archive.stlimc.org : http://archive.stlimc.org
archive.stlimc.org

LOCAL Announcement :: General : Media

Revised Newswire Posting Policy

We have recently adopted a new policy that we will be testing in the next several weeks. The new policy is not yet set in stone, but we feel it will be successful to adequately shape the newswire into a more desirable medium for the site's purposes. We enthusiastically welcome comments and responses to the revised posting policy. Also check out the poll on left-hand column of main page!

Contents

Introduction

Indymedia started in 1999 as an organizing tool for groups involved in the anti-globalization protests that found Seattle to be a battleground to expose the World Trade Organization. Protest groups were experienced enough to know that no matter what happened, the corporate media would sensationalize and limit focus to provide a very narrow and unrepresentative view of what was occurring. The reasons for the protest and any substantial analysis or criticism of the WTO would be neglected. The IMC created the open publishing Newswire so that people could exchange information quickly from anywhere in the city, and so that people across the world could immediately hear personal accounts of what was happening. The St. Louis IMC was born from the October 8th Coalition, which organized large protests to the presidential “debates” at Washington University in 2000.

The open publishing concept seemed radical and new. Dialogues could occur in this new type of public forum. Anonymity was key, because police harassment was sure to seek a way to break this mode of communication between revolutionary activists. The IMC also wanted to make sure that when they got subpoenaed, no information about individuals would be available for the courts to use.

The IMC movement is intended to highlight the stories and actions of underrepresented groups resisting oppression, and it seeks to expose the spin and hype that mainstream media puts on information. By giving everyone the tools to publish their own stories, the movement is a challenge to the ownership by a few people and corporations of “the news,” an institution that shapes so many peoples' daily conversations and perceptions of the world.

Sadly, people opposed to this happily exploited this empowerment to do the opposite. Instead of seeking dialogue, they sought dominance. Instead of seeking solutions to fostering coexistence, diversity and communication, disruptors used hate speech and cynicism to make open discussion impossible on the Newswire. Police and government agencies published their own COINTELPRO-type slander and misinformation that discredited the forum.

For a long time, this was tolerated as the price one paid for free speech. We encouraged rebuttals to point out the racism and sexism (among other ‘ism’s), and we felt there was some value to hate speech being visible, along with deconstructions of it. Let there be debates!

Nevertheless, we have recently adopted a new policy that we will be testing in the next several weeks. The new policy is not yet set in stone, but we feel it will be successful in adequately shaping the Newswire into a more desirable medium for this site's purposes. While this decision has been hard to come to, we feel it will best resolve a recurring dilemma. Many people were alienated by some of the extremely offensive content present on the Newswire, and instead of acting as a safe space for the oppressed and minorities, the Newswire became quite the opposite. Numerous people with no interest in social justice and equality used the Newswire in a way contrary to our mission. In response, instead of letting the loudest voice, the most persistent poster, and the most offensive asshole dominate the Newswire, we will now be moderating some of the destructive material off. There are no easy or perfect solutions to moderating an open Newswire, rich with a healthy democracy of views.

Publishing policy

We have agreed on the following guidelines to help us decide what postings are appropriate and what are not. We believe that these guidelines will help to make the moderating process a clearer one for IMC volunteers, and for anyone who self-publishes. We also believe these guidelines will maintain an unencumbered, useful and open Newswire for readers worldwide.

We especially encourage individuals to publish:

  • Well researched, timely articles
  • Eyewitness accounts of progressive actions and demonstrations
  • Coverage of St. Louis metro area issues
  • Media analysis
  • Investigative reports exposing injustice
  • Stories on events affecting underrepresented groups
  • Media produced from within underrepresented groups
  • Local stories with national or global significance
  • Stories on people or projects working towards social and economic justice
  • Original, underreported stories of local, regional, national, or global importance.
  • Analysis and constructive critique of features and comments

When May A Post Be Hidden?

An “open publishing” system is founded, fundamentally, on trust. The editors of and participants in this project trust that other participants will use the Newswire to publish news, or, at the least, intelligent and insightful commentary. However, as StL IMC's popularity has grown, so has the abuse of our open publishing system. Some of the abuse seems to be juvenile in nature; some amounts to a deliberate attempt to destroy the project. Sadly, our own determination to keep online everything posted to the Newswire, no matter how offensive, ended up doing little to protect the Newswire's integrity.

The StL IMC editorial collective, in order to maintain the integrity of the Newswire and the media commons it creates for our community of participants, may "hide" posts to the Newswire when the content disregards the guidelines that have been put in place (see below).

We'd like to remind everyone that hidden articles are not deleted from the site. All content posted to the Newswire can be accessed through the administrative interface, and hidden posts are still kept online.

While we try to avoid hiding posts as much as possible, the following types of items will merit close scrutiny and may be hidden at our discretion:

  • Posts which are obviously incorrect or misleading, . This includes attempts to spread dis-information or to impersonate another individual.
  • Posts that contain generalized and negative assertions about any race, nation, creed, class, ethnic group, sexual orientation, etc.
  • Posts that advocate the mass physical elimination of a specific race, nation, creed, class, ethnic group, sexual orientation, etc, or that promotes websites that advocate the same.
  • Posts that treat the Newswire as a personal "bulletin board" with non-political content directed at one or another Newswire participants.
  • Unreadable formats (i.e. photos posted as text).
  • Duplicate posts (including duplicate images and other media).
  • Advertising of products or for-profit services.
  • Pornography, excepting sexually explicit satire.

On top of these criteria, we also reserve the option to delete posts if their continued presence directly impedes our ability to keep the Newswire online as a public and open forum. To preserve transparency in these editorial decisions, a list of deleted posts (minus the content) is available here.

Within the above guidelines, we welcome posts that disagree with the opinions held by the editors of this website. We also encourage visitors to the StL IMC to use the Newswire's rating function to express agreement or disagreement with specific posts.

Revision of this Policy

Every six months, the StL IMC collective will review this policy, as well as a sampling of posts hidden during the previous six months. We would also like to emphasize that if any collective member disagrees with the hiding of any post, he or she may contact the editorial listserve or request to discuss the matter at an IMC Meeting.

Drop us a line and let us know what you think, or if there is something that we’ve missed:.

imc-stlouis-editorial [at] lists.indymedia.org

editor [at] stlouis.indymedia.org

 
 

Comments

Re: Revised Newswire Posting Policy

This is what is called censureship and forbids and takes apart the 1st amendment - no doubt there will always be opinions that are negative to, and unwanted, by many others out there but one of the good things about living in the USA is the freedom of speech we enjoy - until now. Personally, I thought the outspoken dialogue was great - it lets your hair down, it said things that everyone is probably thinking, and it informed certain entities about what is actually being thought instead of their living in a make believe world where everyone looks through pink colored glasses! However, frankly I resent your hiding all the text just because you did not agree with it - if you don't agree with what is being said then remove this website all together! You have successfully made this a humdrum, boring where before it was alive and honest! I prefer telling it like it is...THAT is the real world!!!
 

Re: Re: Revised Newswire Posting Policy

This newswire policy is actually very similar to ones already adopted by other IMCs, e.g. New York, Santa Barbara, Big Muddy in Illinois.

