Janice:

I am NOT "Editor in Chief" nor am I engaged in censorship. I am an *editor* of KC Indymedia and as one of our editors, it's my job to hide articles according to our policies. Any of the other editors can do this "fun" job, if they choose to spend time doing it. You'll see on most of the items that I've deleted or hidden that I've explained my decisions.

You have discovered one of the fun jobs involved in running an Indymedia website. The reponsibility of editing the newswire can be taken up by other editors. Other volunteers can learn to be editors. Most of my work as an editor each day involves moving stories mistakenly posted to the local newswire over to the national/international newswire. That's mostly what I do as an editor here--sometimes I promote articles to features when the editorial group decides.

Oh, and the article titled "Nearly 9,000 U.S. troops dead? A NATIONWIDE CALL FOR INFO FROM SURVIVORS" shouldn't be hidden. That's my mistake. I demoted it from being a feature after a poster pointed out that the source had connections with a right wing group.

Have been involved wih KCIM for 2 1/2 years with editorial access and just recently became aware that articles were being hidden. In my training, I do not recall 'hiding' as an editorial function and do not believe it was our original intent... unless they were slanderous or inflamatory against groups or individual citizens. I believe politics and politicians are exempt and fair game.

Hiding articles would seem to be counter-productive if our desire is to encourage community participation, whether by contribution of articles and posts or simply encouraging readership.

Sharon: The ability to hide and delete articles is built into the software. My actions as an editor are standard editing practice at *every* IMC website. Editing the newswire is an important way of keeping it free of trollbait, advertising, rumors, false information that could damage our credibility, and more. We can talk about this at a future meeting, but ignorance of this shouldn't give somebody the right to call me names and impugn my reputation.

Well Chuck, it's understandable that you have to censor things and I'm glad you're taking the time to explain your actions to people. It's more efficient to educate people on what you're doing than to simply try to eradicate them.

I hope that you don't let the extremists in the 9/11 truth movement push you past a point where you start to censor everything that is about questioning 9/11, as NYC Indymedia has recently done. The purpose of a significant percentage of people pushing missiles, pods, holograms and 'no planes' on 9/11 are likely trying to wear you down so you won't consider anything in that whole area worth your time NOT to censor. I, for one, do support 9/11 censorship of extremist positions such as pods under the planes, missiles fired from the pods, holograms or fake planes, and no planes, to some extent. I do, however, think the theory of demolition of the WTC towers collapses has merit because it is being scientifically analyzed with a massive amount of visual data. All of the disinfo theories around missiles and pods have only fuzzy single frames as 'evidence' or literally nothing at all except 'hypotheses.'

While the concept of demolition may seem extreme to some, it was not to people like Van Romero, Vice President of New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, who was quoted as stating that the collapses of the Twin Towers were the result of explosive devices.

911review.com/coverup/romero.html

Naturally, he retracted it several days later. But the record is clear - even an expert automatically assumed it was demolition.

Well, I think my moderation here has been fair and consistent.

This is a portion of an email sent to the kcindymedia editorial committee last night. JH

kcindymedia Collegues:

I am very bothered by this recent censorship revelation
and I appreciate that Janice has brought it to light.

For whatever its worth, I see a pattern of censorship here
that is contrary to everything indymedia stands for.

While some of the removals ("hiding") seem for obvious reasons
I was shocked to see other submissions that were removed
from this public forum, including the examples below.

It is befitting that one of the stories 'hidden' was this one:
Censored 2005: The Top 25 Censored Media Stories
of 2003-2004
kcindymedia.org/newswire/display/1846/index
.php

There was also a commentary by (co-editor) Tom Klammer
which was critical of the anarchists destructive behavior at
a Plaza protest - deleted. We all know that Chuck is a
leading anarchist, but to delete a (co-editor's) witness
unfavorable commentary is absurd.

Or the 'hidden story about Bill Moyers:
Bill Moyers: There is no tomorrow
kcindymedia.org/newswire/display/2109/index.php

This outragous article was also hidden.
Amy Goodman Interviews Gore Vidal
kcindymedia.org/newswire/display/2086/index.php

There are also scientific articles, like this one which examines
the gaping holes in the official 9/11 story. This article was
labeled a 'Conspiracy Theory"by Chuck though it raises legitimate questions (Are we like
children who cannot filter for themselves?)
World Trade Center Fires kcindymedia.org/newswire/display/2384/index.php

I would have liked to have read this pre-election commentary:
Raising our heads at a historic Moment
kcindymedia.org/newswire/display/1705/index
.php

For some very unknown reason, I have been deleted as
an editor of kcindymedia. That was not my intention
at all and I am extremely perplexed as to how it happened.

Best wishes,
Jan H.

Adendum: Besides Chuck, there are currently six other editors of kcindymedia (Sam, Frank, Sharon, Tom, Mike and myself). Speaking for myself, I feel that Chuck has unilaterally violated his position by taking it upon himself to determine content, (without any discussion with the other editors). The original bylaws were written before Chuck arrived, but I also remember that the kcindymedia bylaws were very careful when it came to items that would qualify for removal. Our collective and personal political leanings and opinions were most certainly NOT qualifiers for message removal.

You know, if people want to be involved in this project and the running of the website, you should come to meetings. It isn't my problem if some of you have just discovered that Indymedia websites moderate content on the newswire. If you are just discovering this for the first time, it will look like I've moderated lots of stories and contents. If you look at the time stamps you'll see that I only moderate a few items each week.

My mistake was assuming that most of you understood that the newswire is moderated. I'm actually mystified that some of you are just now discovering what editors do with the newswire. I haven't even been the only one moderating the newswire either.

