small number of editors who have to actively look through the site every few hours and hide spam, neonazi posts, posts with fake titles and offensive content and the like and if something gets hidden by accident while we do that (personally I can hide via my cellphone and when other editors have little time a lot gets classified that way so I dont always read the content as well as I should).

Utah Indymedia is a fairly good example of what happens when editors are not watching a site. It seems that people are even posting offensive stuff against those who dont like Indybay pretending to be Indybay editors to stir up conflict (actual editors are trying to work with Utah to get their newswire offline so this stuff stops)

---

Now on to the discussion from above (just wanted to clear up that we cant not hide and if we made hidden posts easy to find they would be linked to for spam purposes and allow a lot of pretty offensive stuff exposure; there were people linking to our hidden pages as an an interesting site in itself when it existed)

Determining what is legitimate content and what isnt is pretty difficult. A post that refers to the "Jewish Mafia" and "Jews controlling the media" is pretty easy to hide without question, as are Ann Coulter reposts, posts accusing all activists of supporting terrorism etc... (even a politically neutral site would have to hide a lot of that stuff just to keep the debate civil since once things degenerate thats all that gets posted since peopel are scared away by the threats and hate speach)
Sometimes the process is very subjective and depends on previous comments we have found from the same person (one rightwing commentator used to post dozens of one line snide comments on dozens of posts every afternoon and when we classified we just started hiding all of them whether it was openly racist as some were or not since there were so many comments and the intention of many comments seemed one of wanting to discourage coverage by making fun of protests and peopeles pictures more than to make a real argument) Keep in mind that when we are hiding this stuff its not as if we mainly see this stuff its more like "viagra, gambling, porn, porn, rightwing comment, porn, viagra, gambling, antiSemitic comment, porn...." and we cant really email around and debate about each thing hidden since the stuff comes in so fast.

In terms of hiding proIsrael content some of that is just because its rightwing, supportive of war etc... but there is also the issue that the debate on Israel degenerates so quicklly into threats, fake posting of other people's names as authors, people getting angry and posting 200 comments or posts denouncing indybay or some common poster etc... that we try a little harder than on other issues to keep the topiuc from turning into the flamewars that used to happen.
We dont have a clear policy for hiding but personally I hide anything that refers to Palestinians as "Palis", talks of "Jewisgh control" of the US government or media, links to antiIsrael sites that focus on the USS Liberty and only seem to have white American contributors and have US flags all over the place (David Duke has such a site awhile back and its hard to know for sure what the motivations are but there are some clear signs when the group is a front for KKK style groups even when they try not to be open about it), posts that talk about Islamofacism or IslamoNazis (without being clear they are not trying to demonize all Muslims), posts that claim that various activist groups are antiSemitic while only mentioning opposition to Israeli actions, posts about Israel from far right newspapers and sites (Frontpage, Malkin, Coulter)... Once I see a poster regular posting thinsg from a far right site and I have 200 things to look through to hide I usually just hide all of their stuff (Bill Levinson for example has a site full of Malkin reposts etc... so I assume he isnt posting to engage in the type of debate that could at some point be civil... maybe Im wrong but when I have a 5 min break at work and am classifying Indybay posts because otherwise it will fill with viagra ads I cant really read everything in detail or debate with other editors as to whether one speciifc comment or repost should be hidden)

We may seem to be siding against an issue when we hide posts but you shluldnt read too much into it. We get about as many articles written about us like:
http://mobile.100777.com/node/1126 (which was a top story on Rense.com for awhile)
as we do claiming we support terrorists
and we get about as many aticles attacking us for posts we didnt hide like
http://butiamaliberal.blogspot.com/2006/10/those-who-support-school-violence.html
as we do for stuff we do hide.

One last thing thats probably worth clearning up. Some of the editors of this site also ocassionally post pictures and cover things but most people who regular post dont know us and we dont really know them (also some editors rarely or never post content). Half of the hate posts on sites like utah indymedia that claim to be about or by Indybay editors use names of people that havent worked with this site for years.

Since I wont have time to argue on this thread or respond to many questions (during the day I have a little time to classify but not to read the site and debate) figured Id throw out a few related points about how we edit the site.

