[Imc-okla] Re: imc-okla Digest, Vol 19, Issue 2

Sat Dec 11 13:53:53 PST 2004

I missed this post back when it was first sent out,
but caught it in Bob's reply.

I agree Rena, that the protest tactics are really
lousy  . --- I don't like violating anyone's privacy
w/o their consent, which is why I also object to the
involuntary outings of closeted gays. Protesting at
someone's home who is a wrongdoer in some way I think
is ok ethically (whic may or may not be legal, the
courts have said that there local police can restrict
protests in a residential neighborhoods to an extent
that they can't in a commercial area), but protesting
at the sister-in-law's house to me is out of bounds.

That said, the IMC is about free speech including
speech we disagree with. I think our disclaimer should
really focus on two things... one what is our
editorial policy (what stories get feature story
status and who decides what qualifies) and second what
stories are not acceptable at all. To me that latter
category really is just stories that would possibly
endanger the whole effort legally. For instance if
someone posts instructions on how to make bombs or
advocates violence, then we could face criminal
charges as a group and/or civil liability if someone
acts upon what was posted.

Now back to the matter at the hand, protests at the
sister-in-law's house is unethical and could be
illegal (under municipal ordinances that may or may
not be constitutional), but there is no clear and
present danger that could get us into really hot
water. I am inclined to think that these posts should
not be censored. I wouldn't give them feature status
but neither would I bump them off the newswire
altogether. I would prefer to counter what I think are
bad ideas, with more free speech instead of less.
That's what the comments are for. Potentially the
sister-in-law could do a civil lawsuit against us for
invasion of privacy, but since our disclaimer makes it
clear that the poster is the responsible party and not
us, I don't think we would have liability here either.

James

P.S. I have discussed some legal contingencies here
but I do need to make it 100% clear that I am not a
lawyer and nothing I have said in this email should be
construed as legal advise. (sorry for the disclaimer
but I gotta CMA)

--- Bob Nichols <bobnichols at cox.net> wrote:

> 
> 
> The disclaimer seems fine to me to cover animal
> rights posts. The animal
> rights posts are fine. No problem there.
> 
> Bob Nichols
>  
>  
> -------Original Message-------
>  
> From: imc-okla at lists.indymedia.org
> Date: 12/11/04 14:15:26
> To: imc-okla at lists.indymedia.org
> Subject: imc-okla Digest, Vol 19, Issue 2
>  
> Send imc-okla mailing list submissions to
>   imc-okla at lists.indymedia.org
>  
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web,
> visit
>  
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-okla
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body
> 'help' to
>   imc-okla-request at lists.indymedia.org
>  
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>   imc-okla-owner at lists.indymedia.org
>  
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it
> is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of imc-okla digest..."
>  
>  
> Today's Topics:
>  
>    1. Input needed - posting guidelines (Serena
> Blaiz)
>  
>  
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>  
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 06:03:15 -0600
> From: "Serena Blaiz" <stblaiz at yahoo.com>
> Subject: [Imc-okla] Input needed - posting
> guidelines
> To: "Oklahoma IMC discussion and announcements"
>   <imc-okla at lists.indymedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <opsh903px6n7fphy at smtp.sbcglobal.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes;
>   charset=iso-8859-15
>  
> (First, the server is repaired and our site has been
> restored. Yay! Carter
> at Vagrant Hosting deserves all the credit.)
>  
> Now, back to business:
>  
> In the past couple of weeks we've had some posts on
> animal rights
> activism. Some of the posts include detailed info on
> the home and work
> contacts for the *family members* of alleged animal
> abusers. Sisters,
> in-laws, that kind of thing. The post suggests
> contacting or having demos
> at the homes of these folks, so as to make the
> situation difficult for the
> alleged abuser at holiday family gatherings.
>  
> In my personal opinion, taking this activity to the
> siblings, in-laws, etc
> is not right, unless there is some evidence that
> they are directly
> involved. It just doesn't seem fair or even very
> practical to me. However,
> I am only concerning myself with the post on our
> site, and not the bigger
> picture.
>  
> So, does our disclaimer statement cover this kind of
> information? Do we
> need to take any action, either on the posts
> themselves, or by updating
> our statement? Do we need to have a guideline asking
> that such info be
> linked to, and not put directly on our site?
>  
> How do others feel about this? Can someone look how
> other indymedia
> centers are handling this kind of thing (review
> disclaimer statements
> through the network, etc). Our statement was drafted
> in January of 2002,
> so it would be a good idea to re-address three years
> later anyway.
>  
> Current disclaimer:
> (short version, each page) "Opinions are those of
> the contributors and are
> not necessarily endorsed by Oklahoma Independent
> Media Center."
> Long version: http://okimc.org/disclaimer.php
>  
> Please give me your thoughts on this. If anyone(s)
> would like to work on a
> committee to look at the disclaimer, let me know
> that too.
>  
> Rena
>  
>  
> ------------------------------
>  
> _______________________________________________
> imc-okla mailing list
> imc-okla at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-okla
>  
>  
> End of imc-okla Digest, Vol 19, Issue 2
> ***************************************>
_______________________________________________
> imc-okla mailing list
> imc-okla at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-okla
> 