Indymedia article condones physical violence

bonkey

chekov wrote:

I propose acting in way x towards anybody who engages in behaviour x.

But thats not what he proposed. He didn't propose that we go and find the people who did this and thrash the living bejaysus out of them. He didn't propose that we take the law into our own hands.

He proposed that they be "thrown off the streets". You were the one who chose to interpret that as some sort of vigilantism.

Oh - and he said he had no respect for Indymedia. Maybe thats what you're equating with going out on the street, beating the crap out of people who's ideology you fundamentally disagree with and then boasting about it on a "public" website.

Incidentally, whatever about the original article, there are still no shortage of followup posts commenting on it which fall prey to the following sections of the editorial policy you hold up as your standard:

Discriminatory or hateful posts
We don't oppose free speech for people with hateful views, we're just not going to provide them with a platform for distributing those views.

Frankly, the only possible way one can argue that this was not violated bu the article itself, let alone a chunk of the follow-on comments is to suggest that there is nothing hateful in cheering on violence as long as its directed at the "right" victims.

Trolling
Comments which consist entirely of abuse towards any group, individual, or article without attempting to situate this in the context of the particular article or debate arising out of that article.

<sarcasm>
No sign of any of that in the comments. Honest.
</sarcasm>

Maybe you need to reword this to refer only to applying towards any group, individual or article that we don't already disapprove of.


Of course, we must note that the editorial policy only says that posts may be removed for these discretions, not that they will be, so I guess that gives you a free hand to decide whether or not the group being targetted by this abuse deserve the protection of your policy whilst still claiming that all is above board and in compliance with your editorial policy.

We generally hold to the standard (if often ignored) media ethics regarding privacy - ie we only allow personal information to be published if it is a) true and b) impinges upon the public sphere

So you've verified all the facts then?

Interestingly, what did you do before teh facts were verified? Did you allow the post to stand unverified, or did you temporarily remove it until you found out whether or not it was true? To do less would mean that you in effect allow personal details that you do not know to be false, as opposed to details that you know to be true. There is a significant difference.

jc

अधिनायक

chekov wrote:

Our editorial guidelines are fairly clear and we do try to stick to them fairly rigorously: http://www.indymedia.ie/editorial

The editorial guidelines do not include a ban on encouragement to break the law. boards.ie generally deletes posts that encourage law-breaking, even minor law-breaking such as copyright infringement. Encouragement to serious crime such as assault would not be allowed.

According to indymedia's guideline 5:

Discriminatory or hateful posts...We don't oppose free speech for people with hateful views, we're just not going to provide them with a platform for distributing those views

Well this article glorifies an assault by a group of people on a smaller group based on a difference in political beliefs. I think it is useful that it stays on indymedia, as it shows the childish stupidity of any group that believes it can change someones mind by hitting them. It invalidates the rest of indymedia's juvenile content.

TheVan

I only became aware of Indymedia recently after finding out that several prominent people on what you would call the "left" in UCD politics frequent it and agree with it.

To be honest I am shocked. As abhorrent as neo-Nazis are, I believe in free speech and a person's right to exist. People on Indymedia seek to deny them those rights and they are just as bad as the skinheads.

I know a few people on Indymedia and if they are involved in this kind of sh!t then they will have fallen in my estimation.

chekov

ChityWest wrote:

Nor would I call it a one boy crusade - if thats your way of dismissing posts which are not in agreement with indymedia fair enough.

It's not exactly your first post here having a go at indymedia is it?

ChityWest wrote:

The part you left out was that I said it was scary that this is a site which has recieved posts by the green party elected representative, yet in another thread you can find the publishing of a persons personal details, address, photograph etc.

You see, I'm pretty anal about accuracy. You have just invented a detail (the publishing of somebody's address). I also remind you that all media publishes pictures of people with their names, this is entirely ethical as long as the person is engaged in activity which it is in the public interest to be known about. You can't really have media which doesn't report on what people do. In this particular case there is overwhelming evidence that the report is, by and large, accurate. The only possible reason that I can think of for removing such reports would be if we thought membership of neo-nazi groups was a private matter and that the identity of those who are such members should be protected from the public. In common with all media that I know of, we do not think this is the case.