If I get home from work and am classifying posts and there are 200 new things to look through and its 50% spam chance are I will miss some stuff that should be hidden or misclassify. Sometimes other editors will catch misclassified stuff (especially if something ends up local that shouldnt) but sometimes that wont. Sometimes a post may get misclassifed as hidden or not hidden just becase I accidently chose the wrong classification from the dropdown list.
When people engage in attacking Indybay by showing offensive stuff thats not hidden and other things that are they can easilly mis the fact that all the stuff isnt on purpose and we cant be 100% consistent. One editor may read everythin carefully sicne they have a lot of time to classify while another finds the site has been left along for hours and only has a few minutes to deal with stuff during a lunch break at work.

If a thread has gotten out of hand (with a flamewar getting to the point of hate speech and death threats) it may just be easiest to hide all comments from one point on or from one person or hide everything and unhide one reasonable sounding post from each side and hope that the discussion wont degenerate again.
Some posters have problems with specific issues (one regular poster on gay rights issues ocassionally makes racist statements we have to hide and one regular poster on SF city politics and issues in the Bay View ocassionally makes homophobic and antiSemitic statements we have to hide). This can lead to use just noticing a comment by that poster on a thread realted to the topic they seem to be unable to discuss in a cvivil manner and hideing it without spending as much time as we should to see if the specific post or comment has issues. To give an example (which Im sure I will regrest as giving as an example) more directly relating to complaints above I have (during times when a lot of comments are comming in and I dont have much time) hidden Becky posts on Israel threads without reading them and classified ok her comments on homeless issues at other times without actually reading the content of the comments (I think I hide her Israel comments more to prevent the headache of a flamewar starting which can get really bad if no editor may be around for a bit than because Im afraid her specific comment may cross some line into being hateful) I really dont know Becky or have strong opinions about Israel but after dealing with some horrible flamewars and attacks on the site related to Israel discussions (with DOS attacks from both sides even bringing the site down at several points) I tend to have a bias towards letting the discussion get out of hand like it used to. This isnt the best way to run an Indymedia site and having more editors would allow more thought in terms of hiding (but also would introduce more biased editors who may have strong views and start classifying in strange ways that are worse than what we do now)

Damn Im going to be late for work.... just throwing out of bunch of stuff since I figured having an editor comment on this thread would help peopel understand the issues involved since most were not being brought up and the whole classifying/censoring discussion seemed way too abstract.

While I appreciate the two lengthy posts from the sf indybay volunteer (and thank you for the work you do), I'd still like to hear from the local indymedia people.

I say this because the posts deleted were neither spam, nor racist, & had to do with local issues. Perhaps the sfindymedia writer can encourage the local indymedia people to become more specific and responsive. That would go a long way towards clearing the air and resolving the issue.

I'd also like to know why this thread has not yet achieved "local" status.

Please note that SF Indymedia and SF Bay Area Indymedia (indybay) are two very separate groups and should never be confused for one another.

The indybay editor above said that he was in SF, not that he is an SF editor. Comprends?

Ths site is indybay and Santa Cruz. SF Indy is a rarely updated site run by nessie and maybe ocassionally 1-2 others. This post is other partly because its not really local news and more of a discussion and partly because local has comments on a seperate page making discussion harder. This site is intended more for news than discussion since keeping a discussion site civil would take a lot more work, code supporting multiple admin roles and things like threading and emails when people respond to things.

As un unrelated complaint I just spent 30 min dealing with spam and classifying things local via my cellphone on the way home from work since nobody else has classified in hours... Editors share classifying all posts and its not limited by locality of the editor

1. Does Santa Cruz indymedia have hidden posts, i.e. a part of its website where "deleted" posts are put?

2. If it exists, is this area accessible to the readership and if so, how?

3. If it doesn't, why was the decision made to change--unlike, say, L.A. indymedia?

4. Do S.C. indymedia volunteers intend to maintain what amounts to a pretty consistent policy of deleting posts without informing either the community or the person deleted the policy being violated?

As for whether this discussion needs to be sitting in the "doghouse" section of indymedia, I'm not convinced.

It's nearly the longest thread. It relates directly to the UC Regents protest discussion--a LOCAL issue. It belongs in more accessible area rather than in the "doghouse" backdoor area where it's posted. It is news because it's an on-going practice by certain Santa Cruz indymedia volunteers, who insist on remaining anonymous, that impacts the community's awareness of an important news story.

