Indymedia article condones physical violence

ChityWest

Not sure if this is the correct forum (or if there even is a correct forum) but - Has anyone else seen this ?

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/76443&comment_limit=0&condense_comments=false#comment152560

(you need to scroll back to the top to read the article)

Basically indymedia.ie have an article written by somone who took part in a physical attack (by an un-numbered amount of left activists) against 4 skinhead types on o'connell street the other day.

From reading the article - the impression I got was that the skin head types were being non violent and the lefty types were present in greater numbers and then proceeded to follow these guys down the street before physically attacking them in broad daylight.

Some of the responses on the site are notable :

'LImerick AFA wish to congratulaate our comrades on these actions. 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'Do not publish the actual photos of these scumbags getting battered for obvious reasons!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.'

'Well done AFA and Anarchist Youth. Heart-warming stuff.'

basically +90% of people who left a comment were thoroughly impressed with these actions.

I am curious about the general (non indymedia reading) consensus on this. This sort of stuff going on in dublin is news to me.


In my opinion people who publish other peoples names, addresses, photographs etc on the internet or who brag about what they are going to do or what they have done (violence wise) deserve a spell in prison. Would anyone else here support/condone/understand their behaviour ? I am wondering how can that be justified ? It reminds me of football hooligan behaviour.

lostexpectation

welcome to the world of of fa and anti-fa

bonkey

ChityWest wrote:

Would anyone else here support/condone/understand their behaviour ?

I understand it alright.

As for support or condoning it? Not a chance.

I don't care what ideology thuggery claims to be upholding. Its still thuggery, even if its "just" other thugs on the receiving end.

RE*AC*TOR

Morons (all of them).

Dave!

Indymedia people really are morons...

Comments:

'What a bunch of anti free speech loony left violent thugs you guys are. You just respond with violence to anyone who disagrees with your warped ideologies. If you idiots were left to run the country we would REALLY be living under a nightmarish fascist regime.

You plonkers are completely out of touch with the rest of Ireland outside your own twisted bubbles.'

And reply...

'Just because we have the balls to stand up to boneheads and other assorted racists who believe in the use of violence, you call anti-fascist action anti-free speech.

Your post is typically one from the racist right. harping on about free speech, talking for the majority and trying to say that we are out of touch.

Well if you and your volk want to openly come out from behind your computers and march any where in Ireland, please do.

We'll see how out of touch you and your racist allis are with Irish opinion.

Come on Zero and the rest of youse neo-nazi scum come out into the light and face the consequences of freedom of assembly and public scrutiny.'

:rolleyes:

pete

Just to clarify, the "skinhead types" in question were members of "Ireland’s most active White Nationalist group, The Celtic Wolves", an extremely secretive grouping who are well aware that their "activities" can (and will) see them banged up in the big house, and who were apparently having one of their regular meet ups to discuss furthering their "direct action" plans.

(photo from http://www.irelandawake.greatnow.com/celticwolvesmain.htm attached)

Personally, I think they made their point by simply finding out where the "secret" meeting was being held and turning up en-masse with cameras. Anything further that that was going too too far.

However, I am fairly confident that the "Celtic Wolves" would do far worse if the roles were reversed and they happened across some "reds" / non-whites / immigrant / gay / anyone not them, given half the chance. Anyone who thinks different should spend a few minutes browsing the stormfront ireland forum.

Regarding using photos of people on the internet, it appears to be perfectly legal.

Brother To God

This is insane,what idiots both sides esp for the use of violence,both sideds should be able to met up and have their meetings in peace and safety.
Using violence means brings down their cause,i would have read indymedia before but after this never again,how insane that it even got put up on a well respected website and this just glorifys violence and stupidity.I thought indymedia where meant to be biased? seems not!!
Violence is great! idiots! I wonder what they want names and addresses of lone wolf members for? what are the chances the lone wolf are doing the same and plan to attack back? great - just what ireland needs another gang war!Pricks both sides,utter pricks....

dahamsta

pete wrote:

However

There's no "however", those people are as "boneheaded" as the skinheads for doing what they did. Dumb as rocks the lot of them, just thank god they don't mix -- can you imagine what they'd breed?