ChityWest wrote:

You may use the pretext of freedom of information - I find that hard to believe when going by the comments made there the purpose for publishing said details and the intended result to follow is intimidation and thuggery/violence.

Any evidence for that? I believe that if there are any threats, they will be removed - can you point to any?

ChityWest wrote:

And to confirm - yes I do find it scary that a TD posts on such a site.

What are you afraid of?

ChityWest wrote:

I have no interest in reading your editorial guidelines - I have no doubt that there is indeed somewhere in there the justification for indymedia site behaviour -

Says it all really. No interest in informing yourself on the subject, merely an interest in spouting on about it.

ChityWest wrote:

ie facilitating the glorification of street thuggery on the one hand,

Or, carrying reports of events that are obviously newsworthy.

ChityWest wrote:

and removing posts critical of afghan hunger strikers on the other.

You're going to have to give me examples, since I can assure you that being critical of Afghan hunger strikers is not a editorial guideline for deletion.

ChityWest wrote:

If your guidelines can justify those 2 standpoints I have no interest in reading them - why would I ? Its the result that counts - not the long winded boring self serving justification behind it.

You've made up your mind before examining the evidence. I have tremendous respect for such a stance.

ChityWest wrote:

I do find it odd that that site can publish and retain posts which speak of wartime berlin, auschwitz and dublin 2006 in the same vein. From reading if you would think that there is some sort of comparison to dublin 2006 and pre-war germany - what absolute ridiculous nonsense.

What are you refering to?

Crash

The Corinthian wrote:

For that to be true they would have to practice no censorship, in which case a Nazi could post an article there if they wished without it being taken down.

Is that the case? If so, then I’d accept their point - although I’d still disagree with it. Otherwise they’re telling big, fat porkies.

just on this point - taken from the editorial guidelines:

Fascists. All content expressing fascist views or written by active fascists, or expressing revisionist / holocaust denial positions, or linking to a fascist site. We will not provide a platform for fascist recruitment

as grounds for removal. So that reasoning would be out the window then?

po0k

"Gonna Smash Their Brains In,
Cos They Ain't Got Nothin' In 'Em".

While I hasten to jump to the defence of indymedia, I'd rather see supremists get a bit of a kicking than see them marching down O'Connell St. with a Garda escort.
The usage of the term 'racist' annoys me. We are all human, and the further back you go, the more the bloodlines coalesce. Those who discriminate based on mere cultural differences or percieved inferiorities sow their own destruction.

Gordon

Well done indymedia! Another website promoting hate and fear, congratulations!

chekov

bonkey wrote:

But thats not what he proposed. He didn't propose that we go and find the people who did this and thrash the living bejaysus out of them. He didn't propose that we take the law into our own hands.

He proposed that they be "thrown off the streets". You were the one who chose to interpret that as some sort of vigilantism.

Excuse me? How on earth does one interpret "thrown off the streets" to be anything other than a call for violence to be used against groups who advocate violence?

Incidentally, whatever about the original article, there are still no shortage of followup posts commenting on it which fall prey to the following sections of the editorial policy you hold up as your standard:

bonkey wrote:

Discriminatory or hateful posts
We don't oppose free speech for people with hateful views, we're just not going to provide them with a platform for distributing those views.

Frankly, the only possible way one can argue that this was not violated bu the article itself, let alone a chunk of the follow-on comments is to suggest that there is nothing hateful in cheering on violence as long as its directed at the "right" victims.

People who are opposed to nazis do not, by my definition, have hateful views. Everybody who has any decency or knowledge of nazis opposes their views. It's entirely dissimilar from, for example, opposing people because of some inherent quality that they possess - being gay, black, whatever. Similarly opposing paedophilia is not generally considered hateful.

bonkey wrote:

So you've verified all the facts then?

Yes. Can you point to anything that is untrue or inaccurate in the report.

bonkey wrote:

Interestingly, what did you do before teh facts were verified? Did you allow the post to stand unverified, or did you temporarily remove it until you found out whether or not it was true? To do less would mean that you in effect allow personal details that you do not know to be false, as opposed to details that you know to be true. There is a significant difference.