Its rationale basically boils down to this:

1. Critics and detractors of the IMC have taken to exploiting the newswire's open publishing policy to post agitprop, conintelpro, hate speech, etc.
2. Said critics then direct publicity to these newswire posts saying something along the lines of "look what those imcistas are writing now!" i.e. with explicit intention of discredting the IMC.
3. IMC states repeatedly that it doesn't moderate the Newswire, that is an open forum, but the people complaining usually don't have the patience to bother listening.
4. IMC ultimately forced offline for allowing its Newswire to foster hate speech or similar crap.
5. No one happy, except of course the IMC detractors who posted the crap on the Newswire in the first place.

The key here is that the moderators want to keep the site online, and doing so now means defending themselves from attempts to discredit the site.

Does this suddenly mean the Net is no longer a free & uncensored space? If effect, yes! Censorship and content monitoring occurs regularly througout the Net, not just in China. stlimc.org does not want to be censored by its Net providers, and it specifically does not want to be censored because some jerk posted crap contrary to the IMC mission on the Newswire.

If you personally feel this change in Newswire policy is for the worse, there's plenty you can do:

1. Donate $$$ or some other resource to the IMC. Keeping on open forum online doesn't happen in absence of time and money, sadly.

2. Volunteer to do journalism and editorials for the IMC. The motto is called "be the media" for a very simple reason.
 

Re: Revised Newswire Posting Policy

since this new policy will negatively affect those stlpd patrons who were skilled enough to figure out how to post a comment only to find out that they didn't have anything intelligent or constructive to contribute, here's a suggestion for one way to spend your free time - or were us taxpayers being billed for it anyway - while developing some new skills.
Click on image for a larger version

popolego.jpg

the suggested policy changes sound okay by me. as houston police chief harold hurtt says, "If you're not doing anything wrong, why should you worry about it?" www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/metro/3663189.html
 

Re: Revised Newswire Posting Policy

Who is "we"? who does that make "us". Do you really think "we" cant decide for our selfs what is BS and what isnt. In case no one has ever told you I dont need your anal and totaltiarianness to protect me or the IMC. If you dont want "your" collectives pride and joy green lawn to sprout some weeds why dont you ?
 

Re: Re: Revised Newswire Posting Policy

The "we" refers to the IMC editors, who control content on the Features page of this website. The purpose of their new policy is to help better decide what constitutes open discussion and what constitutes an attempt to disrupt open discussion. Opinions contrary to those of the IMC are welcome on this newswire; that's its purpose. What's unwelcome is spam, cointelpro, and other material designed specifically to either drown out discussion on the newswire, or to have the forum taken offline by stlimc's net provider.

Certainly, there are grey areas with this policy, and deciding on such grey areas is the editors' privilege, since they pay the bills for this site.
 

Re: Revised Newswire Posting Policy

While the "we" may be defined as the editors of this site, I do feel weary identifying us as those with the privilege to decide what the grey area is. This site and collective is still meant to be as inclusive as possible. I would hope that those who continually use this site may and will add their comments and critiques in helping define those grey area. Without people continuing to post and use the imc resource, we really don't have anything. Ben, thanks for helping clarify the new policy and responding to people's concerns. I agree with all of it. I just had to throw in my own two cents about being concerned of setting up a rigid hierarchy around the site and between site moderators and users.
 

Re: Revised Newswire Posting Policy

i have no problem with my name and e-mail add. to be seen on whatever i post.try to catch me in a lie or bigotry. k_rosey48 (at) hotmail.com . i think the human race is not much better than "dumb" cattle.
 

Re: Revised Newswire Posting Policy

You have my vote! Everyone can still have a voice, this is more an issue of appropriate communication. There's a difference between using the site as applicable above, which appears to still cover all subject matter, and using it as a "dumpster" for the hate mongers that want to come here for the sole purpose of spreading their "dis-eases" that many of us don't want to be infected with.

For example, any racial issues (and similar described) can be communicated with genuine concern and even personal disappointment, given the writer takes into account the audience and presents these concerns with appropriate discretion!

What's so terrible about freely expressing our concerns while still keeping it "clean?" In my humble opinion, when people have to speak in such ways ... it tells me that they really show their utter lack of intelligence; they obviously don't have the education or quality-of-character skills necessary for proper communication.

It is very sad to see the ignorance of so very many by this "grouping" of topics and opinions instead of posting with the obvious common sense that we are all human beings. We deserve kindness, simply because we are human. "God don't make no junk!"
 

Re: Revised Newswire Posting Policy

The purpose of the site is clear if you read the original post, and this proposal takes nothing away except the horrific hate. If one calls the relinquishing of "trash talk" and the like to be "taking away your freedom of speech," how ignorant and completely shallow one truly is!

If this is a problem, my suggestion: Work on your education and your character.

IT'S ALL IN THE PRESENTATION! Now what's so hard about that?!
 

Re: Revised Newswire Posting Policy

Our being able to post here is a PRIVILEGE, not a right! It is SO selfish to abuse this privilege that has so generously and thoughtfully been supplied to us! People are able to post here SAFELY with the assurance of no repercussions legally, personally ... and these people come on here thinking the world owes them something. Get this, the world owes you nothing!!! You alone are responsible for your choices.

Either deal with your personal issues personally, or start your own "Hate" site! There's my two cents, three times!

I am truly grateful to have this site available, I am in desperate need for support and I'm getting it! EVIL BE GONE!
 

Re: Revised Newswire Posting Policy

The profanity is disturbing as well. There are millions and millions of words available to use in the English language. Perhaps some vocabulary lessons are in order.

Seems pathetic that with so many words available, people have to "show their shallow" this way as well. How intelligent does that look? How professional? Ethical? Moral? Where are the principles there? Where is the intellect?

You know, when I see the profanity I don't even bother reading more! So you won't be getting any attention from decent folks, I assure you. Good job sending that message!
 

Re: Revised Newswire Posting Policy

Way to STL IMC!!!

this looks like a very good, thoughtful, and, ahem, moderate moderation policy. This is a tough line to walk, and it takes guts to implement a policy like this where none existed before. Invariably a few individuals will claim that STL IMC is "censoring" them, but those people simply don't understand what censorship is, and you can't let the ignorance of others become your guiding principles.

I like this policy because it seems to guard well against abuse or going overboard. The policy of periodically reviewing what has been hidden is a smart one. Making all hidden posts accessible to the public-at-large is a good way of "keeping you honest."

Ive seen really good message boards die because of no moderation, and I've seen really good message boards killed by overzealous and heavy-handed moderation. It seems that the real trick is in finding a happy medium, and it looks like a lot of thought and effort is going into achieving that goal.

So congrats, thank you, and good work!!
 

And to those who cry "Censorship" and invoke the 1st Ammendment

The first Amendment to the US Constituions begins: "Congress shall make no law..." The operative words being "Congress" and "law".

In this country everyone (allegedly) has the right to say anything they want to. Period. This means that the government can't punish or persecute you for saying anything. History shows repeatedly that this isn't actually true, and there certainly are legal limits on free speech (the "clear and present danger" doctrine and obscenity being two examples). However, the point is that free speech rights have to do with what governments may not do to individuals or groups.