The_Minister

I was reading that earlier. It's just bullying. How much did they outnumber the facists by?

pete

Ken Shabby wrote:

There's no "however", those people are as "boneheaded" as the skinheads for doing what they did.

Maybe so, but i just wanted to put it in context before anyone lost too much sleep over these poor "non violent skinheads".

Brother To God

"However, I am fairly confident that the "Celtic Wolves" would do far worse if the roles were reversed and they happened across some "reds" / non-whites / immigrant / gay / anyone not them, given half the chance. Anyone who thinks different should spend a few minutes browsing the stormfront ireland forum"

Pete: are you mad ?(even just a little?) there are reasons we have the Gardai and the army ,to protect the people! I know they can at times mess it up but it is their job and they try to do it,the people have chosen them to do that job not reds whites or blues,who made these people the peoples police not the people of this country? not the people,this is just like how the IRA or even those "lone wolfs" act,they act as if they are helping the people or doing some good and the people want them,if the people wanted them they would vote them into power!pThe people don,t want street battles and more gang violence (maybe i,m wrong! doubt it though!)

bonkey

pete wrote:

Maybe so, but i just wanted to put it in context before anyone lost too much sleep over these poor "non violent skinheads".

The assault was as much one on fundamental himan rights as it was on any individuals.

Condoning vigilantism may seem somehow more palatable, but its still sanctioning violence for a cause you approve of, regardless of the victim.

I'm furthermore certain that no-one suggested they were poor, non-violent types before you brought up this defence. I doubt many feel much sympathy for them at all, in fact. That still doesn't mitigate what their attakers did.

The day we close our eyes to the violence when its of the "right type" or targets the "right victim" will be a reuly sad day.

jc

pete

bonkey wrote:

I'm furthermore certain that no-one suggested they were poor, non-violent types before you brought up this defence.

Only the OP.

ChityWest wrote:

the impression I got was that the skin head types were being non violent

The day we close our eyes to the violence when its of the "right type" or targets the "right victim" will be a reuly sad day.

As I said in my original post on this thread, I think they went too far - under the circumstances, there was no need for violence at all. I'm giving context, not justification.

pete

Brother To God wrote:

Pete: are you mad ?(even just a little?)

No. Well, maybe.

Are you?

Brother To God

I dont, think i am!! But I could be!!!
Read your own posts up above you might see what I mean!:)


EDIT: I just read your posts again,you must be mad,Did you reread them?what do you think are you mad?

ChityWest

pete wrote:

Only the OP.

If you can find a mention in the original link of where these individuals were behaving in a violent manner I would be interested to see that.

And no - I am not talking about how violent they might want to be - are planning to be - or any other hypotheticals- but about were they violent in the above mentioned article ?

If so I must have missed it.

pete

ChityWest wrote:

If you can find a mention in the original link of where these individuals were behaving in a violent manner I would be interested to see that.

And no - I am not talking about how violent they might want to be - are planning to be - or any other hypotheticals- but about were they violent in the above mentioned article ?

If so I must have missed it.

You misunderstand. Your original post states they were "being non violent", which apparently is a fair enough description of their activity at that specific moment. I provided (post#6) some background information on who / what exactly the Celtic Wolves are & what it is they stand for.

I then clarified that I was posting this information lest any confused souls think they were an innocent group of "non violent skinheads" who just happened to be meeting in their local boozer for a quiet pint, minding their own business(ref: https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/4171/30511.jpg. Bonkey queried this, asking if anyone had "suggested they were poor, non-violent types".

I simply referred him to the mention in your orginal post of their "being non violent".

dermot_sheehan

Fascism: Using Violence and/or fear to surpress opposing political ideologies.
Anti-Fascism: Not being a Fascist
Anti-Fascism (Ireland):rolleyes: : Using Violence and/or fear to surpress opposing political ideologies and posting about it on indymedia.

ChityWest

pete wrote:

You misunderstand. Your original post states they were "being non violent", which apparently is a fair enough description of their activity at that specific moment. I provided (post#6) some background information on who / what exactly the Celtic Wolves are & what it is they stand for.

I then clarified that I was posting this information lest any confused souls think they were an innocent group of "non violent skinheads" who just happened to be meeting in their local boozer for a quiet pint, minding their own business(ref: https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/4171/30511.jpg. Bonkey queried this, asking if anyone had "suggested they were poor, non-violent types".