The original article did not carry any personal details. It was verified by other editors (it's not an area that I know a whole lot about personally) as was the claim as to the identity of the person who was claimed to be one of the individuals.

chekov

अधिनाय&#2325 wrote:

The editorial guidelines do not include a ban on encouragement to break the law. boards.ie generally deletes posts that encourage law-breaking, even minor law-breaking such as copyright infringement. Encouragement to serious crime such as assault would not be allowed.

While it is true that indymedia does not have a guideline against encouragement to break the law, we do not generally allow threats.

अधिनाय&#2325 wrote:

According to indymedia's guideline 5:
Well this article glorifies an assault by a group of people on a smaller group based on a difference in political beliefs. I think it is useful that it stays on indymedia, as it shows the childish stupidity of any group that believes it can change someones mind by hitting them. It invalidates the rest of indymedia's juvenile content.

Once again, do you think that opposition to neo-nazism is a "hateful view"?

chekov

Gordon wrote:

Well done imdymedia! Another website promoting hate and fear, congratulations!

How do you feel towards neo-nazis? Are you a hater?

ChityWest

chekov wrote:

It's not exactly your first post here having a go at indymedia is it?

No and possibly not the last either. Is there something your trying to say here ?

chekov wrote:

You have just invented a detail (the publishing of somebody's address).

They did not include the postcode - but there was information published there for the sole purpose of making that person more identifiable in order to single out that individual based on their political beliefs.

Going by the standard of posting on there - its not unreasonable to conclude that these posters are doing so in order to identify and target that individual for violence and intimidation.

This may sit well with indymedia when its somone they disagree with - but it doesnt sit well with me - whether I agree with the person being targeted or not. Its violent scumbag behaviour and those repsonsible deserve prison.

chekov wrote:

What are you afraid of?

More sickened than afraid I would say.

chekov wrote:

You've made up your mind before examining the evidence. I have tremendous respect for such a stance.

Meanwhile on earth . ..

Indymedia did delete posts which were critical of the afghan hunger strikers - deny that little fact all you like - others here have had their posts deleted so I doubt you would fool anybody with that one.

Karl Hungus

chekov wrote:

Once again, do you think that opposition to neo-nazism is a "hateful view"?

"Opposition" is a very broad term. People can oppose things in many different ways, but I think that the AFA acted in an extremely hateful way, and expressing that groups should be met with violence is a hateful view.

Two wrongs and all that.

chekov

ChityWest wrote:

They did not include the postcode - but there was information published there for the sole purpose of making that person more identifiable in order to single out that individual based on their political beliefs.

Going by the standard of posting on there - its not unreasonable to conclude that these posters are doing so in order to identify and target that individual for violence and intimidation.

This may sit well with indymedia when its somone they disagree with - but it doesnt sit well with me - whether I agree with the person being targeted or not. Its violent scumbag behaviour and those repsonsible deserve prison.

Let's be honest now. There was no address published.

You can conclude whatever you like. For me the questions to ask when information about a particular individual is published is "was this person acting in the public domain" and "is this newsworthy". On this occassion the answer is fairly indubitably yes.

The simple fact is that all media publishes personal information about named individuals when their actions are both newsworthy and in the public domain. The fact that somebody is a kiddy porn viewer and that the publication of their information may attract public opprobium does not prevent the media from publishing their details.

It is simply in the public interest to identify those who engage in activities such as taking part in neo-nazi groups - all media covers such material.

Indymedia did delete posts which were critical of the afghan hunger strikers - deny that little fact all you like - others here have had their posts deleted so I doubt you would fool anybody with that one.

Again, let's be accurate. Indymedia did delete posts that were critical of the hunger strikers, my point is that indymedia did not delete posts because they were critical of the hunger strikers. Most of the critical posts that were removed were down to one or more of three guidelines
a) racism
b) unfactuality
c) BB chat - indymedia is not a bulletin board and we often delete comments when threads descend into back and forth debates with a tangential relationship to the topic.

Gordon

chekov wrote:

How do you feel towards neo-nazis? Are you a hater?

No I don't hate them actually, I certainly don't actively seek them out to beat them up.

Are you going to call me a neo-nazi now? I'm expecting it from you considering the comments made on your site.