The 1st Amendment to the US Constitution does NOT mandate that STL IMC, or any other group or individual, publish what any given wingnut wants them to. Do you get the difference?

Try walking into the studios at your local NBC or Fox affiliate and demanding your "right to free speech" in the form of air time from 7-9pm, so that you can discuss how the world is being run by a secret cabal of alien lizard-men holed up inside our hollowed-out earth. My suspicion is that you won't get any air time and that your civil rights lawsuit against the station will go nowhere. Because NBC and Fox have the free speech right to control their own content. OF COURSE there are huge problems with consolidation of media, but the point is that free speech says people and groups can say what they want, AND refrain from saying things that they don't (like the pledge of allegiance or the lord's prayer).

This is because free speech doesn't give anyone the right to compel others to say anything, it just gives individuals control over their own mouths and their own pens and paper.

I hate to beat this dead horse so thoroughly, but there are always a few wingnuts who claim that IMC (or whomever) using its 1st amendment rights to decide what it does or doesn't say is actually an affront to the 1st amendment.

STL IMC adopting a moderation policy IS FREE SPEECH! IT IS THE ESSENCE OF FREE SPEECH! IMC has the right to decide what does or doesn't appear on its website. Want to say something that IMC won't publish? Get off your lazy ass and start your own site!! You have the right to say what you want. You don't have the right to hijack the audience that others have built through hard work.

So please, if you don't like the policy, fine, say so. But PUHLEEAZE quit pretending that IMC is like the Gestapo, repressing your free speech rights. IMC has free speech rights too. Don't like it? Go live somewhere without free speech rights.
 

Re: And to those who cry "Censorship" and invoke the 1st Ammendment

Obviously you are male and have taken my post completely out of context! For example: if you feel that everyone thinks you are a complete twit, but you do not know why, would you not want someone to tell you why they think you are a twit, OR, find out what you are doing that makes you the seafoam jerk you are so you can take some responsibility for yourself instead of depending on others to do it for you, and then perhaps make yourself a better group of people or person? Now, that 'education' is the freedom of speech I'm talking about, being able to tell you that you ARE a jerk - and someone around here mentioned profanity? Read all of the posts - there is ALWAYS going to be someone out there that cannot speak without using the "F" word or some slang version somehow or somewhere -again, they must be male!!! I wasn't critizing anyone, but all the following posts ARE! And they think I'm the bad buy? You are the harmful one - you misunderstand and over react on everything, particularly if it disagrees with you! Get a life! And, stay out of mine - I will enjoy my freedom of speech, and I do think this is censorship!! It's another form of control!!!!
 

Re: Re: And to those who cry "Censorship" and invoke the 1st Ammendment

yes, I am male.

i wasn't directing my point at anyone in particular, i was directing it toward all those whom i predicted would respond to the policy in a certain way.

you are certainly entitled to your opinions, and to post them. and so am I. and we both have done so. so who has lost their freedom of speech? no one.

thanks for repeatedly calling me a jerk. that's helpful and useful on a board like this.
 

Re: And to those who cry "Censorship" and invoke the 1st Ammendment

EXACTLY! This site is the private property of the St Louis IMC. It's theirs to do with what they like, and like all private property, if they don't want certain people here, for whatever the reason, then that's their right.

Seafoam Fan
 

Re: Revised Newswire Posting Policy

Our Constitution, that "all-inclusive" 1st Amendment ... reminds me of "One Nation Under God. Indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for All."

Does Indivisible (we are all one, this hate separates people, doesn't sound too indivisible) ring a bell? Or under God?

Let's simplify. If it's under God, what is the appropriate and tactful way to exercise our freedom of speech? Or has this selfish world forgotten about those that came before us that established these freedoms ... along with the premise and basis which initiated our freedom of speech in the first place?! If they could see this, they would be rolling over in their graves!

The rationalizations and justifications are pathetic, and show a complete and utter lack of respect for our Forefathers, our United States, human beings as one, those that are fighting for our Country at this very moment, and this Site. And from what I gather, this site is for our freedom of speech. TACT is yet another key word here.
 

Re: myths

Our Constitution, that "all-inclusive" 1st Amendment ... reminds me of "One Nation Under God. Indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for All."

that's strange - confusing the constitution w/ the amended pledge of allegience. the words "under god" didn't even become part of that pledge until the cold war, when the free market capitalists (& the religions that love them) felt that the masses needed a good ole' patriotic mantra to encapsulate their superiority over the state capitalism of the ussr & remind joe & jane q/ public 'why we fight'. but conflating the constitution w/ the pledge - that's an interesting stretch. wonder what you're getting at...

If it's under God, what is the appropriate and tactful way to exercise our freedom of speech

oh, i know this one - if the nation is "under god" (which actually could be interpreted as 'we're really getting f*cked here'), then the nation, and , by default, its leaders, command exalted respect & admiration, for their service is performed in servitude to a higher power. just as god works in mysterious ways, so do "our" leaders & the system in which they operate & knowing this, they should be given the benefit of the doubt. if this is truly the case, then, one should keep in mind that speech which doesn't accept on good faith the motives of our leaders or social/economic/political structure is blasphemy. operatively, the concept of tact serves to reinforce the system by discouraging critical inquiry & dissent, placing the imaginary burden of "guilt" solely in the realm of the individual.

Or has this selfish world forgotten about those that came before us that established these freedoms ... along with the premise and basis which initiated our freedom of speech in the first place?

i was trying to follow along w/ you, but i must admit - i have no idea what you are talking about. the "world" owes more tactful consideration toward those who provided the "premise and basis" of "our freedom of speech"? that's not "simplifying"; that's meaningless.

The rationalizations and justifications are pathetic, and show a complete and utter lack of respect for our Forefathers, our United States, human beings as one, those that are fighting for our Country at this very moment, and this Site. And from what I gather, this site is for our freedom of speech.

who is this our in "our forefathers"? and "our united states"? if, by forefathers, you are refering to the gentry, merchant, aristo's & poli's who spurred the break off from the british empire so that they could run their own, then that's a pretty narrow grouping of offspring. as constitutional congress prez & first supreme court justice john jay opined, 'the people that own this country ought to govern it'. in this reality, "our united states" is just yet more propaganda. actually, it was propaganda that fueled the myths surrounding the stories of revolutionary independence from king george & the legends of the 'founders'. propaganda in terms of faux-enlightenment rhetoric, of vaporous 'liberties', of narrowly prescribed 'freedoms'. propaganda to recruit soldiers. propaganda to shape a new creation myth, to shape a new culture, a new nation. mythology as history, masking imperial ambitions, masking empirical objection. building a new empire by extirpating the land's original inhabitants. founding fathers who coveted land containing the bones of nearly one hundred generations. founding fathers who spoke w/ forked tongue to their followers, their competition & their selves. conquering lands, peoples, minds. conquering life, senses, hope. replacing the sacred w/ the profane. rubbing out reminders that there are alternative ways of life. alternative economic systems. alternative social structures. alternatives to the status quo.

no, the idea of indivisibility is a myth. the western liberal notion that "we are all one ... human beings as one" ignores the necessity of diversity to maintaining life. ignores multiplicity. promotes monocultures. uniformity. centralized control.

as for "those that are fighting for our country at this very moment"... i can only assume that this refers to the activists and opposition to the bush regime, as they have already destroyed all pretences of the democracy experiment in this nation, eliminated any semblance of checks & balances, removed any traces of accountability. this is where the battle is. right here is where the outcome will be determined. it is the responsiblity of individuals to collectively decide their fate. it is the responsiblity of individuals to inform themselves. it is the responsibility of individuals to educate each other. learning takes place at the level of the individual. education takes place collectively. collectively, our actions gain meaning. it is the only way communities can survive. and individual survival is predicated on community survival. so it is in all of our interests to inform ourselves & speak out. that is what freedom of speech is all about. if you don't speak out, rest assured that the status quo speaks for you.
 

