[New-imc] Kamloops Moving Forward
clara at ifrik.org
Tue Oct 26 07:57:09 PDT 2004
a very late reply on this, but I think more and more that part of this
discussion comes from a lack of making the difference clear between
"deleting" and "hiding so that it is not accessible online".
Unfortunately some of the software used has (or had) the buttons in the
admin interface to "delete", but things are only hidden.
Let me point out once again: there are two ways of hiding:
- hiding so that it's not linked from the indymedia page anymore in any
way: but the pages still stay online. In this case users or search
enginges still can find the pages, for example if they know the url.
- hiding so that the article is still in the database but not online. In
this case nobody but the indymedia volunteers with an login to the admin
interface can access the article (really hidden).
Deja is referring to articles with links about how to stop trains. Due
to a court order, Indymedia.nl is not allowed to publish these links,
and they are not on the Indymedia.nl website - but they are still in the
database. It is part of Indymedia.nl's history.
> An explaination of why each clause is there:
> * Pornography and sexist/abuse posts : Every IMC has come accross a situation like this. Often this materiel is illegal to even posses (child porn) making removal from publication a non-option. This is also to protect us from porn sites using IMC pages as mirrors for videos or pictures on other sites.
hiding the article so that external users can not access might be enough
(except for those files which are illegal to have at all like child
> * Racist, anti-semitic, anti-islamic and other 'hate speech' posts : Hate speech is illegal in Canada. I have personally talked to the BC Cilvil Libertys Assosiation about just this issue. They said that they agreed with our viewpoint on this issue and would give us legal support for a case like this, but that in some cases we would have no chance of winning and to be prepared for that reality (thus the policy).
is it also forbidden to document it? indy.nl had problems with perceived
anti-semitic positings, and in that respect it was good to be able to to
show that we had an active editorial policy to deal with hate speech -
even if once in a while we overlooked a comment.
> * Libel, slander, defamation and abusive personal attacks : This is also represents a point of litigation where we could easily loose a court case.
yet again: is it necessary to completely delete postings? isn't it
enough to hide them properly away from users?
> * Death threats and threats of violence : Also illegal if personal or specific in anyway. This is a touchy area where we could actually be found liable if someone was murdered or injured by someone who it was show had taken thier instruction or encouragement on our site.
again: if an article is hiden so that it cannot be accessed by external
users: then it cannot be used as a source of instruction (unless you are
afraid that somebody from the editorial team is charged with it). Where
do "threats of violence" start: with each posting of the Animal
Liberation Front for example?
> * Bombmaking instructions and similar paramilitary information : Interestingly we took our lead here from the Netherlands IMC case. They lost the case and were forced to remove the materiel from thier site, so there is, in fact, a precident here.
This is were i think, the difference between hiding and deleting
obviously unclear: Indymedia.nl took the links of the website because we
had a court order to do so. But these articles were not deleted. They
are still in the data base. Indy.nl just does not publish them
> * Posts by fascist and Nazi organizations and individuals : This is one again in referral to Canada's strict hate speech laws.
I don't know the Canadian laws, if it's illegal to have such material,
then of course it should be deleted from the database.
> * Commercial advertising : This is common network practice. To leave it hidden just leads to bandwidth costs as the clever business just links to the image or file in the hidden article and we pay the bandwidth for thier media uploads.
I'm not at all in favour of supporting commercial advertising, and if an
advertisement takes up a lot of server space, then there's no point in
keeping it. BUT this again is a moment were the two forms of hiding get
mixed up: you can hide them so that they are not accessible.
> * Anything fraudulently posted as IMC Kamloops : This is also common practice within the network for obvious reasons.
To me it's more obvious to keep such postings, to document them for
internal use if necessary - again: properly hiden so that exertnal users
cannot access them.
> * Misinformation intended to disrupt activist actions and discussions
> (i.e. false information regarding an event, with the intent to disrupt the event) : This clause has been explained in detail before. The goal here is to protect activists from misinformation campaigns. It can also be interpreted as a way to allow us to remove incriminating evidence ( eg. pictures of an activist engaging in an action of civil disobedience that is clearly illegal and they would like us to delete them in accordance with respecting the rights of activists to not be photographed etc.)
yet again: why do positings with misinformation needed to be completely
deleted? why is properly hiding them not sufficient.
In the case of pictures that canbe used to incriminate activists, i
agree. especially in the light of server seizures the protection of
activists should come before the right of third parties to take picutres
and post them.
> * Posts where IMC Kamloops has received a ‘cease and desist´ letter from an attorney : Yes, this is a catch all for unforseen circumstances. Obviously it would not be a last resort to just run to the admin and delete the article in question. The last resort comes one the court has issued a court order demanding that the materiel be taken down.
I'm not familar with the Canadian law, but usually 'cease and desist'
letters only refer to the publication, and something in a database that
is not accessibe to the public is not published.
> Obviously in most of the cases above we would copy the to disk (technological option) and await the results of the trial. I should note here that this 'deletes' the original article, it cannot be put back with the same timestamp etc. if we win. If we loose it may have to go forever.
> Is this clear? If there is any confusion remaining I will happily answer all questions regarding this policy. Throw a fictional circumstance at me and I'll explain what response this policy would create if you feel like it.
What is clear to me is that there is confusion about the two forms of
hiding and actual deleting. And I think we might need to discuss this in
a wider circle. Maybe some of the CMS used don't offer such options, but
then maybe it's better to change the software.
love and solidarity
> In solidarity,
> New-imc mailing list. Lista de correo New-imc
> New-imc at lists.indymedia.org
More information about the New-imc