Do you seek out other people that you hate and pre-emptively beat them up too? What other groups of people do you hate and wish out of existance?

chekov

Karl Hungus wrote:

"Opposition" is a very broad term. People can oppose things in many different ways, but I think that the AFA acted in an extremely hateful way, and expressing that groups should be met with violence is a hateful view.

Two wrongs and all that.

I'm not defending AFA or their actions in particular (my politics are not those of AFA), just pointing out that their views (opposition to fascism) do not fall under what we consider to be hate-speech and thus they are not covered by that editorial guideline.

chekov

Gordon wrote:

No I don't hate them actually, I certainly don't actively seek them out to beat them up.

Are you going to call me a neo-nazi now? I'm expecting it from you considering the comments made on your site.

Do you seek out other people that you hate and pre-emptively beat them up too? What other groups of people do you hate and wish out of existance?

What? I wrote precisely nothing on indymedia on that subject. Your attribution to me of the opinions of a large number of random posters is exceedingly inaccurate. Then you go on to accuse me of beating people up? Any you accuse indymedia of poor standards? Pot kettle

How would you describe your views towards neo-nazi gangs if hate doesn't do it for you?

ChityWest

chekov wrote:

Let's be honest now. There was no address published.

I wouldnt consider myself dishonest - again - your welcome to.

And yes there was information published for the sole purpose of identifying an individual for violence and intimidation - you can split hairs with yourself all you like on the definition of what constitures an address.

Just because you disagree with those being targeted does not justify violence.

Ag marbh

Getting these Neo Nazi's was a fantastic thing.

chekov

ChityWest wrote:

I wouldnt consider myself dishonest - again - your welcome to.

And yes there was information published for the sole purpose of identifying an individual for violence and intimidation - you can split hairs with yourself all you like on the definition of what constitures an address.

I don't think there is any great difficulty in defining what constitutes an address and it's not "information published for the sole purpose of identifying an individual for violence and intimidation", it's also not anything that was published on indymedia. Once again, attacking indymedia's accuracy while simply inventing whatever details you want and redefining well-understood words such as "address" does not leave you with much of a leg to stand on.

ChityWest wrote:

Just because you disagree with those being targeted does not justify violence.

That's fascinating but it is another attempt to pin an opinion on me which is entirely unrelated to anything I've ever said.

Gordon

chekov wrote:

What? I wrote precisely nothing on indymedia on that subject. Your attribution to me of the opinions of a large number of random posters is exceedingly inaccurate. Then you go on to accuse me of beating people up? Any you accuse indymedia of poor standards? Pot kettle

How would you describe your views towards neo-nazi gangs if hate doesn't do it for you?

My apologies chekov, I thought you were the scumbag that wrote that article and obviously took part in a lynch mob.

Karl Hungus

chekov wrote:

I'm not defending AFA or their actions in particular (my politics are not those of AFA), just pointing out that their views (opposition to fascism) do not fall under what we consider to be hate-speech and thus they are not covered by that editorial guideline.

Then I think you have a fairly warped perspective on what you'd consider to be hate-speech.

The Corinthian

&#231 wrote: »

So that reasoning would be out the window then?

ChityWest’s reasoning actually as it was he who claimed that Indymedia is “not responsible for their content and are calling themselves a 'self publishing' site”.

Apparently they are entirely responsible for the publishing of hate propaganda.

chekov wrote:

People who are opposed to nazis do not, by my definition, have hateful views.

The one’s in the article did. After all, it would be a supreme arrogance to believe that racists have some sort of magical monopoly on hate crimes. You can get hatred based upon class just as easily as you can on race, and you can target someone for violence on the basis of the colour of their shirt just as quickly as the colour of their skin.

So it’s very difficult to take your definition seriously when you appear to support the publishing of the article, if not the actions of the so-called anti-Fascist thugs themselves, as it’s a pretty clear cut case of hate crime as you can get.

"Do not do battle with monsters, lest you become a monster; and when you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks into you."

अधिनायक

chekov wrote:

अधिनाय&#2325 wrote:

Well this article glorifies an assault by a group of people on a smaller group based on a difference in political beliefs.

Once again, do you think that opposition to neo-nazism is a "hateful view"?

