[Imc-tech] Re: [Imc] Website Issue

[John Wason]

At 06:29 PM 11/26/02 -0600, Mike Lehman wrote:

>John,
>If you look again, you'll see that I qualified my references to McCrae
>as a murderer at least twice.
>
>First:
>> ...it _seems_...
>Then:
>> ...a murderer may have...
>
>I guess I just didn't feel like patronizing my audience more than that
>about the level of culpability that McCrae may have. I'm sure we're all
>aware that these are only allegations, although there _seems_ to be a
>confession. And in a case where the person who did this MAY indeed have
>used the IMC network to publicize his reasons for doing so, to keep
>repeatedly insisting that he only "may have" done the crime, when he is
>insisting (as far as we can tell) that he DID do the crime is,
>ironically, patronizing to McCrae if he did indeed perform as he has
>"confessed".

Point taken.  I was sure you'd have a well-reasoned response, Mike.  I
actually knew you were going to make this particular point, but still
wanted to make the "innocent until proven guilty" pitch.


>I guess what I see as most problematic (which maybe I should have been
>more clear on) is the use of the IMC network in this way. Like all too
>much of what we see on the network, this story really is only news in
>the areas involved (although his implication of the IMC network by
>posting it nearly everywhere does backhandedly make it news fodder
>throughout the network for that reason alone now that someone is under
>arrest for this crime in realtion to these postings.)

I must not understand what "news" is, then.  What, or where, are the areas
involved?  Are events in Palestine "news" only in Palestine?

I was of the further impression that the "news" posted on the IMC also
included "opinion".


>I'm sure glad he (if it is indeed so) waited until after the deed to
>post about it here. It would have been an even more exploitative use of
>IMC if he had made a threat to kill a cop on IMC, and then done it. BTW,
>apparently whoever did it just picked the guy out at random, because he
>was in uniform. I guess I have a problem with that, even though I often
>don't see Officer Friendly when I see a cop myself. Of course these are
>all allegations and that is why I didn't speculate on it further at
>first, because I don't think the whole story is out.
>
>On the face of it, we have an extremely disturbed individual who is
>acting out whatever sick reasons he had for doing so and thereby
>involving a bunch of people and institutions that ARE innocent (you and
>me, and all the IMCs where he posted) and who probably don't want to be
>associated with his actions. And in the current political climate, I'm
>sure everyone can use their imaginations about the way some people will
>exploit this against us.

It's not my interest at this juncture to explore Andrew McRae's guilt or
innocence, or his phyche.  (Yes, I've read the articles now.)  My concern
is that he arguably had some valid things to say in his two posts.  And I
don't feel that I am associated in any way with his actions unless I choose
to be.  Even then, the only way I'd be associated with his actions would be
to express approval or disapproval.  That by no stretch of the imagination
makes me an accomplice or accessory to the murder of the police officer.

By the same token, I don't see how the IMC is associated or implicated in
McRae's actions.  The IMC provides a neutral forum where random people can
post news and opinion.  That's it.  The IMC itself, as an organization,
doesn't incite or encourage violence against police officers or against
anyone else. 

Suppose Andrew McCrae DID post his "confession" PRIOR to his commission of
the act of murder.  In other words, he gives us a warning:  "I'm going to
kill a cop for the following reasons...."  What do you think the IMC's
responsibility is?  Immediately call the FBI and say, "Some random person,
who may or may not be using his real name and whose IP address we don't
know, just posted on our site and threatened to kill an unknown cop"??
Refuse to post the item because the person MAY do something in the future?
In the Comments section after several of those posts, I saw ALL SORTS of
idiots saying to one another, "I'm gonna kill you!"  Passions are running
high.  Should the Comments section be removed altogether?  Or should that,
too, be vigilantly monitored?

I actually think it would be an interesting test case if a criminal
prosecutor tried to prosecute the "collective" of an IMC as an accessory to
murder, or if a wrongful death civil action was filed against an IMC.  I
would hope that a sane judge would laugh it out of court.  And then we'd
have a precedent, and there wouldn't have to be all this ridiculous paranoia.

If the Feds were to try to shut down an IMC because some random person
posted a confession of murder, then we'd have an interesting test of the
First Amendment.  I'm sure the ACLU, among others, would be very
interested.  Wouldn't you like to KNOW, frankly, if there's anything left
of the First Amendment?

Maybe I'm not imaginative enough, but those are pretty much all the
scenarios I can envision.


>So that's what I'm referring to as problematic. Someone who confesses he
>did it (if he did) is a far different example of what is at issue than a
>case like Mumia's. And I'm not saying McCrae doesn't have the right to
>post here. Just that it is problematic for a number of very obvious
>reasons and that others might differ from my conclusion, which is to
>leave it up, for many reasons. And that we also have the right, if we
>feel that his use of our IMC was inappropriate, to remove his story.

Well, I agree with your decision to leave it up, and would be dismayed if
the Steering Committee thought such things shouldn't be posted.


>For all we know, maybe the FBI was ready to bust the guy and just sent
>an agent down the block to the local library to post these messages for
>no other reason than to implicate the IMC network to use it against us.
>Maybe McCrae had nothing to do with any of this. Maybe we want to take
>it down because it is unproven, as you suggest. All these are reasons
>why I posted the message and couched it in the qualified terms that I
>did.

Again well reasoned, and a possibility too devious to have occurred to me.
However, many many things are "unproven" to someone sitting in front of a
computer screen who was not an eyewitness to the event.  Do we take
everything down?  How do we decide what is "proven"?  What is the
appropriate level of proof? 

In sum, I have no problem with your couching things in qualified terms,
Mike.  I respect your mind and your dedication, and I'm glad you chose to
leave the articles in question on the newswire.  I just think that any IMC
worthy of the name is going to have to stick its collective neck out in
firm and impassioned defense of the First Amendment.  There's no way around
it.

John