Re: Revised Newswire Posting Policy

I applaud your test, and believe that you are onto something very important here. The internet is still a great tool for social change, it just takes time, and learning.

Eliminating anti-social posts is not "censorship" that prevents "free speech". Anyone can get a website and post insults til they drop. The right to freee speech does not entitle anyone to an audience wherever anyone would like to spill.

If a person or group cannot get an anti-social jerk out of their forum, then why waste time talking about effecting great social change? Really. If homage to agitators, sociopaths, freeper spam, and babble that is unrelated to the topics at hand and symptomatic of an autistic disorder, is a noble necessity, then why bother? We've already handed ourselves over to the socially deviant and/or incompetent.
 

Re: Re: Revised Newswire Posting Policy

Wiley,

You're exactly right! This site is the IMC's private property, and that's what's great about private property -- the owner gets to decide who uses it!

I'm glad you guys are finally starting to understand this. And here I thought you'd all be arguing for the abolition of private property. I'm sorry I pre-judged you.

sh(A)ne
 

Re: Revised Newswire Posting Policy

Our Constitution, that "all-inclusive" 1st Amendment ... reminds me of "One Nation Under God. Indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for All."
_______________________________________________
that's strange - confusing the constitution w/ the amended pledge of allegience.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
You are confused, the key word here is REMINDS! And like it or not, this Country was founded upon Christian principles. Go back and read your history books, get that education! And maybe pull out your Bible as well. The Forefathers and all of those that implemented everything you mention here were Christians, like it or not. That was how they based their decisions, appropriately and with God’s hand involved … not by their own will. Too many people are trying to push their personal agenda based only on “self” and that is what we are talking about here. Perhaps look into Christianity at that time, and do your research?

Again, as far as your reply to my post … try as you might, this still stands:
The rationalizations and justifications are pathetic, and show a complete and utter lack of respect for our Forefathers, our United States, human beings as one, those that are fighting for our Country at this very moment, and this Site. And from what I gather, this site is for our freedom of speech.

Please don’t confuse the issues and try to exploit my post and take it out of context. A lot of people died to give you your rights, the very ones you enjoy every day! The discussion is about the site and how to handle the cleanup! There is nothing, absolutely nothing, that cannot be communicated here; again, it’s about communication skills in lieu of “trash talk,” and “hate mongering.” This does not limit your “freedom of speech” in any way. Get it now?
 

to the proselytizer who hasn't decided on a suitable pseudonym yet

like it or not, this Country was founded upon Christian principles...The Forefathers and all of those that implemented everything you mention here were Christians, like it or not...they based their decisions, appropriately and with God’s hand involved … not by their own will

while i have no idea what history books you have been reading, i'd wager that most visitors here can cite a number of sources that repute exactly what you claim as truth. while there were no doubt some leaders engendered to a number of popular churches at the time - "At the time of the American Revolution, religious organizations dominated political developments. Churches often doubled as political parties. It is essential, therefore, to recognize responsibility by organized religions for what happened in politics - the bad as well as the good. It is just as essential, however, to recognize explicitly that churches have evolved during the subsequent centuries in both formal creeds and social activities." and any "description of their political activities...must not be applied to present-day identities, despite continuation of the same names." (see the creation of america: through revolution to empire by francis jennings) - many of the names we associate most strongly w/ the founders were radical in ideals & contemptuous of the rule of organized religions.

take ole' ben franklin, for instance, - that onetime postmaster general who remained privy to private correspondences by reading other people's mail - a self-described deist. here's bruce e. johansen's historical perspective in his book forgotten founders: how the american indian helped shape democracy:

Religious self-righteousness and pomposity was a favorite target of Franklin's pen, and he often used Indians to illustrate the religious relativism that was basic to his own Deistic faith. Deism, a religion that more than any other was prototypical of the Enlightenment frame of mind, emphasized naturalism, natural man, and rational inquiry, all of which finely complemented Franklin's interests in Indian culture. Like Colden before him and Jefferson after him, Franklin often used his Deist beliefs to stress the universality of moral sense among peoples, and to break down ethnocentricity.

According to Alfred O. Aldridge (Ben Franklin and Nature's God, 1967), Deism involved belief in the superiority of "natural religion" as opposed to "the hollow formalism of Christianity." Deism formed an ideal complement to the natural rights philosophy that was so important in Enlightenment thought. According to Aldridge, Franklin's early 'Articles of Belief' (1728) showed that, early in his life, many of his religious beliefs resembled those of several American Indians. At that time, Franklin even accepted polytheism. Although he later acknowledged monotheism, Franklin never lost his critical eye toward conventional Christianity. Aldridge found in Franklin's "Remarks Concerning the Savages of North America" an abundant satire of religious proselytizing and economic imperialism.

...In the same essay, Franklin commented on the use of religion as a cover for economic exploitation. ... According to Franklin, [Iroquois sachem] Canassatego asked [Englishman Conrad] Weiser: "Conrad, you have lived long among the white People, and know something of their Customs. I have sometimes been to Albany and noticed that once in Seven Days they shut up their shops and assemble in the Great House; tell me: what is it for?"

Weiser was said by Franklin to have replied: "They meet there to learn 'Good Things'."

Canassatego had no doubt that the town merchants were hearing "good things" in the church, but he doubted that all those good things were purely religious. He had recently visited Albany to trade beaver pelts for blankets, knives, powder, rum, and other things. He asked a merchant, Hans Hanson, about trading, and Hanson told the sachem that he couldn't talk business because it was time for the meeting to hear good things in the great house. After the merchants returned from the church, Canassatego found that all of them had fixed the price of beaver at three shillings sixpence a pound. "This made it clear to me, that my suspicion was right; and that whatever they pretended of meeting to learn Good Things, the real purpose was to consult how to cheat Indians in the Price of Beaver," the sachem said, according to Franklin’s account.

In 'Poor Richard' for 1751, Franklin wrote: "To Christians bad rude Indians we prefer/ "Tis better not to know than knowing err."


well, there's one 'founding father' you definitely didn't find acting as a hand for a christian god.

i'll leave it to other interested parties to bring up jefferson (the slave-owner who penned those words "all men were created equal", who "established a brothel near his University of Virginia so that the white-collar intelligentsia would have a respite from the stresses of academic life" - see the outfit: the role of chicago's underworld in the shaping of modern america by gus russo - and who created his own version of the bible) and others of their ilk. there are plenty of primary documents clarifying their religious beliefs.

the state documents that they left us are not ambiguous on this radicalism either. the most unique strength of the u.s. constitution is its position on religion. madison's bill of rights stressed that govt was not to touch religion. there was the natural right to practice any religion you chose to, and there was the state - but the state wasn't supposed to enforce/endorse any of them. this was made clear by jefferson. from the book, the fundamentals of extremism: the christian right in america, in the chapter the path to theocracy: the purgation of the first amendment, dr. john suarez writes:


...In 1802, Jefferson characterized the First Amendment as building a "wall of separation between church and state" when he wrote to the Danbury Baptists:

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law regarding an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."