Opposition to neo-nazism is not a "hateful view". Beating people up is a hateful, illegal, action. Publishing an article that glorifies the criminal beating of a group of people by a larger group simply because they hold views opposed to your own says a lot about your organisation. You're happy to suppress the opinions of people with contrary political beliefs but you're also happy to print joyful accounts of violent attacks on your political opponents.

How would you feel if the Herald published an article detailing a violent attack by his journalists on political opponents of Tony O'Reilly? What adjective would you choose to describe Mr O'Reilly in those circumstances? hmmm?

There are many positive actions you can take to combat racism but this is immensely stupid and will no doubt stir up further action directed at yourselves or at those you seek to protect. Maybe that's what you want.

ChityWest

chekov wrote:

I don't think there is any great difficulty in defining what constitutes an address and it's not "information published for the sole purpose of identifying an individual for violence and intimidation", it's also not anything that was published on indymedia. Once again, attacking indymedia's accuracy while simply inventing whatever details you want and redefining well-understood words such as "address" does not leave you with much of a leg to stand on.

To clarify :

These are the posts which are directly glorifying violent thuggish behaviour and are according to indymedia - in accordance with indymedia's editorial policy.

While at the same time posts critical of afghan hunger strikers are not and will be deleted on sight.

"The photos and info provided will be "processed" very soon and our "shaking friend" will be spoked to. Cheers."

"Do not publish the actual photos of these scumbags getting battered for obvious reasons! We can use these pictures on a different forum. Bye the way, Its hard to type this mail as my hands are still sore from bonehead bashing. Well done everybody."



_________

Address information - here are examples of that indy thread where address information is swapped (ignoring the photographs for a moment)

question for cork redskin
author by afa punkpublication date Mon Jun 05, 2006 16:04Report this post to the editors

the first picture is of a guy from cork . do you know anything usefull about him? he works as a tattooist.

Name
author by antifapublication date Mon Jun 05, 2006 22:05Report this post to the editors

The guy in the second pictures name is **** ***** ***** , he lives near malahide and works in tesco clare hall.

Here's a link to his bebo page -http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=***********

No Pasaran.


Blocked
author by Anti Racistpublication date Tue Jun 06, 2006 14:29Report this post to the editors

Blocked from viewing the racist's bebo page. Any other way of viewing it or did anyone save the details?


bebo
author by antifapublication date Tue Jun 06, 2006 17:05Report this post to the editors

All of his pictures from Bebo and all his comments and more or less all of his public (and not so public) movements on the internet have been monitored and archived. He runs the website "ireland awake" which I will not post a link to but I'm sure you can guess at the level of right-wing filth posted there.

chekov

The Corinthian wrote:

The one’s in the article did. After all, it would be a supreme arrogance to believe that racists have some sort of magical monopoly on hate crimes. You can get hatred based upon class just as easily as you can on race, and you can target someone for violence on the basis of the colour of their shirt just as quickly as the colour of their skin.

Of course. But you can also despise people on the basis of their views and actions on an entirely rational basis. I pretty much despise neo-nazis, child rapists, heroin dealers. This is not discriminatory as it is based upon a rational analysis of their freely chosen positions and actions rather than an arbitrary characteristic. See the difference?

The Corinthian wrote:

So it’s very difficult to take your definition seriously when you appear to support the publishing of the article, if not the actions of the so-called anti-Fascist thugs themselves, as it’s a pretty clear cut case of hate crime as you can get.

No it's not. Opposition to neo-nazis is a basic moral imperative of anybody who has any sense of decency, in my view. People should more or less do whatever they can to hinder the growth and prevalence of neo-nazi views. As it happens I tend to think that reasoning, debate and the dissemination of accurate information are the best ways to counter racism and thus hinder the attempts of neo-nazis to organise. AFA seem to believe that physical confrontation works. Neither are hateful positions they are different strategies.

chekov

ChityWest wrote:

To clarify :

These are the posts which are directly glorifying violent thuggish behaviour and are according to indymedia - in accordance with indymedia's editorial policy.

While at the same time posts critical of afghan hunger strikers are not and will be deleted on sight.

"The photos and info provided will be "processed" very soon and our "shaking friend" will be spoked to. Cheers."