I simply referred him to the mention in your orginal post of their "being non violent".

I take your point that there is a difference between people who shave their heads for fashion / music or whatever and those who do it for political reasons. (I hadnt even thought of that confusion arising when I wrote the original post).

I dont agree however with getting 12+ guys together to kick the living **** out of either group for any reason. And no I wont be losing any sleep over this either. Just found it pretty shocking that it's a fairly well known site facilitating all of this. i.e. The swapping of information, addresses, photographs for purposes which are obviously going to involve violence/intimidation at some point. I wouldnt mind so much if this was a case of indymedia being generally badly run - its not. They were removing posts which were critical of the afghan hunger strikers within about an hour - yet that entire articla and all the ranting and raving posts are still there.

The fact that these people were non - violent at that time is the part that matters in my opinion.

I couldnt care less about what they are suspected of having done or what you or anyone else might think that they may have been involved in or would be involved with under different circumstances (either collectively as some sort of group or as individual human beings). If you start thinking you are qualified to to make and decide over those excuses/justifications then you've already lost the argument in my opinion.

I dont like the idea of jumped up little political activists of any persuasion making those righteous little assumptions then going and acting them out on the streets. Given the current climate - I would not be at all surprised if either or both groups are carrying knives the next time round - and the consequences will be a lot worse.

The behaviour of the left-leaning people in the above article and responses is EXACTLY the stereo-typical behaviour of racist skinheads/football hooligans - that was the part that I thought was the most unusual and eye opening.

BuffyBot

However, I am fairly confident that the "Celtic Wolves" would do far worse if the roles were reversed and they happened across some "reds" / non-whites / immigrant / gay / anyone not them, given half the chance.

It really doesn't matter how confident you are though, or what you think they "might" do, does it?

Karl Hungus

ChityWest wrote:

basically +90% of people who left a comment were thoroughly impressed with these actions.

I'd argue that most of the people who left a comment were largely unimpressed, because the fact is, the moderators at indymedia will delete contrary opinions. I posted my opinions on an article about RAR, and there was quite a lot of agreement and debate about it, but I looked back the next day, and the whole amount of comments was pruned back to about 3 that consisted of "Yay RAR!" sentiments.

Anyway...

Bonkey wrote:

I don't care what ideology thuggery claims to be upholding. Its still thuggery, even if its "just" other thugs on the receiving end.

Can't agree more.

Furthermore, I think this particular brand of thuggery is especially dangerous. Who's to say what other groups might take this as a nod to start taking violent action against opinions they may disagree with? I wouldn't put it past some of those anti-abortion types who hang about across from Trinity in Dublin on weekends, shoving pictures of aborted fetuses into people faces.

It's a very slippery slope, and I think the thugs in question should be prosecuted to full extent of the law. I've no love of the 'Celtic Wolves' either, but if they decide to take similar actions, then they should also be taken care of by the law, not by some slap-happy self-righteous thugs.

Crash

Vigilante bull****. Anyone who engages in behaviour like that, extreme left or extreme right, or middle bits in between, deserves to be thrown off the streets. That article and the responses are typical of indymedia anyway - I have little respect for the site.

I would wonder however how no one thought there was an issue with this post:

random Indymedia idiot wrote:

he guy in the second pictures name is XXXXXX, he lives near XXXXXX and works in XXXXX.

Here's a link to his bebo page -http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=XXXXXX
No Pasaran.

surely any reasonably moderated site would have seen it as a good idea™ to remove a post like that?

Nuttzz

indymedia and stromfront are different sides of the same coin tbh.

ChityWest

&#231 wrote: »

surely any reasonably moderated site would have seen it as a good idea™ to remove a post like that?

Indymedia are saying that they are not responsible for their content and are calling themselves a 'self publishing' site.

This doesnt add up with the fact that throughout the afghan hunger strike situation they were routinely deleting posts that were not in agreement with the general RAR viewpoint.

I think their idea of moderating is selective to the point of being blatant - ie we will delete anything we disagree with - then if someone posts personal details (address description photograph) of an individual inviting violence and intimidation - then we wont delete that because we are a 'self publishing' site.