And it's likely to be repeated unless indymedia volunteers take some responsibility for the situation, hold themselves accountable, and address the issue rather than savaging or deleting their critics.

And Steve Argue is right--we all have a lot better things to do (and try to do them as well).

But if we're intellectually honest, this kind of delete-and-cover behavior chills and thins the discussion and discourages us.

Any further interest in an alternate site?

Robert, why is it that almost every issue becomes about YOU? Food Not Bombs in SF, homeless in Santa Cruz, Citizen's Police Review Board, Tent University, Free Radio Santa Cruz, SC IMC, and on and on.

Stop whining and START ANOTHER FUCKING SITE ALREADY, please, and don't come back to this one.

You are not a volunteer on this website. You and Becky are NOT co-founders of SC IMC.

YOU'VE NEVER volunteer to do any of the ACTUAL WORK in any movements you claim to represent and support.

All you've ever accomplished is to whine and complain, file frivolous lawsuits against the City, and jump on movement bandwagons, to sget your mug on TV. All you do is steer legitimate activists away from REAL issues, into these circular firing squads. Who are you REALLY working for?

>>1. Does Santa Cruz indymedia have hidden posts, i.e. a part of its website where "deleted" posts are put?

The code doesnt support that yet. It doesnt support it partly becaue the hidden section used to draw people to it just to read the neoNazi and hate posts but also because the indybay site uses new code and there is not yet a way without code changes to show a hidden newswire

>>2. If it exists, is this area accessible to the readership and if so, how?

No

>>3. If it doesn't, why was the decision made to change--unlike, say, L.A. indymedia?

it was made during the code rewrite mainly by those in the SF part of the collective who wanted to come up ways to prevent flamewars. SC joined a bit after the decission was made (if you recall we got rid of latest comments too because things were getting pretty bad and it took way to long to classify without having neoNazis and other trolls on the site)


>>4. Do S.C. indymedia volunteers intend to maintain what amounts to a pretty consistent policy of deleting posts without informing either the community or the person deleted the policy being violated?
No idea, but classifying content is shared and many of us in SF do a lot of the classifying.

>>As for whether this discussion needs to be sitting in the "doghouse" section of indymedia, I'm not convinced.
Most posts stay under other and I have classified most of the heated KPFA posts other too since it keeps the news as the main focus of the site. I did just make a video about KPFA issues local but it may become other too if it seems too flamey(some of the comments are borderline hidable since tensions are running high about the KPFA elections). The way the site works now making something local makes it local on all pages so if a SC post about indymedia censoring were local it would be at least briefly the top story in the right column on the front page of the site. While this issue may matter it seems like it would scare off readers to have this type of stuff be that much of a focus when there are court dates, protests and the like that are also getting covered.

>> if we're intellectually honest, this kind of delete-and-cover behavior chills and thins the discussion and discourages us.
Maybe but flamewars that escalate into constant personal attacks also keep people away from sites. Utah is an example of a zero censorship site that is in the process of being taken down and when collectives disappear and all that is left is an open posting site the content gets bad so quickly real posts soon vanish. I personally think the popularity of a discussion site probably depends on having more people do more censoring so long thoughtful posts can be encouraged and short name calling discouraged. But again, this isnt intended to be a discussion site with comments originally being intended to allow updates about news items more than as a place for people to argue about issues (not because discussion is bad but because it really takes a lot of work to keep an anonymous discussion site civil)

TIRED OF ROBERT WRITES: "You and Becky are NOT co-founders of SC IMC."

BECKY: Guess again! While neither Robert nor I ever had monitor status, we were recruited simultaneously by Van, the original founder of SC.IMC on Pacific Ave.
in the Fall of 2000. Van asked us if we wanted to be on the ground floor of establishing an Indymedia in Santa Cruz. We both gave him an enthusiastic "yes!"
Both of us had already joined LA.IMC in mid-August when we went down there for the Democratic National Convention. I remember attending a couple of early meetings, one in particular at Cafe Pergolisi. My role has been limited to writing articles for the site.

I believe that most of the main people at SC.IMC all joined AFTER Robert and I. Since we joined BEFORE the site actually went up, we can legitimately claim we were among the co-founders of the site. As soon as it was functional, Robert and I became frequent posters, with many of our articles featured.