...

This brings us to a key argument of Christian fundamentalists, namely, that the United States was founded as a Christian nation. ...this assertion confuses the fact that our government was created as a political unit and the broader historical perspective of the conquest and settlement of North America by Europeans. There were minority attempts during the Constitutional Convention favoring recognition of Christianity in shaping our laws, but these ideas were rejected. This led to the Constitution’s emergence as a purely secular document. It is, therefore, no accident the entire document is devoid of religious references.

This was made clear in 1797, when the Treaty of Tripoli was approved by the Senate, under John Adams. It unequivocally stated, "the Government of the United States is not, in any sense founded on the Christian religion." Of course, none of those revelations are surprising to those who appreciate the wisdom of the First Amendment and the sociopolitical benefits it has reaped over the past two centuries.

Yet, Christian fundamentalists continue to contend, in ever more frequent and louder claims, this is a Christian nation. The United States has lost touch with its Christian origins, they argue. ... This is such a key issue to anyone seeking a theocratic direction, that it will not be abandoned regardless of historical evidence to the contrary.


so this may all be in vain, to actually provide substantial evidence to refute such myth-spouting as the foolish concept that the founding fathers were guided by providence to occupy these already-occupied lands. as a wise man once said, "you can lead a fool to the facts, but you can't make 'em think".

so i'll close w/ two last thoughts to chew on - while reasonable people will agree that the united states was not founded on christian principles, they can agree that this continent was indeed conquered on such. if you really want to imagine somebody "rolling over in their grave", picture jesus hearing about all that has been done in his name.

and i can think of at least one organization that surely was founded on "christian principles", and which are still (unfortunately) very applicable in much current ideology today. it's acknowledged right there in their "seven noble truths" (or maybe they call them "kleven kloble kluths"...my knowledge is admittedly superficial in that regard):

1. the tenets of the christian religion
2. white supremacy
3. protection of our pure american womanhood
4. preventing unwarranted strikes by foreign labor agitators
5. upholding the constitution of the united states
6. the sovereignty of our state rights
7. promotion of pure americanism

i'll leave it up to the reader as an intellectual exercise to figure out just which nefarious group this belongs to. (okay okay okay - one last clue - a favorite meeting hymn was 'onward christian soldiers')
 

Re: to the proselytizer who hasn't decided on a suitable pseudonym yet

Seriously -- the founders were mostly atheists, for god's sake! (Forgive the pun.)

Here -- listen to this lecture on the people's history of the US & you'll see what I mean. Plenty of original sources cited:

atlanta.indymedia.org/usermedia/audio/11/a_peoples_history_of_the_us_zinn_%5Bprogressive_era%5D.mp3

Ben
 
Reply: Re: Re: to the proselytizer who hasn't decided on a suitable pseudonym yet / 27 Feb 2006
Reply: Re: Re: to the proselytizer who hasn't decided on a suitable pseudonym yet / 18 Mar 2006

Re: Re: Revised Newswire Posting Policy

Whoever is boasting about this nation being founded on christian principals needs to reread about all the carnage the happended due to those christian values. Remember the Indians? Pull out some of those historic pictures of black men hanging from trees, surrounded by white families all dressed up, with their children smiling for the camera. Christianity for some people means that If you are not christian like them, then your life has little or no value. It's not The religion I knock, its people who use it as a weapon against those who by God's will are different. America had a shameful begining. It was utterly horrific. Progress has only occured due to submition and assimilation to european culture by other races. Besides, Christianity, like Islam was spread mostly with force and bloodshed, and the threat of eternal damnation; fear. It's even considered a sin if a person desires to seek proof of whether the contents of the bible are even true. Aside from the stuff that is actually historical, alot of the other stuff, can strongly be considered legend.As far as my freedoms, they just reapproved the amendment that ensures my right as a black person to vote. It's kind of funny that my right is not garanteed. At anytime that right can be voted down. But thank god good old white christian men will always have their right to vote.
 

Re: Re: Revised Newswire Posting Policy

What was so good about the grounds on which this nation was founded? Christianity has always been used to show dominance over others, much like Islam. If you are not Chrisitian, then you are going to hell. Right? This idea makes it easy for chrisitians who believe this way, to dehumanize others without realizing it. That's what made it so easy for our founders to order, and allow the slaughter of native Indians. It was the Chrisitian mentality, that allowed white people to lynch black men, women, and children, and then celebrate by taking pictures with their entire family standing next to the hanging victim. That's what makes it easy for christians to attend the funerals of American gay soldiers who died in Iraq and protest against those fallen soldiers. It is important for people to have faith in god, but organized religion seems to be more about political power, amd social control. Christianity became popular, because it was spread through force and bloodshed. Religion should be about one's relationship with god, not fear. It's even considered a sin to question the contents of the bible. The bible is a series of writings gathered together over time. Some things have been added and taken away depending on the canon authority. We can't question that? We go to hell if we desire to check our sources? I'm not saying question God. But consider the possibility that what was written, aside from historical accounts, was legend, much like the old greek and roman relgions that we now consider as fiction. Even so, if it sounds silly for someone to shed blood for Zues' sake, why have people shed blood in the name of Jesus, or Allah?
As far as my freedoms being protected. Congress just reapproved my right as a black person to vote. The amendment can be voted down. All it takes is a pen stroke for my freedon to be taken away.
 

Re: Revised Newswire Posting Policy

Quote:
"oh, i know this one - if the nation is "under god" (which actually could be interpreted as 'we're really getting f*cked here'), then the nation, and , by default, its leaders, command exalted respect & admiration, for their service is performed in servitude to a higher power. just as god works in mysterious ways, so do "our" leaders & the system in which they operate & knowing this, they should be given the benefit of the doubt. if this is truly the case, then, one should keep in mind that speech which doesn't accept on good faith the motives of our leaders or social/economic/political structure is blasphemy. operatively, the concept of tact serves to reinforce the system by discouraging critical inquiry & dissent, placing the imaginary burden of "guilt" solely in the realm of the individual."
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Here, above, is a perfect example of what has divided this Country. My behavior is not based on that of others, wide is the road and narrow is the path. This feedback obviously does not come from one that practices Christianity and serves as a perfect example as to why Indivisibility is so lost. Unfortunatly, the same holds true for many of our leaders today ... which this comment appears to be reflecting. Choices are up to the individual, the world is not the scapegoat to justify principles. And I doubt this poster even knows the difference between religion and Christianity!
 

Re: Revised Newswire Posting Policy

Quote:
"(& the religions that love them)"

Oh, I see you really DON'T know the difference.

Yes, we have a voice ... so VOTE!! Did you? You can vote on the left side of the page, did you? Did you "happen" to look at the "majority vote?"
 