"Do not publish the actual photos of these scumbags getting battered for obvious reasons! We can use these pictures on a different forum. Bye the way, Its hard to type this mail as my hands are still sore from bonehead bashing. Well done everybody."



_________

Address information - here are examples of that indy thread where address information is swapped (ignoring the photographs for a moment)

question for cork redskin
author by afa punkpublication date Mon Jun 05, 2006 16:04Report this post to the editors

the first picture is of a guy from cork . do you know anything usefull about him? he works as a tattooist.

Name
author by antifapublication date Mon Jun 05, 2006 22:05Report this post to the editors

The guy in the second pictures name is **** ***** ***** , he lives near malahide and works in tesco clare hall.

Here's a link to his bebo page -http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=***********

No Pasaran.


Blocked
author by Anti Racistpublication date Tue Jun 06, 2006 14:29Report this post to the editors

Blocked from viewing the racist's bebo page. Any other way of viewing it or did anyone save the details?


bebo
author by antifapublication date Tue Jun 06, 2006 17:05Report this post to the editors

All of his pictures from Bebo and all his comments and more or less all of his public (and not so public) movements on the internet have been monitored and archived. He runs the website "ireland awake" which I will not post a link to but I'm sure you can guess at the level of right-wing filth posted there.

"near malahide" is not an address, nor is "cork". Furthermore, there is no threats of violence whatsoever.

bonkey

chekov wrote:

Excuse me? How on earth does one interpret "thrown off the streets" to be anything other than a call for violence to be used against groups who advocate violence?

I read it as "thrown off the streets and into jail".

People who are opposed to nazis do not, by my definition, have hateful views.

People applauding the use of violence against a group for no other reason than because they don't like the victim are expressing hateful views.

That its not your definition is clear. Its the objectivity of that definition thats the issue here.

Some neo-nazis will tell you that calls for action against whoever they oppose are not hateful views either, but rather rational ones backed by reason and so forth. Would you swallow such an argument - that somethnig isn't hateful if you agree with the ideology - as being an objective stance on what is and isnt' hateful?

If, on the other hand, you're effectively admitting that objectivity is not a major aim of the Indymedia editorial policy, then we've no disagreement.

Everybody who has any decency or knowledge of nazis opposes their views.

What a lovely soundbite.

You are (again) confusing condemnation of the aggressor with support for the views of the victim that led to the aggression.

To be honest, I find it either an incredibly shallow attempt to misdirect the argument or an admission that the allegations being levelled here are true - that you're willing to condone what would be otherwise condemned as long as you approve of who the victim is.

It's entirely dissimilar from, for example, opposing people because of some inherent quality that they possess - being gay, black, whatever.

I see. So what you're saying is that the "no hate-mongering" provisions of your editorial policy really mean "no hate-mongering unless we agree with it and/or feel it has a just basis".

Your defence seems to be little more than rewording the very allegations you're defending against.

Similarly opposing paedophilia is not generally considered hateful.

Indeed. Forming, supporting or applauding vigilante groups who went around beating up paedophiles, on the other hand, would be.

Can you point to anything that is untrue or inaccurate in the report.

I have absolutely nothing on which to judge what the facts are. Thats why I take claims that this has been verified to be factual as somewhat suspect....there is nothing objective which the allegations can be judged against. So far, the best you've offered me is "trust me...our guys checked it out and its true". Sorry, but given that I'm trying to figure out how your defence of your editorial policy doesn't rest on the base assumption that its non-objective in nature....I can't really trust your editors to supply me with an objective assessment of the truth in this case.

Incidentally, that mistrust isn't levelled against indymedia because its indymedia. I mistrust all information that cannot be independantly verified. Hell, I don't even fully trust that you're actually an indymedia editor

The original article did not carry any personal details. It was verified by other editors (it's not an area that I know a whole lot about personally) as was the claim as to the identity of the person who was claimed to be one of the individuals.

Firstly, I never said the original article carried personal details. I referred to "a post". The distinction you've made is only relevant if you're trying to tell me that editorial policy is not applied to follow-on posts....and I seriously doubt you'll make that claim.

Furthermore, I asked whether it was allowed to remain on the site prior to verification, not whether or not it was verified. I even explained why I made such a distinction. I wasn't doing it just to increase my word-count.

