[alt-media-res] Fw: Imc-uk-network Digest, Vol 52, Issue 13

[zoe]

hi there
some interesting discussion here
how is everyone?
steffen i have in my diary that we are due to restart analysis on
ifiwatchnet soon..
andre, is the other transcription done?
i'll have some time to check it only now in late sept.
cheers all
xz

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <imc-uk-network-request at lists.indymedia.org>
To: <imc-uk-network at lists.indymedia.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 1:01 PM
Subject: Imc-uk-network Digest, Vol 52, Issue 13


> Send Imc-uk-network mailing list submissions to
> imc-uk-network at lists.indymedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-uk-network
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> imc-uk-network-request at lists.indymedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> imc-uk-network-owner at lists.indymedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Imc-uk-network digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: [Imc-london] incriminating video, aka a fine example of
>       Indymedia censorship (jagmad at riseup.net)
>    2. Re: [Imc-london] incriminating video, aka a fine example of
>       Indymedia censorship (Mr. Demeanour)
>    3. Re: [Imc-london] incriminating video, aka a fine example of
>       Indymedia censorship (yossarian)
>    4. [Fwd: Re:  [Imc-london] incriminating video, aka a fine
>       example of Indymedia censorship] (Mr. Demeanour)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 05:56:20 -0700 (PDT)
> From: jagmad at riseup.net
> Subject: Re: [Imc-uk-network] [Imc-london] incriminating video, aka a
> fine example of Indymedia censorship
> To: ionnek at aktivix.org
> Cc: imc-uk-network at lists.indymedia.org
> Message-ID: <49480.127.0.0.1.1187700980.squirrel at tern.riseup.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
>
> Hi,
>
> I can tell you a bit more about the situation. There were present two
> police photographers equipped with video and about half a dozen cop
> witnesses. Now do you honestly think, under those circumstances, that the
> woman was trying to avoid photo/video evidence of her obstructing a police
> officer?
>
> Take a look at the FitWatch website mention of their upcoming trials and
> this will give you a good idea of their techniques and aims.
>
> http://fitwatch.blogspot.com/2007/08/fitwatch-trial-date.html
>
> Cheers,
>
> Doug
>
>
> On Sat, August 18, 2007 12:16 pm, ionnek at aktivix.org wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> >
> > it's good that this discussion is coming up again. There are so many
> > possible definitions of censorship around, i guess it's up to us to
figure
> > out which one works best for us.
> >
> > The global internet liberty campaign has a good article on the
> > complexities of the term censorship here:
> > http://www.gilc.org/speech/osistudy/censorship/
> >
> >
> > I want to comment on two discussions - blurring or not blurring faces,
> > and "can indymedia censor". What I have to say probably doesn't
contribute
> > to a decision about what to do with the video - I trust those who know
> > more about the specific situation to make the right decision.
> >
> > blurring or not blurring?
> >
> > In terms of "spreading the news from the streets" and of showing the
> > world that we-the-movement are actually not blurred and faceless aliens
> > but real people, it's certainly much better to have people's faces
> > unblurred on the indymedia newswires - demonstrating, participating in
> > climate- and other camps, working and living together etc etc.
> >
> > I don't know how the authorities - fit team, other kinds of evesdropping
> > and data gatherin - are going about profiling activists. What I don't
like
> > is the idea that they might try to find out more about one specific
person
> > for some courtcase, just gathering data - person participated in climate
> > camp, person participates in political mailing lists, person works here
or
> > there, person posted holiday pics on flickr... you get the idea. "Ah,
you
> > are the person who obstructed the fit team in 2007, and here is the
> > evidence". That sort of thing. Or analyse our networks by checking out
who
> > is pictured with whom and when etc. But then it's probably impossibe to
> > escape surveillance anyway.
> >
> > On the other hand, the traditional civil rights stance is also an
option.
> > People
> > standing with real name and face for the cause they are fighting for.
Here
> > I
> > am, I think this or that policy is not right, a wrong interpretation of
> > the law, arrest me and charge me if you can prove me wrong.