Re: Revised Newswire Posting Policy

"Going to church doesn't make you a Christian.
Not any more than standing in a garage makes you a car."
 

Re: Re: Revised Newswire Posting Policy

Besides, I've met a lot of christians that I would not turn my back on - great comment!!!!
 

Re: Re: Revised Newswire Posting Policy

Thanks, that was posted by the Christian that is now being scolded by the demons in control of silising'wi, and she can be a car all she likes. Pretty fired up. ROFLMBO! Keep showing yours.

<RANT ON> I'm sure many sickos find your disturbing disease very entertaining. But maybe you'll feel better (although I seriously doubt it). How 'bout I pray for you? Yes, that's what I'll do.
 

Re: Revised Newswire Posting Policy

I've posted my feedback and casted my vote. Ignorance is curable but stupidity is forever; and I, for one, am not about to give you free rent ... so rant about your "dis-ease" all you like. Maybe your exasperations will work for others and sway their opinion (good luck with that), but you won't get me to buy into the pure evils of causing harm to others unnecessarily. If that's the way you choose to live, more power to ya! It's the decent people they are worried about losing <CLUE>. I leave you to play the "religion and Christianity" card all you like now, I'm not the only one with intellect here ... see those votes.

Time to take out the trash, and we are! Bye now!
 

Re: Re: Revised Newswire Posting Policy

Just to play on your intellect - there is no such word as 'casted' - in other words, "you have cast your vote", not casted! Guess everyone can learn something on a daily basis! If you are going to play a wordsmith, then learn the words!!
 

xtian- you are a very confused individual

...you won't get me to buy into the pure evils of causing harm to others unnecessarily. If that's the way you choose to live, more power to ya! It's the decent people they are worried about losing

so you think that i am against the revised posting policy? that my writings here advocate "causing harm to others"? what will you say next - that i supported the hate-speech that flooded this sight? you really don't have a clue, do you. in addition to understanding the words you choose to cast about, as someone already aptly recommended, might i also suggest that you take a bit more responsibility for getting your facts straight? not all libel & slander are not covered under the first amendment (and you don't appear to be very capable of coughing up a coherent defense.)
 

in the interest of coherence

that last sentence should read not all libel & slander are covered under the first amendment
 

Re: xtian- you are a very confused individual

I'll give you one last clue. But do me one favor, go back and read all the posts which supply feedback about THIS issue, which is THIS SITE.

This is not about politics, Christianity, or me, or you. It's about THIS SITE. About having a place to go to exercise, to the fullest, our freedom of speech; which, even with the proposed changes, this site STILL SUPPLIES our freedom of speech to the fullest! Please read the proposal.

Now ... CHARACTER is a topic that covers a huge spectrum of details; however, common sense DOES dictate what GOOD CHARACTER consists of ... does it not?.

Now, please tell us all what's wrong with "not" loving your neighbor, but at least treating them like a human being in the essence of keeping this site available for everyone?!

Again ... you have missed the entire point of this thread! As individuals, we each have our reasons for feeling the way we do; lady, I am an individual. And NOT making these changes goes against everything that I, personally, believe in; and I have expressed that ... and you began your thrashing! (Again, review the posts ... in order.)

Your posts don't contain substance to support keeping this site the way it is, sorry ... but that's the way I feel; and I'm most certainly entitled to my feelings, as you are as well. I can't help but wonder what is really underneath your posts ... and I question your motives. But I also realize that it just doesn't matter. The sole concern I have is the outcome for this site!
 

Re: Revised Newswire Posting Policy

Just common sense. The sad fact is that some people are irresponsible. If the community does not take steps to keep the resource useful, the irresponsible people will dominate. At IMC Ireland we have adopted much stricter guidelines: www.indymedia.ie/editorial some years ago and now we are probably one of the best IMCs in the English speaking world in terms of content and traffic (100,000 page impressions a day).

Ignore the trolls folks. Nobody has a right to destroy a community resource. Keep on!
 

Re: Re: Revised Newswire Posting Policy

Hi!

I recognize you from another site. (And this is "off-topic," so you may never see it. It's been almost four years for me (since we spoke, I think), but I'm sure you probably know so many wonderful spirits, you wouldn't remember me (so many come by so fast; and I remember because you were one of the last at that time). SO GOOD to see you again, especially where you are.

No username here, not YET.

C- (clue)
 

Re: Re: Revised Newswire Posting Policy

>>Ignore the trolls folks. Nobody has a right to destroy a community resource. Keep on!<<

Here's the thing, though: "Trolls" is what we call people who post stuff we don't agree with. So, if "trolls" can't post, then the memebership of this the community who is allowed access to this "community resource" you're talking about...is determined by whether or not we agree with their ideas.

Seems like sort-of a homogeneous community, doesn't it? Where lives diversity in a community like this? In the dumpster; that's where.

Ireland sounds lovely.

sh(A)ne
 

Re: Revised Newswire Posting Policy

It's me, your Christian friend, that admits by supplying definitions that I had an error. Sorry, I thought this was a forum and didn't know we were having spelling/language/punctuation tests ... lady, you are REALLY reaching. I can admit when I make mistakes and never, not once, claimed perfection. However, I certainly do have a right to express my views.

By the way, mind if I proofread all of your posts? A huge multitude of errors jumps right off the screen at me, but I wasn't grading you. Please, get a life. I'm done with this thread now, although I did want to give you an opportunity to share the good that you MUST have somewhere inside you. Best of luck to you.
 

a question for the hosts

actually, it's more than just one question.

does dadaIMC store IP addresses in any form wrt the ratings feature? the software is intelligent enough to prevent the same machine from voting more than once across sessions & it's not done via cookies on the client. so it has to take place on your end, on a server. what info is stored? and how? is it secure? are they encrypted?

i'm curious how that works & how it would compromise the pledge that stlimc does not keep logs of IP traffic, which run the risk of being turned over to non-friendly third parties.

the ability already exists for third parties to use sniffers to intercept all traffic to any site - and who know what other kinds of gadgets the defense sector has turned out in this respect - so maybe the logic behind not being able to block abusive visitors, as defined in the new policy, doesn't really need to be such an open & shut case.

consider this -
through the active application of moderation, one of the stlimc moderators notices a troublesome visitor that meets the criteria outlined in the original post. if the problem posts are other than outright spam or whatnot, the moderator can then reply to one of the comments, notifying the owner of that comment that they have violated one of the site policies and risk being banned if they persist in such behavior.

in the case where that poster continues to violate the published policy, the moderator has the ability to temporarily turn on the server log long enough to trap that client's IP address, and then turns the logging back off, copies the problem IP address to notepad or somewhere & then blows away the log file (and not just clicking delete).

next, taking advantage of the module for IP blocking, the moderator adds that IP address so that it gets blocked.

does the above scenario compromise other visitors? if it does, is it any greater risk than that posed by the ratings mechanism?

just an idea, as there probably other similar relatively benign solutions to protecting the site while protecting its patrons.
 