As for the fact-checking itself...I'm still skeptical. Unless the editor involved was one of the individuals involved on the day in question, I don't see how you could possibly know for a fact that the allegations of what happened are true. If the editor was on eof hte people involved...well...I believe it would be a complete conflict of interest for a person in that position to be acting as the "verificiation" for the truth of a story.

jc

Crash

chekov wrote:

No it's not. Opposition to neo-nazis is a basic moral imperative of anybody who has any sense of decency, in my view. People should more or less do whatever they can to hinder the growth and prevalence of neo-nazi views.

You left out one line at the very end there, which by its omission really shows up your argument.

...Within the law.

chekov

bonkey wrote:

I read it as "thrown off the streets and into jail".

It's still supporting violence.

bonkey wrote:

People applauding the use of violence against a group for no other reason than because they don't like the victim are expressing hateful views.

That's just not true. Almost everybody supports violence in certain situations depending on what the "victim" has done. There are almost no pacifists in the world and almost everybody realises that violence is justified in certain situations. For example, most people support state-violence against child-rapists, heroin dealers, murderers. This is not remotely hateful.

bonkey wrote:

Some neo-nazis will tell you that calls for action against whoever they oppose are not hateful views either, but rather rational ones backed by reason and so forth. Would you swallow such an argument - that somethnig isn't hateful if you agree with the ideology - as being an objective stance on what is and isnt' hateful?

Nope, I make up my own mind and the result of this mind-making up has led me to believe that neo-nazis are abhorrent and should be opposed. I do not believe that there is any rationality to their beliefs and consequent actions. Similarly, I do not have any sympathy for the arguments of paedophiles that they engage in consensual loving relationships and continue to despise them despite their justifications.

bonkey wrote:

If, on the other hand, you're effectively admitting that objectivity is not a major aim of the Indymedia editorial policy, then we've no disagreement.

Objectivity is not a major aim of the indymedia editorial policy. Never has been never will be. We do, on the other hand, try to apply our editorial guidelines fairly and we do also act in an entirely transparent manner.

bonkey wrote:

I see. So what you're saying is that the "no hate-mongering" provisions of your editorial policy really mean "no hate-mongering unless we agree with it and/or feel it has a just basis".

Opposition to neo-nazis is not hate-mongering. That's just a red-herring. ou are eliding this issue with the separate issue of the justification of extra-state violence.

bonkey wrote:

Indeed. Forming, supporting or applauding vigilante groups who went around beating up paedophiles, on the other hand, would be.

If it was an effective way to stop it, I wouldn't be complaining.

bonkey wrote:

I have absolutely nothing on which to judge what the facts are. Thats why I take claims that this has been verified to be factual as somewhat suspect....there is nothing objective which the allegations can be judged against. So far, the best you've offered me is "trust me...our guys checked it out and its true". Sorry, but given that I'm trying to figure out how your defence of your editorial policy doesn't rest on the base assumption that its non-objective in nature....I can't really trust your editors to supply me with an objective assessment of the truth in this case.

Which details in particular are you suspicious of?

bonkey wrote:

Incidentally, that mistrust isn't levelled against indymedia because its indymedia. I mistrust all information that cannot be independantly verified. Hell, I don't even fully trust that you're actually an indymedia editor

So do I.

bonkey wrote:

Firstly, I never said the original article carried personal details. I referred to "a post". The distinction you've made is only relevant if you're trying to tell me that editorial policy is not applied to follow-on posts....and I seriously doubt you'll make that claim.

There is a slight difference between the policy as applied to comments and articles, but I still don't get your point. Are you saying that the media should act to protect the identity of those who take part in neo-nazi gangs? If not, what grounds would you have for removing the information, from a news point of view?

chekov

&#231 wrote: »

You left out one line at the very end there, which by its omission really shows up your argument.

...Within the law.

It's your clause not mine. The Nuremberg principles dictate that this clause can not be taken as a given on questions of ethics. As I said above, I happen to think that the most effective way to address such problems in our current society is to remain within the law, however, if I thought that it was more effective to go outside the law to oppose things like neo-nazism, paedophilia and so on, without impacting upon the rights of the innocent, then that would be the ethical choice to take.