[imc-uk-moderation] Reason for Hiding Objections to Offensive language

[freethepeeps at aktivix.org]

Hi

It was an admin error - the comment and the respopnses have all been hidden now

cheers

ftp

Quoting kittyplant <kittyplant at btinternet.com>:

> Dear Friends
> 
> I broadly agree with the IMC Guidelines on Open Publishing, but I'm having
> difficulty understanding why as part of comments about an article called
> 
> The British People's Party - Staggering from disaster to desperation 
> K.Bullstreet | 13.11.2008 15:47 | Anti-racism | Leeds Bradford | Sheffield 
> 
> a comment from Bash the Fash using the term Spazmough has remained open
> 
> whilst three comments, including mine, objecting to the use of this word have
> been hidden?
> 
> I've looked at the IMC guidelines which show that Indymedia will hide
> comments on the grounds of:
> 
> a.. "Discrimination: posts using language, imagery, or other forms of
> communication promoting racism, fascism, xenophobia, sexism, homophobia or
> any other form of discrimination"
> 
> Although you don't explicitly include in your guidelines discrimination on
> the grounds of disability I assume you would.
> 
> In case you think my objection to the use of this word is because I am a
> member or supporter of BPP
> I can assure you that my decades of working against racists and for civil
> liberties through Liberty and Amnesty international
> should tell you otherwise.
> 
> Unless all forms of discrimination which damage or oppress individuals is
> dealt with appropriately then I can say we as believers in 
> freedom of the individual / anarchism etc have not progressed very far.
> 
> I look forward to the reasons for your decision with interest.
> 
> Best wishes
> 
> Peter Wakeham
> Harmony & Understanding
> kittyplant at btinternet.com
> 07810 025818
> 
> 
> 
>