Now SC.IMC members who came later than the Fall of 2000, are trying to say we weren't co-founders. They are wrong. However, since RN and I never had monitor status, they can claim otherwise I guess.

"Van, the original founder of SC.IMC"

Wrong again, liar. Van was not the "original founder of SC.IMC" and neither were you or Robert.

Becky you do not know what you are talking about and your lies and pathetic.

Becky, you are full of shit.

SC IMC was not even established until May 2001. That's when the site went live. Yes, there were few posts in those first few months, and little organizing to promote the site. But let the record show, that Aaron Selverston was the **original** mover to get the site going.

Van didn't even come into the scene until about 6 months after the site was live. He was at a vigil for Happy John Dine, with a small video camera.

I noticed his camera had a SF.indymedia.org sticker so I started chatting with Van and mentioned there was a local site up and running. He was very excited about it, and that week, he contacted Aaron Selverston, the **original** founder of SC IMC, and started to organize a meeting, which took place at Aaron's house. Yes, you and Robert were there. SFW! That does not make you "founders."

I also recall Aaron sharing with me, his displeasure about both you and Robert being involved. Aaron also had a difficult time working with Van, and eventually left the project.

As I already said, neither of you ever do any of the real work involved.

You had NOTHING to do with establishing, building, upgrading, and maintaining SC IMC, EVER.

You HAVE posted many articles. That does not make you a 'member.'

It makes you a 'user.'

Don't believe me? Here's a couple links to emails that Aaron sent to the global lists when SC IMC was getting off the ground.

http://internal.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=334

>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Aaron Selverston" <aaron [at] cats.ucsc.edu>
>To: <mailman-owner [at] lists.indymedia.org>
>Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 7:04 PM
>Subject: [Listwork] Santa Cruz IMC mail list
>
>
>> Greetings fellow media phreak!
>>
>> We've got a solid group of people here in Santa Cruz ready to get the
>> ball rolling with our IMC. We've got the URL and all the tech info... now we need some email >> lists. Would it be possible to start a santacruz-IMC list?
>> That would be splendid.
>>
>> Thank you so much!
>>
>> -Aaron Selverston

http://mail.indymedia.org/new-imc/2001-July/000555.html

Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 11:54:54 -0700
From: "Aaron Selverston" <aaron at cats.ucsc.edu>
Subject: [Listwork] Santa Cruz IMC mail list
To: listwork at indymedia.org
Cc: "Ryan" <thelorax at cats.ucsc.edu>

Hello,
We're moving forward with a Santa Cruz IMC; we've got the URL up and the features area set up, and our collective meetings are picking up... we need a listserve though if possible. So... could we have IMC-SC for the name of the listserve? It will be administered by me, Aaron Selverston. My email: aaron at cats.ucsc.edu, and yes, I understand the obligations of this position. We'd categorize this list under the Local USA: Pacific section on the lists.indymedia.org site. Our site description would simply be: Santa Cruz IMC discussion group.

Thanks so much for your help!
-Aaron Selverston


I invite any reader to browse the list archives, and try and find just 1 email from Becky Johnson, or Robert Norse. LOL, you'll be busy for days...

I love the irony of Robert complaining to Indymedia about censorship, even while he advertises his show about their "censorship" on their site.

This situation is akin to Robert barging into your house, taking a crap in your living room and then yelling at you for not providing him with toilet paper.

AN ANONYMOUS AND FOUL-MOUTHED "CO-FOUNDER" WRITES: "Becky you are full of shit."

BECKY: No need for name-calling. Its not like SC.IMC actually kept any RECORDS or MINUTES OF MEETINGS so we could verify anything. It's pretty much your word against mine. YOU won't even identify yourself, so there's no reason for any readers to believe what you say. You are a cranky, anonymous detractor, who doesn't like Robert or me, and you would not be above making up facts to suit your "history."

Van originally had the site under his name. I think that can be verified, though I"m not sure how. He had some differences with other IMC members, and ended up transferring it to someone else---probably Aaron. YOU are the one who can't quite get your facts straight. You said yourself that Robert and I were at some of those early meetings. I don't know what constitutes "membership" as SC.IMC. Attending the meetings and voting on the issues is not enough? Not everyone is given monitor status. Not everyone is a techie. Articles, photos, videos, and audio files are CONTRIBUTING to indymedia. We both have done plenty of that!!