Re: a question for the hosts

glad you brought this up.

the dadaimc software uses the PHP crypt() function to store IPs related to ratings & polls, which is a one-way encryption function that has no option for decryption. thus, these IPs are thus not visible to the moderators. as with any encryption scheme, there likely is a way to decrypt the stored IPs (using a lots of computing power), but all that would tell you is that someone submitted a rating/poll response from a particular IP. newswire postings are stored separately from ratings and polls, so such information still couldn't be used to link an IP address to a post.

on top of this, the webserver is configured not to record any IPs to disk.

a side effect of this is that stlimc moderators probably couldn't use the IP blocking function in dadaimc, even if they wanted to, since they couldn't look the IPs in logs anywhere. this isn't really much of a problem, since most folks online don't use a static IP address anymore (i.e. thanks to DSL with DHCP, wireless, etc. etc.).

 

Re: a question for the hosts

to answer your second question, the moderators have never really had to deal with people persistenly and repeatedly (i.e. hundreds a day) posting crap to the newswire, so they've never bothered with the IP blocking function. trolls are typically impatient folk, and they tend to move on when it's clearthey won't have their way.

also, since most posts to this newswire are anonymous, the moderators would have no way of contacting the poster.
 

Re: a question for the hosts

thank you for the explanation. it raises another technical question.

as i understand it, crypt() returns a unique string to identify a given value, which is then used to verify future matches by comparing an unencrypted string to the encrypted one. if the algorithm concludes that the raw string's encrypted value is equivalent to the encrypted string passed into the function, it returns true - in this case, both strings represent the same IP address. so how does this work on dynamic IP addresses then, if IP address of the client is always different?

and hopefully trolls are all the site has to worry about :)

Bush's Mysterious 'New Programs'
www.consortiumnews.com/2006/022106a.html

Rumsfeld Zeros in on the Internet
www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12060.htm

TIA Lives On
nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2006/0223nj1.htm
 

Re: Re: a question for the hosts

dadaimc can only identify users by their ip address, or by a cookie if that user has a registered account. if a user has a dynamic IP address, and he submits to the site anonymously, then dadaimc can not track him for polling/rating purposes. i should add that polls and the ratings function are (i believe) the only places where dadaimc stores (encrypted) IPs.
 

"At IMC Ireland we have adopted much stricter guidelines"

So has SF-IMC. The short version of our policy is:

_ _ _ No crap _ _ _

Crap includes, but is not limited to, duplicate posts, posts devoid of content, spam, gibberish, pornography, threats, flames, enemy propaganda, disinformation, and the raving of disturbed minds.

The long version is here:

sf.indymedia.org/news/2002/12/1548433_comment.php
 

Re: &quot;At IMC Ireland we have adopted much stricter guidelines&quot;

Thank you for posting that. The following are all my posts, in order, by user name. (There are two, I posted ... I'm lost on those: anonyme? I posted those, but they should have been under Anonymous?) Anyway, no matter, here are mine:

by Anonymous
by Purpose
by And Don't Forget!
by As For The Filthy Language
by Our Founding Fathers
by People Like You Are The Reason
by Religion v. Christianity
by Anonymous
by To: silising'wi
by Coherent Defense
by To: silising'wi

Thank you for bringing this to everyone's attention!

Respectfully,
Little Me, Who Wants to See This Site BE!
 

Re: Revised Newswire Posting Policy

This policy is justification for deleting/hiding opinions that differ from those held by the editorial collective, just as is done on every other indymedia site. Some of you may figure out that this completely dismantles any hope for real "democratic" discussion, since opinions will be filtered through the ruling ideology of the collective. The site will be even more one-sided (& closed-minded) than it is already.

You can't have censorship _and_ the open exchange of ideas. You get one or the other. The owners of this Indymedia site say that free speech is too inconvenient to deal with anymore. They don't believe that the readers can decide for themselves what to ignore, and what to take to heart. They say that there is no other option than to allow an editorial collective to decide what's fit for you to see; thus they haven't eliminated the bias that exists in the corporate media -- they've merely "shifted" it to one they agree with.

Don't be fooled by their "censorship or bust" language. The site will not become useless if it isn't censored -- quite the opposite: It will become useless if it is...except as a propaganda tool for the editors.

There are plenty of other options -- For instance: la.indymedia.org/news/2006/01/146014_comment.php

The St.L. IMC may be too lazy to implement them, or perhaps they really do want to limit what you see, read, and hear. Regardless of the reason, let's at least call the end result of their proposal what it is: Censorship.

Good luck encouraging the free exchange of ideas without a real IMC, St.Louis. This page will now be reserved for the exclusive use of the editorial collective's yes-men.

Llama
 

Re: Re: Revised Newswire Posting Policy

the stl editors specifically do not agree with the hate speech, racism, and related tripe that probably a small group of individuals consistently posted to the newswire. the content of such posts was intended to offend pretty much anyone, and to disrupt or discourage debate.

a public censorship system, similar to the one on LA indymedia (and slashdot, for that matter) is certainly an option, and that's why this revised policy is only being tested so far.

if you are really curious just how open this newswire is, you're welcome to browse thru the hidden posts. most of them are simply duplicates, advertising, or not displayed for other banal reasons. on the other hand, you can find in the non-hidden newswire posts plenty of criticism and insults directed at the stlimc editors (or perceived stereotypes of them).
 

Re: Revised Newswire Posting Policy

Yes! Yes! We don't want to hear what other people have to say! We find things we disagree with offensive and troll-like! We need you, dear StL Indymeida editorial collective, to tell us what's good & what's crap! Why don't you vote for us too? That would be easier. I like easy things; and thinking for myself is hard.

We don't care whether they'll say we're hypocrites for talking about creating a truly democratic society, while simultaneously censoring those who the majority of us don't agree with! We just don't care.

I'm off to protest something useful now.

Stereo
 

Re: Revised Newswire Posting Policy

(Appears people don't understand the actual proposal or read the feedback prior to forming an opinion.)

QUOTES:
“The purpose of the site is clear if you read the original post, and this proposal takes nothing away except the horrific hate. If one calls the relinquishing of "trash talk" and the like to be "taking away your freedom of speech," how ignorant and completely shallow one truly is!

If this is a problem, my suggestion: Work on your education and your character.

IT'S ALL IN THE PRESENTATION! Now what's so hard about that?!”

“Our being able to post here is a PRIVILEGE, not a right! It is SO selfish to abuse this privilege that has so generously and thoughtfully been supplied to us! People are able to post here SAFELY with the assurance of no repercussions legally, personally ... and these people come on here thinking the world owes them something. Get this, the world owes you nothing!!! You alone are responsible for your choices.

Either deal with your personal issues personally, or start your own "Hate" site! There's my two cents, three times!”

“Invariably a few individuals will claim that STL IMC is "censoring" them, but those people simply don't understand what censorship is, and you can't let the ignorance of others become your guiding principles.”

“EXACTLY! This site is the private property of the St Louis IMC. It's theirs to do with what they like, and like all private property, if they don't want certain people here, for whatever the reason, then that's their right.”

“Eliminating anti-social posts is not "censorship" that prevents "free speech". Anyone can get a website and post insults til they drop. The right to freee speech does not entitle anyone to an audience wherever anyone would like to spill.

If a person or group cannot get an anti-social jerk out of their forum, then why waste time talking about effecting great social change? Really. If homage to agitators, sociopaths, freeper spam, and babble that is unrelated to the topics at hand and symptomatic of an autistic disorder, is a noble necessity, then why bother? We've already handed ourselves over to the socially deviant and/or incompetent.”

