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

[Mike Lehman]

John,
I'll edit most of my reply so as to concentrate on a few key points.

John Wason wrote:
> 
> At 06:29 PM 11/26/02 -0600, Mike Lehman wrote:
SNIP
> >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?

While people are welcome to add to the Elsewhere Newswire, particularly
if they are local poeple who want to post stories from other places that
they know will be of interest to local readers, this has also been a
major problem on the IMC network. As you probably know, we have had
several persistent spammers whose primary mode of operation is to post
large numbers of stories ACROSS the IMC network. Such behavior tends to
make Newswires everywhere look pretty much alike. Why should the reader
ever visit another IMC if most of what's there is the same everywhere?
Individual IMCs tend to prefer that the news posted reflect a local
focus that is unique to each website.

This is not to say that there isn't the occassional story that needs
network-wide exposure, just that the ability to do this across the IMC
network is far more frequently abused by those who seek to impose
coverage on certain issues in directions they think it should be by the
means of multiple reposts than it is used properly.

Rarely is this an issue for any individual story, but these abusers
typically can't restrain themselves to just posting one story on a
measured anmd appropriate basis. Rather, they typically post multiple
stories from their point of view that flood the individual efforts of
local posters off Newswires. This is essentially no different than what
occurs with the way big media conglomerates direct coverage by the
monoplistic domination of what is available to the public. I don't
believe the IMC network exists to replicate the machinations of a few.

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

Opinion is certainly welcome. But when the network is abused as I've
noted in my last answer above, the same problem results.

SNIP
John Wason wrote:
> 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.

My problem with his posts is that he takes a very well-reasoned set of
arguments against corporate domination and conflates it with his
obviously insane idea that his example of committing a random killing of
a cop will do anything effective to attack corporate abuses. I know that
you know that this is ridiculous. The problem is all the readers steered
here by dominant media reporting on this who will jump to the conclusion
that this otherwise well-reasoned point of view represents anything
except the delusional state of McCrae's mind.

> 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.

You're obviously a fair-minded person who can logically differentiate
the nuances involved in this situation. The problem is both the current
repressive political climate and the fact that most of those who oppose
the Indymedia project have no interest in being fair-minded and
objective about this situation.

> 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 seriously doubt that IMCs would act on their own to turn info over to
the authorities in the absence of legal process. But we have no control
over what law enforcement might do to us to get what they think they
need in an investigation. We have taken certain steps that make any such
attempts to exploit the IMC network moot by simply not retaining any
identifying records in most cases. But if the real objective is to shut
down IMCs, the authorities will not make such distinctions when they are
simply fishing for an excuse to attack us.

> 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.

The problem with the fact that any such attack would be without legal
foundation is that the law seems to be no impediment to the government,
particularly since 9-11. We would still incur large costs in defending a
position, even if we ultimately prevail. Ofetntimes, the fact that such
a large cost would be imposed on an innocent, but disfavored party, is
EXACTLY why the government may choose to attack us in an ultimately
insupportable way. The drain on resources would undermine our ability to
conduct our mission, which they can't attack directly.

> >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.

In this case, true, but see below.

> >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

The First Amendment cuts both ways here and in most such cases which are
addressed by the Steering group. People do have the right to speak there
minds, as provided for under the First Amendment. However, the First
Amendment also doesn't force us (a non-government body) to continue to
publish anything that doesn't fall within our very broad website use
policy. So the First Amendment applies to BOTH the author's decision to
post what they do AND to our right to decide whether such material
should continue to be openly displayed on our website.

We have always tried to work with people to resolve such conflicts, but
there are cases in which this has not been possible. Once again, this
has only rarely been a problem with any individual post (however, a
death threat would certainly fall in this category, although a
confession probably doesn't), but is usually part of a wider pattern of
abuse by certain posters.

When we do take action against certain material, it doens't disappear
entirely, but is moved to the Hidden Files. The actual decision in such
cases is not to take away anyone's right to write what they want, but to
take away the privilege of having it appear on the mainpage of our
website. This is a nuance that impacts the absolute right to express a
point of view, but does so in a way that is consistent with the First
Amendment (which does not constrain any publisher from making editorial
decisions in any case.)
Mike