Robert and I have both contributed hundreds if not thousands of hours of time researching and reporting on local issues. Robert frequently advertises on his radio show. And, before I was smeared and villified, I did so too, on my TV show. I guess you have your own definition of what "work " is. but since you are an anonymous nobody, with an obviously biased attitude, who really cares what you think? Robert and I have been putting it on the line for a decade or more now. And we have done so in a public way, using our real names. What have YOU done? I bet its not much.

Before 9/11 a group of activists organized around a new Indymedia with the focus of many stories being abvout immigration and police brutality. Once a war in Iraq started and Palestinian issues started to become more of a focus differences emerged and people who tended to side with Bush and teh Right on some things got angry that they couldnt use Indymedia to advertise support for things like the crackdown on Gaza or the war in Lebanon. Not everyone who is progressive is progressive on all issues but when the issues that divide become major issues its not surprising to see that Becky (in the case of Indymedia) and Hitchens (in the case of the Nation) got pushed out. One could see this as censorship but having Hitechs write for the Nation isnt a free speach issue anymore than not allowing Michael Savage to be a speaker on a community radio station is opposition to free speach (if all progressive organizatiosn caved in and allowed themselves to be used by the right there would only be right wing views accesible by the public)
As with any political conflict the discussion above sounds personalized and Im sure people on both sides have said and done not nice things to each other.

The Isreal-Palestione may seem fundmantal to some for reasons that never make sense to be but 5 years from now it could be China at center stage in the media and then new divisions could emerge over people's views on US military threats related to the status of Taiwan.
But since the US is at war in the Middle East and Israel is a focus and antiwar groups that are familiar with the details of what is going on do side with the Palestinians I cant see anyway that strongly antiPalestinian people are going to be satisfied with anything an Indymedia site does (andt he discussion ends up being one of smear more than real complaint). I know where the right wing stands but am curious if the proIsrael people who seem at the heart of this conflict also have similar problems with KPFA, Democracy Now, the Nation, Counterpunch and the like. If so debate over censorship seems a bit futile since if you look at debates with Hitchens teh anger level has made him more antiLeft (like Horrowitz, Kaplan and Savage) than really arguing for anything constructive and engaging with such peopel in dialogue is pointless (partly because their anger comes with an internal backlash against a more Lefty past in a way that is perhaps comprible to how some people in AA deal with alcohol consumption and see anyone having a sip of wine as being alcoholics)

AN ANONYMOUS AND FOUL-MOUTHED "CO-FOUNDER" WRITES: "Becky you are full of shit."

BECKY: No need for name-calling. Its not like SC.IMC actually kept any RECORDS or MINUTES OF MEETINGS so we could verify anything. It's pretty much your word against mine. YOU won't even identify yourself, so there's no reason for any readers to believe what you say. You are a cranky, anonymous detractor, who doesn't like Robert or me, and you would not be above making up facts to suit your "history."

Van originally had the site under his name. I think that can be verified, though I"m not sure how. He had some differences with other IMC members, and ended up transferring it to someone else---probably Aaron. YOU are the one who can't quite get your facts straight. You said yourself that Robert and I were at some of those early meetings. I don't know what constitutes "membership" as SC.IMC. Attending the meetings and voting on the issues is not enough? Not everyone is given monitor status. Not everyone is a techie. Articles, photos, videos, and audio files are CONTRIBUTING to indymedia. We both have done plenty of that!!

Robert and I have both contributed hundreds if not thousands of hours of time researching and reporting on local issues. Robert frequently advertises on his radio show. And, before I was smeared and villified, I did so too, on my TV show. I guess you have your own definition of what "work " is. but since you are an anonymous nobody, with an obviously biased attitude, who really cares what you think? Robert and I have been putting it on the line for a decade or more now. And we have done so in a public way, using our real names. What have YOU done? I bet its not much.




1. I never claimed to be a 'co-founder' of SC IMC. I attended a meeting, the same one as you, and Van, six months after the site was already online, and functional, with some local news reports.