> >
> > About doug's video, I can't say much because I don't know the person
> > filmed and don't know the situation. But I believe doug when he says she
> > agreed to have the video published - and I guess she knows what that
> > means. I think this "asking for consent" is crucial for indymedia,
> > certainly when the pictures feature specific individuals (it would be
> > difficult to ask a demo of 5000 for consent ;-).
> >
> > censorship or not censorship
> >
> > I agree with startx here - indymedia can't censor anyone. Censorship is
a
> > power a state has, but not a small dis-organisation. Indymedia can't
> > prevent content to be made public. There are countless free or
commercial
> > web-based platforms, anyone can get their content out to the public, if
> > not on platform a, then on platform b. Wether or not something appears
on
> > indymedia is completely irrelevant to the question of censorship.
> > Censorship can kick in when certain
> > content is deemed illegal to appear on any website, no matter if it is
> > youtube or myspace or indymedia.
> >
> > I repeat gdms Wikipedia quote:
> > "Censorship is defined as the removal and/or withholding of information
> > from the public by a controlling group or body." How, then, can
indymedia
> > withhold information from the public? By hacking all other internet
> > plattforms? If the public wants information, they can find it through
lots
> > of channels (or put it there themselves). Indymedia is not the only
> > plattform in the world, all it can control is itself, website by
website,
> >  collective by collective. "A controlling group or body" refers to
> > institutions much more influential than indymedia - institutions that
> > control not only their own newsletter/platform, but a whole set of
> > platforms, i.e. a significant part of the public sphere.
> >
> > Wikipedia continues:
> > "Typically censorship is done by governments, religious groups or the
mass
> >  media, although other forms of censorship exist."
> >
> > Other than governments, big corporations or corporate media, Indymedia
> > can't block anybody's access to the public, i.e. can't censor anybody.
> >
> > All indymedia can do is try to keep it's content in line with its
general
> >  principles. I.e., you would probably hide my holiday pics if i posted
> > them on indymedia. But then I'd just put them somewhere else - I
wouldn't
> > be censored by indymedia. This means that indymedia can make decisions
> > about what to display on its website, but it can't make decisions about
> > what goes into the public spere.
> >
> > A big company, however, has means to censor content - take as an example
> > the corporate sponsered research into sensitive issues, where the
results
> > only go public if they are in favour of the sponsor's products.
> >
> > Doug says that his video "has been completely removed from the public
> > gaze and must therefore be censorship". In my view, this was an internal
> > action based on a disagreement or possibly a misunderstanding, not
> > censorship. The fact that it is accessible on flickr shows what i mean.
> >
> > In the understanding of the term censorship that doug and gdm use, any
> > alternative newspaper, any edited magazine (like mute, for example), any
> > website without open publishing, would be engaged in censorship.
> >
> > I'd prefer to reserve the term censorship for infringements of free
> > speech "from above", rather than using it to express disagreement with a
> > decision making process within an alternative political project.
> >
> > best ionnek __
> > Imc-uk-network mailing list
> > Imc-uk-network at lists.indymedia.org
> > http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-uk-network
> > Also other list of similar interest Indymedia United Kollektives
process:
> > http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-uk-process
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 17:17:27 +0100
> From: "Mr. Demeanour" <mrdemeanour at jackpot.uk.net>
> Subject: Re: [Imc-uk-network] [Imc-london] incriminating video, aka a
> fine example of Indymedia censorship
> To: imc-uk-network at lists.indymedia.org
> Message-ID: <46CB1017.4000809 at jackpot.uk.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> ionnek at aktivix.org wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > censorship or not censorship
> >
> > I agree with startx here - indymedia can't censor anyone. Censorship
> > is a power a state has, but not a small dis-organisation.
>
> That is a somewhat idiosyncratic point of view about the word. Whether
> it is or isn't technically correct, I believe it's at odds with "street
> usage". I appreciate that it's the conventional Indymedia definition
> (and Indymedia does need a definition of "censorship").
>
> I don't think it's much help, when debating with a person who's
> screaming "censorship", to roll out this definition.
