[New-imc] Re: [Imc-kam] IMC Kamloops at an impasse
aggressivepacifist at riseup.net
Wed Oct 13 14:45:20 PDT 2004
I agree fully deja. I don't think we should change the policy. I don't
know about it being the best one in the network, as I've not read them
all of course, but i think it's very good.
I think the key piece of information that we need now has to come from
Clara, and that is the answer to the question "Is our application
blocked, or were you just making a suggestion to help us?"
If it's blocked, I'm not sure what the process is, do we appeal to
someone, or.. i have no idea, maybe someone can answer this question..
if it's not blocked, and it was merely a suggestion, i say let's submit
it (but we have submitted it already, who would we submit it to then?),
and hope for the best. if this policy is unacceptable to the global IMC
as a whole, then i guess we have no choice but to revise it.
BTW, I changed our site launch date to "soon" on the site, to account
for the fact that we will miss our target now, due to this delay.
> Hello all,
> Its seems that IMC Kamloops is at an impassse. Our sponsor has raised
> concerns about two aspects of our editorial policy, namely that we have
> a provision in our editorial policy that allows for the deletion of the
> following kinds of posts, as a last resort, and with the consensed
> approval of the whole collective:
> * Pornography and sexist/abuse posts
> * Misinformation intended to disrupt activist actions and discussions
> (i.e. false information regarding an event, with the intent to disrupt
> the event)
> No one in our collective seems willing to remove these items from the
> 'Banned Items' category. Our reasoning is that there are enough checks
> and balances in place to prevent abuse of this policy and that removing
> them would deny us the *option* to permanently delete a post that says
> "All bitches must die..." or posts that are factually untruthful with
> the *intent* of disrupting protest actions (destabilization posts). I
> can understand why the Misinformation section is controversial, but the
> Mission Statement of the network is very clear, the very first line of
> all Indymedia documentation states:
> "The Independent Media Center is a global network of collectively run
> media outlets for the creation of radical, *accurate*, and passionate
> tellings of *truth*." (emphasis mine)
> No where does it say anything about defending the right to lie and
> disrupt protest actions. Reading the rest of the mission statement it
> seems clear that the intent of this organization is to assist the
> struggle for social justice, not impede it. The mission statement is the
> base document on which all other must derive, so any open publishing
> policy must take its lead from the mission statement. Activist
> publishing does just that.
> On that basis we believe that we have the right to move forward with our
> application as is and put it forward to the network for the opinions of
> all to come out. We could just as easily just remove the offending
> articles for the purposes of having a quick and easy approval, then put
> them in later (as so many other collectives have done), but is
> aquiesence the sign of a healthy community?
> Personally, I believe strongly that the editorial policy that we have
> put forward is the best editorial policy in the network. One that will
> build a strong and functional IMC collective. I think that it deserves
> review and debate, and not just from one 'gatekeeper' at the new-imc,
> but from the network as a whole.
> In solidarity,
> Imc-kam mailing list
> Imc-kam at lists.indymedia.org
More information about the New-imc