2. You don't know what you are talking about, and are making this stuff up when you say, "Van originally had the site under his name. I think that can be verified, though I"m not sure how. He had some differences with other IMC members, and ended up transferring it to someone else---probably Aaron."

SC-IMC, like most Indymedia websites, are not in anyone's name. They are sub domains of indymedia.org, or in this case, indybay.org, or whatever, url they use in cities around the world.

3. Saying, "Becky, you are full of shit," is about the same as calling you a liar. Is it name-calling, to say, 'Becky, you are full of shit, if you are flat out lying?

4. You have written many articles and posted on SC IMC. Readers can judge for themselves the accuracy and validity of it.

5. If you can't figure out who I am, you are really not as smart as, even I, gave you credit for. I'm not about to put my name and reputation on here over this NON-ISSUE. That was my original point. You and Robert Norse like to waste activists time and energy. Whatever your motive, its destructive, and detracts from working for peace, and social justice. Look how much time I've already wasted, offering readers the truth about you're non-involvement with founding, building, or running this site.

Does it really matter who started what or did how much work etc...

Personally I think the process wherby domain names were handed out by someone from Seattle to local groups in the first years of the network probably was done badly but a lot of the local collective still turned out pretty well (even in areas where the same domain was given to two seperate groups almost independently as was the case in SF)

Some of the people who started the entrie indymedia network could have been jerks with weird political views but it doesnt really matter now if they are not around and dont have power over the network.

As for Santa Cruz arent most of the people who were around when the site started gone now and if they came back Im guessing they wouldnt have rights to change things based off the good work they did years ago and they would have to rejoin in organizing like any other new person.... so why this arguing about who did what first?

My only point is that I am not some "outsider" and I have just as much right to post on SC.IMC as anyone else provided I am not breaking any of the editorial guidelines.
I was also called a "liar" and so I defended myself.

As for divineing your identity, no one expects psychic abilities from a journalist. And besides, I'm not sure you have done all that much
for me to notice anyway. You sound like one of those people who just lob insults from the sidelines and don't actually contribute
much of value. YOUR identity lies in putting someone else down.

Where were you when Robert Norse, Bernard Klitzner, and I were sued by the City of Santa Cruz for lobbying to get the Sleeping Ban on the City council agenda?
Oh yeah, you were bad-mouthing Robert. After five months of court appearances and stay-away orders, the three of us were aquitted in the court of Judge Stevens.

Have you produced a radio show twice a week for ten years that informs the public on issues of homelessness?

Have you sued a police dept. for police brutality and won?

Have you written articles for a homeless newspaper for Ten years?

This thread is about SC Indymedia. I highly object to the kind of censorship that has characterized this site for the past two years.
I think its unwarranted, unfair, hurts indymedias generally, drives away readers, and violates the principles of open publishing.

Calling me a "liar" and saying I am "full of shit" and characterizing Robert as a "whiner" and a "complainer" while hiding behind numerous pseudonyms shows what depths you have sunk to in both the ethical and the credible department.

"My only point is that I am not some "outsider""

No liar Becky, this is not your "only point"

You spread lies, disinformation and mistrust. You are blind about Israel and Palestine. You lie about Santa Cruz Indymedia. You waste peoples' time with your never-ending justification of your stubborn ideas and lies.

you think that you have more credibility because you use the same name over and over and post your image?

Wrong Becky, actions speak louder than words.

"Where were you when... blah blah blah...."

Great Becky, go pat yourself on the back. Why are you taking up important activist media resources with your activist brownie points?

"I highly object to the kind of censorship that has characterized this site for the past two years.
I think its unwarranted, unfair, hurts indymedias generally, drives away readers, and violates the principles of open publishing."

Obviously you have not been driven away....

The site still has an important niche role within our local activist community and provides a window for the world to peer through. Thanks Indymedia.

anonydrone: "Why are you taking up important activist media resources with your activist brownie points?"

She's showing that, unlike, say, anonydrones who call themselves "shit", she has actual activist credibility, and the fury of the attacks on her shows more about your hypocrisy than her ego.

@%<

When we speak words that move scribes and disciples, true and tried,
and the children can see that by our actions we have nothing to hide,
our enemies will show themselves on the same side
with those who indeed have something to hide.