>
> If you want convince someone, you have to address their issue. Typically
> when this term comes up, it's because someone has posted something, and
> doesn't understand why it's been hidden or whatever. Or doesn't agree
> with the reasons given for removing it. Rendering them speechless by
> taking away their word isn't going to make them understand or agree.
> It's just going to annoy them (even if it appears to have resulted in a
> won argument).
>
> This knife cuts both ways - screaming "censorship" is an excellent way
> of annoying Indymedia editors, for whom it's often a hot button. And I
> hasten to note that personally, I'm OK with the Indymedia definition;
> maybe I even think it's correct. I do feel that complaints containing
> the word are generally kooky.
>
> So that aside, I think I'm saying that the removal of Doug's video needs
> to be explained properly, and his complaint shouldn't be shrugged-off as
> just another whinger who doesn't understand what "censorship" means.
>
> [much more snippage]
>
> -- 
> Jack.
>
> [I've recently been criticised elsewhere for excessively brutal
> snipping. If you agree, feel free to contact me off-list; I am always
> willing to try to improve my netiquette]
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 18:34:13 +0100
> From: yossarian <yossarian at aktivix.org>
> Subject: Re: [Imc-uk-network] [Imc-london] incriminating video, aka a
> fine example of Indymedia censorship
> Cc: imc-uk-network at lists.indymedia.org
> Message-ID: <46CB2215.3000702 at aktivix.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Mr. Demeanour wrote:
> > ionnek at aktivix.org wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >
> >> censorship or not censorship
> >>
> >> I agree with startx here - indymedia can't censor anyone. Censorship
> >> is a power a state has, but not a small dis-organisation.
> >>
> >
> > That is a somewhat idiosyncratic point of view about the word. Whether
> > it is or isn't technically correct, I believe it's at odds with "street
> > usage". I appreciate that it's the conventional Indymedia definition
> > (and Indymedia does need a definition of "censorship").
> >
>
>
> Censorship is, for example, when the government of the UK puts a D
> Notice on a piece of news, making it illegal for any news outlet to
> publish the information.  It is a power exercised by a state or a
> political party in control of a state.  Attempting to circumvent the
> censorship results in legal (or sometimes, extra-legal) penalties being
> applied to the person or organization in question.  Historically, these
> might range from court proceedings, fines, or confiscation of equipment,
> to imprisonment, rape, torture, death, or striking up an
> acquaintanceship with the local concentration camp system.
>
> In contrast, what we do when we hide something is called "having an
> editorial policy for our website".
>
> Yoss
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 19:58:25 +0100
> From: "Mr. Demeanour" <mrdemeanour at jackpot.uk.net>
> Subject: [Imc-uk-network] [Fwd: Re:  [Imc-london] incriminating video,
> aka a fine example of Indymedia censorship]
> To: imc-uk-network at lists.indymedia.org
> Message-ID: <46CB35D1.9070005 at jackpot.uk.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Sorry, another mis-post! This was meant to go to the list.
>
> yossarian wrote:
> >
> > Censorship is, for example, when the government of the UK puts a D
> > Notice on a piece of news, making it illegal for any news outlet to
> > publish the information.  It is a power exercised by a state or a
> > political party in control of a state.  Attempting to circumvent the
> >  censorship results in legal (or sometimes, extra-legal) penalties
> > being applied to the person or organization in question.
> > Historically, these might range from court proceedings, fines, or
> > confiscation of equipment, to imprisonment, rape, torture, death, or
> > striking up an acquaintanceship with the local concentration camp
> > system.
> >
> > In contrast, what we do when we hide something is called "having an
> > editorial policy for our website".
>
> It follows from your reasoning that Google and Yahoo do not censor
> chinese dissidents, since they are not governments, and do not have the
> power to issue "D" notices (or their chinese equivalent).
>
> I do not feel comfortable to seem to be aligned with those two
> organisations' positions on openness.
>
> [Added]
> In fact I readily agree that we must have and implement an editorial
> policy; I only said that I don't think we should use our definition of
> "censorship" as a way of winning arguments.
>
> -- 
> Jack.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Imc-uk-network mailing list
> Imc-uk-network at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-uk-network
>
>
> End of Imc-uk-network Digest, Vol 52, Issue 13
> **********************************************