”You're exactly right! This site is the IMC's private property, and that's what's great about private property -- the owner gets to decide who uses it!

I'm glad you guys are finally starting to understand this. And here I thought you'd all be arguing for the abolition of private property. I'm sorry I pre-judged you.”

“The discussion is about the site and how to handle the cleanup! There is nothing, absolutely nothing, that cannot be communicated here; again, it’s about communication skills in lieu of “trash talk,” and “hate mongering.” This does not limit your “freedom of speech” in any way. Get it now?”
 

Re: Re: Revised Newswire Posting Policy

Oh, what would one do without someone taking all of the "quotes" and publishing them for the mental midgets that cannot seem to read the whole thing! I can't believe I read the whole thing! Your posting is designed to denegrate and belittle others to make yourself feel good - well, for me I don't need YOU telling me how and what to read! That is another freedom I have, to read or listen in whatever order I choose - you MUST be a school teacher- always preaching but with nothing particularly interesting to say!!
 

Re: Re: Re: Revised Newswire Posting Policy

Good, you mental midget, PULLeeezzzz, GO DO THAT!
LOL
 

Re: Revised Newswire Posting Policy

I was under the impression that we were voting about SF-IMC policy guidelines, what is happening to the matter-at-hand? An awful lot of useless chatter; it's simple, read the proposal and vote. And if you want to "exercise your freedom of speech," try to stay on topic as your personal opinion and basis of same are applicable.
 

Re: Revised Newswire Posting Policy

This thread is indicative of the problem with IMC these days. The most important problem to me is that the editors are not producing enough featured content to make the site relevant to the fast-paced world of news. (That may have something to do with there not being enough volunteers, or it may indicate that the current volunteers could become better organized.) The fervor that goes into pointless shout-fests like this thread could be directed toward some real problems with IMC, and maybe StLIMC would become a destination for news again.
 

Then please volunteer.

StL IMC has regular meetings, usually 7pm 1st Sunday of every month at the CAMP([search]) building. The individuals currently active on this IMC are all quite over-committed, so volunteers are certainly welcome. The calendar on left-hand side of this page should soon tell when the next meeting is. Likewise, you can contact editor (at) stlimc.org or imc-stlouis-editorial (at) lists.indymedia.org.

Newswire visitors are welcome to critize this IMC for its shortcomings, or to personally volunteer and do something about them.
 

shame that

it's a shame it had to come to this. but yes, let's move on. i think your new policy is quite thoughtful, well-articulated, and strikes a decent medium between freedom to destroy and freedom to create.

quite frankly, if someone is just posting to spew crap then they should be moderated, perhaps they'll learn from the experience. on the other hand, it seems that so long as you can write like you have a brain and not spread hate and misinformation you will not be censored based on your ideological beliefs. hate and sweeping generalizations have no integrity or truth to them and should be hidden. we could argue to keep hate and generalizations in full view so people can see and debate the reality of things, but then we: 1. already know it's out there (otherwise i wouldn't feel the need to post on such boards), 2. would need to account for the effects/functions of such text, which are not positive or conducive to the purpose of a public forum, and 3. reality is subjective; reality becomes what you make of it, and the reality i want is not full of hate and sweeping generalizations. so, let's make the world we want to live in here and now.

in sum: imc, i don't blame you, i support you. please continue to do what you think will preserve this little bit of a public sphere we have left in this big ole crazy mixed up country.
 

Re: Revised Newswire Posting Policy

Now that the moderators are making some decisions to modify content on STLIMC, it would be good to see them adjust the local interest flag appropriately.

Sometimes people post articles that aren't local interest, then they check the local interest box. Good if the moderators flag non-local articles as non-local.

Sometimes people post local articles and apparently forget to check the local flag. Good if moderators spot a local article in non-local and flag it local so people who only read local articles don't miss it.

Also good if the moderators remove duplicate copies; perhaps they're already removing duplicates, if so, good job.

In terms of censoring posts, of course it's better to be too lenient than too restrictive. I'd rather wade through 100 bad posts than miss one worthy one.
 

Re: Re: Revised Newswire Posting Policy

Newswire posts are rearranged occasionally to better reflect their "local interest," or lack thereof. In addition, newswire posts that are cleary just cut & paste jobs from external press (e.g. newspapers) are sometimes moved to the "other press" section, so as not to endanger stlimc.org with copyright problems.

You can see here what newswire posts have been hidden so far. In general, just duplicate posts, spam, and other things quite uninteresting.
 

Re: Revised Newswire Posting Policy

Well,you have a difficult job and nobody has to do it.You and most indymedias have been more than fair and just with allowing me freedom of speech that I certainly try not to abuse although I do misspell and abuse senmtence structure,phrasing and paragraph lay out but hey I'm amateur and have no editor.That's both good and bad.Don't need the anonymity it's too late for that,hee hee.
I feel you have been and thus are just and fair and will continue being so.I have meant to write about my experience with indymedias around the world from israel([search]) to philipines and most points in between where english is accepted.Most of them are great.I think my two worst experiences are dc.inymedia and strangely sf.indymedia but I can't be alone in that or others in the Bay Area would not have broken off to form the great
indybay indymedia,correct ?
You all please just keep on keeping on and please don't think you are not appreciated because you are.I believe you stated the dilema quite eloquently and I can certainly understand it and it is a dilema.But certain types of spamming are recognizable.I post a lot and my subject matter can appear to be the same,penny stock fraud and individuals involved and how powers that be protect it and some of those involved, but because I was defrauded I know my subject well and indeed it has more to do with 'global trade' and perhaps our global war and the issues that led to creation of the indymedias than might at first meet the eye,and politics,mucho politics.
Anyway like I said I appreciate the work you do
and efforts you make and I do my best not to abuse your good efforts.
 

Re: Revised Newswire Posting Policy

Hmmm,just read the second comment above and I would not compare santabarbara and bigmuddy to nyc,they are a step above nyc.If I post on nyc I sort of accept it as a wasted effort,I never see my post again.And there is no search to see what became of it.And newjersey is not much better and they and nyc I believe are way too much judgemental and not in a very qualitative way either.

madison hides my stuff a lot but at least I can locate it and I take it in good stride.The
dc.indymedia actually taunts and insults me and now they have me blocked which is paradoxical because most of my critiques are aimed at D.C. politicos,bureaucracies and the 'military-internet complex' of which SRA International is a prime example and the CIA's In-Q-Tel that dabbles in penny stocks,etc.Now what could dc.indymedia find wrong about that ? They sure don't say you are wrong about this we called them and verified,nope they don't do that and it would be a local call.

Anyway I just wanted to say for those not experienced with most indymedias,DON'T compare Big Muddy or Santa Barbara to NYC indymedia,that is an insult to both of them.
 

Re: Re: Revised Newswire Posting Policy

Hey, thanks for elaborating on the actual topic!
 

Account Login

Media Centers

Quote-of-the-Moment

An inglorious peace is better than a dishonorable war.
-- Mark Twain
Source: "Glances at History" (suppressed)
 

This site made manifest by dadaIMC software