Forward the judgment.
Show how the guilty run and hide,
because they are poisoned by greed and pride.
They know that by our judgment we will cast them aside.
So for the honor of this same public challenge many have died.
For those who know better, to themselves and others, they have lied.

“Greed cannot be outlawed”, they will deride,
“and how can one prove or disprove pride?”

In the matters of life, death, and oppression, let the children of the nations join in this open challenge for their enemies to show themselves as those who will not respond, but continue to hide.

How long will democracy permit suppression to keep wickedness in hiding? How long will suppression continue to propagate deception, corruption and oppression? When will that veil be forever removed from the temple of the media heavens?

Ask the Pope why,
if not for the Vatican’s pride,
an interview is denied.



We find no enemy willing to stand at this podium/pulpit willing to answer three simple questions with three simple answers that even the children can decide if they are open and honest or crooks that are not worth the riches they have amassed.

We will show that when the great kings and priests stand alone, they are powerless cowards who dare not come to this podium/pulpit to give answers.

They shut out the truth and silence the host.
They play the part of the Holy Ghost. (unpardonable suppression that gives rise to control of social conscience, aggression, rebellion, terrorism, and crucifixion or torture of whistleblowers).

They control the things that we need most, then rape our souls from coast to coast.

For you people who are fooled by the babble of religion, consider the following metaphors:

Imagine the prophet as a whistleblower,
the dragon as suppression,
the serpent as deception,
the heavens as the media,
thunder as broadcasting,
the cross as retaliation for standing up alone,
and this judgment as the victory.

If I censor my enemy, let me be censored, otherwise let me confront my enemies and let them speak.


[I am attempting to push the bounds of diversity in dialogue. If this is all too enigmatic for you, move on to some other reading material, but please do not insult my desire to express myself in an "unconventional" manner.]

Let us be tolerant of words, not bloodshed.

The original reason for my post was a concern that certain specific local comments about the UC Regents protest (including mine) were being deleted without explanation or apology.

I felt this detracted from the discussion of a local NEWS issue, particularly when one person deleted was allegedly an eye witness (albeit a critical one).

Though sf indymedia volunteers weighed in with general comments about the deletion procedures, the local indymedia volunteer who has weighed in, seems more concerned with denouncing critics than addressing the issue I raise.

That's fine, it's his/her website.

I then proposed, as a backup (and perhaps even as a service to s.c. indymedia volunteers) other folks might start a separate website on which the full debate, not allowed on indybay.org/santacruz can be run.

Let me emphasize here, I'm interested in full discussion of local Santa Cruz issues, not endless debates about Israeli government policy (on which I take much the same stand as indymedia volunteers in terms of my sympathies and views).

But if there's a LOCAL event involving a demonstration, one way or the other, I'd like to see all sides aired.

I also requested folks weigh in with specifics about indymedia deletions recently of their posts on my Free Radio Santa Cruz show (Sundays 9:30 AM -1 PM is the next one) at 427-3772. That invitation is still open. Plus I'm interested in knowing if anyone is interested
in having a back-up website where folks who feel discounted, deleted, or censored can say their piece, and those who want to read the full debate can read it.

I want to thank Steve, Becky, and others for this lengthy (if often off-topic) discussion.

Steve: Neither you nor anyone else will be censored on the HUFF website (http://www.huffsantacruz.org). The old yahoo group was controlled by a guy outside of Santa Cruz with some strange ideas. We've started a second group where all are welcome (thanks to Thomas Leavitt). Sorry for any trouble you may have had.
I agree we need to be focusing our energies on institutional abuse and imperial crime rather than fighting ourselves, but I don't think that struggle is helped by deleting parts of a local debate that are neither spam or personal attacks (especially when certain indybay.org/santa cruz volunteers themselves seem rather free-wheeling in their own attacks.

Becky: I don't think I need to clarify that my interest in seeing local posters generally not see their stuff disappear with no explanation. I am not standing up for pure libertarianism, since I recognize that this site has a certain mission and certain guidelines. Still if those guidelines are not referenced when posts are deleted, they serve as a pretext rather than a reason. I would urge you to respect the strong difference of opinion others have on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with you.
I apologize for repeating the same call for information and urge to call-in to my show, but I think---in the absence of any clear response for local indymedia volunteers about taking responsibility for deleting substantive posts on local issues and news events--the issue is unresolved. Hence the proposed alternate website.