I think given the types of comments made there - along the lines of 'this person will be spoken to' (corrected spelling) and so on they are taking a scary approach to the whole thing. Even more scary considering that indymedia is a website that the green party TD has personally posted to.

bonkey

&#231 wrote: »

surely any reasonably moderated site would have seen it as a good idea™ to remove a post like that?

I must be mssing something here...

By including this info in a post here, are you not also suggesting that boards is not reasonably moderated because you expect to be allowed to do this?

Frankly, I'm at a bit of a loss to understand how you can copy information into another area in public domain whilst saying that any decently run site wouldn't allow such stuff.

By the same logic, incidentally, could one also say that any decent-minded poster wouldn't disseminate this information?

Crash

Touché Bonkey, actually didn't consider that one at all properly - post edited. Though I think that argument stands more to my own stupidity than to back up indymedia.

chekov

Goodness, you're still ranting about indymedia/RAR here.

ChityWest wrote:

Indymedia are saying that they are not responsible for their content and are calling themselves a 'self publishing' site.

This doesnt add up with the fact that throughout the afghan hunger strike situation they were routinely deleting posts that were not in agreement with the general RAR viewpoint.

Not true at all but why let truth get in the way of your one-boy crusade. Indymedia is a self-publishing website, as is well known. We remove content that contravenes the editorial guidelines: http://www.indymedia.ie/editorial and these guidelines have nothing to do with RAR (a tiny group who have no involvement in indymedia).

If you are interested in knowning why a particular piece of content is removed, you will find that all editorial actions are publically archived along with the reasons for taking the particular action. I doubt you are interested in such information however. I suspect that you rather have a problem with the politics of various of the groups that post to indymedia and are choosing the messenger as a proxy-target.

I think their idea of moderating is selective to the point of being blatant - ie we will delete anything we disagree with - then if someone posts personal details (address description photograph) of an individual inviting violence and intimidation - then we wont delete that because we are a 'self publishing' site.

Our editorial guidelines are fairly clear and we do try to stick to them fairly rigorously: http://www.indymedia.ie/editorial Personally, I'd like to remove a lot more material, but I am bound by the guidelines.

With regards to what you call "personal details" - what is your problem? The whole point about media is that it reports the things that people do. 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. The sad fact of the matter is that as soon as you go around attending neo-nazi meetings, your actions enter the public domain and all sorts of media will be interested in reporting your actions - the tabloids have been printing various stories about the Celtic Wolves for a while, the only difference being that they make up most of the details.

I think given the types of comments made there - along the lines of 'this person will be spoken to' (corrected spelling) and so on they are taking a scary approach to the whole thing. Even more scary considering that indymedia is a website that the green party TD has personally posted to.

What?? What precise comments are you refering to and why exactly do you have a problem with them? And what on earth is scary about a green party td?

chekov

&#231 wrote: »

Vigilante bull****. Anyone who engages in behaviour like that, extreme left or extreme right, or middle bits in between, deserves to be thrown off the streets. That article and the responses are typical of indymedia anyway - I have little respect for the site.

Can you possibly miss the ENORMOUS GAPING double standard in your post.

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

Crash

I should probably have clarified with "by the gardai" - my mistake!

ChityWest

chekov wrote:

Goodness, you're still ranting about indymedia/RAR here.


Not true at all but why let truth get in the way of your one-boy crusade. . . . . . . . And what on earth is scary about a green party td?

I wouldnt dismiss my post as a rant - though you are welcome to.

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.

I never said that a green party TD was scary either.

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 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.

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

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 -


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

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

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.

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.

The Corinthian

pete wrote:

Maybe so, but i just wanted to put it in context before anyone lost too much sleep over these poor "non violent skinheads".

And there was I thinking that you were sounding like an apologist for scumbags.

gabhain7 wrote:

Fascism: Using Violence and/or fear to surpress opposing political ideologies.
Anti-Fascism: Not being a Fascist
Anti-Fascism (Ireland):rolleyes: : Using Violence and/or fear to surpress opposing political ideologies and posting about it on indymedia.

Four legs good, two legs bad.

I see the use of easily digestible clichés is still popular amongst the herd.

ChityWest wrote:

Indymedia are saying that they are not responsible for their content and are calling themselves a 'self publishing' site.

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.

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.