I've talked myself out on this one, but if anyone wants to talk on the radio, FRSC is back broadcasting, so call in.

Thanks again to everyone for contributing.

"sf indymedia volunteers weighed in "
I dont think any did. SF Indymedia (sf.indymedia.org) is not the same site as indybay, neither is SF-IMC(sfimc.net)

ROBERT NORSE WRITES: "That's fine, it's his/her website. "

BECKY: I disagree. Indymedia is an alternative media for ordinary people, in the spirit of open-publishing with consensed rules,
inclusiveness, diversity, and open process. It is not the private blog of a few anonymous self-righteous "revolutionaries."

listen to discussion on this on Robert's Bathrobespierre's Broadsides radio show, archived at Oct 29 2006
found at : http://www.huffsantacruz.org

Now we know what Becky thinks. I for one can die happy.

And Oh BOY! We can post on Robert's site just as long as it's about LOCAL stuff!

The more cops the merrier! They can make up things like, "I saw everything, Robert Norse was sexually molesting those children and spitting in their faces before the cops were forced to pepper spray him and haul him off to jail on charges of J-walking”. Robert will not be able to delete it because, well, it would be evil censorship. Besides, how else are we ever going to have dialogue?

QUESTION TO FREAKED-OUT ZOMBIE: So do you SUPPORT censorship at Indybay.org which
in no way resembles or applies to the consensed editorial guidelines?

Don't those who have been repeatedly censored have reason to complain?

Don't readers tire of IMC monitors who think THEY know better than you what
you should be allowed to read and what you shouldn't?

Look at SF.IMC It's a shadow of its former self, is run by 2-3 people at best, and practices
so much censorship, they have driven away both readers and supporters.
they couldn't even raise $30 to save the site!!
Now all comments have been disabled.

This is a case in point of what can happen to an IMC with too heavy a hand in censorship.
I hate to see Indybay going this way.
Santa Cruz Indymedia was hijacked by a few elitists who operate behind closed doors,
censor anyone they disagree with, and ignore their own guidelines.
They outshout anyone who shows up at their "open" meetings who they don't want there.
And they have eliminated hidden comments, the link to see the latest comments,
and any possible sense of fairness or fair play.

Even worse, they have used it for a personal forum to smear and villify their critics
while preventing them from being allowed to defend themselves.

Posting libelous articles can only put the IMC at risk of lawsuits.

For example:

>they couldn't even raise $30 to save the site!!

Moderation vs. Censorship isnt a very clear cut thing.

If someone who posts about UFOs crazy, is it satire making fun of other for having crazy views or is it a legitmate topic that should be discussed.
What about conspiracies about the Illumanti, or no plane hitting the Pentagon.

If someone posts a comment "they desrved it" on a post about a woman who was raped whould that b huidden because its offensive, because its likely posted to offend (with the poster not even believing what they are posting)? What about a post saying Iraqis killed in a US bombing deserved it, or posts saying Muslims, or Palestinians deserve getting killed (because they must have been doing something if the US or Israel killed them).

On a site discussing organizing antiWar protests posts praising Bush or calling for more troops in Iraq would in many ways be a troll type post rather than something adding to the conversation. That may sounds like a call for PC censorship, but its not. A site for progressive catholics would probably hide a post about how Catholocism is evil not merely beacause of a desire to censor but also because it truns a directed discussion into one that can never really lead anywhere. A site devoted to homeles rights should rightly hide posts demeaning the homeless and a site devoted to helping end the occupation of the West Bank should rightly hide posts intended to provoke (usualy anger not discussion) if productive conversations related to organziing are taking place.

Open discussion is a good thing and so is freedom of speech. But one cant have freedom of speech on the Internet unless one has spaces one can gather in to debate that exclude crazies or every conversation about an event in the Middle East becomes a shouting match between epopel who want to nuke Mecca and those who are antiSemitic (with the normal people driven away due to the crazyness). One could say this is easy to resolve since one could just get rid of the really crazy posts but that doesnt mean one still isnt limiting the conversation to the crazies anyways with word play disguising antiSemitism behind terms like Zionist, neocon ect... or hding hatred for Muslims behind words like Pali, fundi, Jihadist or the like.