As for specific stories that were deleted or hidden, I'd have to refresh my memory before commenting on them.

You know, if people want to be involved in this project and the running of the website, you should come to meetings. It isn't my problem if some of you have just discovered that Indymedia websites moderate content on the newswire. If you are just discovering this for the first time, it will look like I've moderated lots of stories and contents. If you look at the time stamps you'll see that I only moderate a few items each week.

My mistake was assuming that most of you understood that the newswire is moderated. I'm actually mystified that some of you are just now discovering what editors do with the newswire. I haven't even been the only one moderating the newswire either.

As for specific stories that were deleted or hidden, I'd have to refresh my memory before commenting on them.

You know, if people want to be involved in this project and the running of the website, you should come to meetings. It isn't my problem if some of you have just discovered that Indymedia websites moderate content on the newswire. If you are just discovering this for the first time, it will look like I've moderated lots of stories and contents. If you look at the time stamps you'll see that I only moderate a few items each week.

My mistake was assuming that most of you understood that the newswire is moderated. I'm actually mystified that some of you are just now discovering what editors do with the newswire. I haven't even been the only one moderating the newswire either.

As for specific stories that were deleted or hidden, I'd have to refresh my memory before commenting on them.

I have no recollection of hiding these articles:

Or the 'hidden story about Bill Moyers:
Bill Moyers: There is no tomorrow
kcindymedia.org/newswire/display/2109/index.php

This outragous article was also hidden.
Amy Goodman Interviews Gore Vidal
kcindymedia.org/newswire/display/2086/index.php

I can't see why I would hide either of these articles.

I have no recollection of hiding these articles:

Or the 'hidden story about Bill Moyers:
Bill Moyers: There is no tomorrow
kcindymedia.org/newswire/display/2109/index.php

This outragous article was also hidden.
Amy Goodman Interviews Gore Vidal
kcindymedia.org/newswire/display/2086/index.php

I can't see why I would hide either of these articles.

Chuck says:
1) "it's my job to hide articles according to our policies." The policies are VERY specific--porn, blatant hate/racism/sexism... I have now read every single article on the 11 PAGES of hidden articles. I do not find one single article that meets those criteria. Not one. Nor have I found any on the DELETED articles list.

2) "My actions as an editor are standard editing practice at *every* IMC website."
We're not talking about "every IMC." We're talking about KCIMC. And No, your actions are *not* standard practice at *every* IMC. The sites where blatant control is exhibited by one individual are the same ones that are falling apart. These same issues are being addressed right now in three different cities, as well, now that people are learning that this censorship is happening. For instance, NYC IMC just hid an article announcing a 9/11 Art Contest. What? You bet "NYC IMC CENSORS POSTS" is being blasted to the world.

Last week you hid an article discussing antigravity because you think it's a "Conspiracy Theory." You have hidden every SINGLE article related to 9/11 (except the one that was made a feature by the other editors) and called it "Conspiracy Theory." Bylaws do NOT call for any editor to hide/delete posts if s/he determines it to pertain to conspiracy theories...

You deleted, not hid, deleted an article last week posted by Ray Dequenne, siting "Paranoid delusions. Possibly anti-semitic." Probably you don't know this guy, right? So you made a judgment call on whether others should be *allowed* to read his post based on your assessment of his psychological health? Guess what--I happen to know Ray. You're very wrong. Ray's experience is documented and very, very bad...

Yesterday you hid an article called "DHS kicks off new offensive against activists," posted by Urban
Guerrilla Liberation Front. You said it's a "hoax." So I emailed both UGLF and EarthFirst, to verify that it's a "hoax." Nope. Absolutely valid. I spoke to them via both email and phone.

More than anything, I find it very disconcerting to see a pattern of you removing articles that would alert readers to daily attack on our persons and our civil liberties, being perpetrated against us now by the Powers that Be (such as Ray's). Why would you do that?

Now why, Chuck, would you NOT want people to know about ways the US Govt is harassing people, particularly articles that expose their COINTELPRO-type efforts, so that we can be more prepared to work against it? I find it very odd that this pattern is being repeated by you with such stealth, and believe that a public response from you is justified.

Janice: I'm very disappointed in how you brought this up publicly without any effort to discuss this via our email list or at a meeting. At this point I think we should discuss this at a meeting of the KC IMC. I will address your questions in person.

This subject needs to be discussed in some depth at the next meeting- I'm sorry I missed the last one, and that it wasn't more thoroughly discussed there. Among other problems, I think the site has suffered from neglect by some of the other editors including myself.

I think hidings and/or deletions have gone beyond my understanding of our guidelines.

The "Nearly 9,000 U.S. troops dead? A NATIONWIDE CALL FOR INFO FROM SURVIVORS" article" should have been a feature as a result of a thumbs up vote for featurehood from a majority of the editors. It should have been demoted only if there was a similar majority vote to do so.

Like I said, I think neglect on the part of some of us had contributed to problems- perhaps it was felt, perhaps with good reason, that a majority of editors wouldn't respond. I still don't think that a unilateral decision should have been taken on demotion, or on most of the hidings or deletions.

Chuck has kept this site going and posted meeting notices while some of us have been too busy or otherwise have not pariticipated, and I greatly appreciate that.

But if this site is to continue we must have a better way of deciding which articles are to be available and which not than one person deciding.

A general comment on 9/11:
I don't know exactly what happened, and am not yet sure what to make of claims of complicity by the administration. Some claims may be "conspiracy theories" that won't hold up, I don't know.

I do firmly believe that at very least the administration cynically exploited 9/11, and while I am by no means certain they participated, neither am I 100% that they did not. There are a lot of aspects that raise serious questions- just one example is the collapse of Building 7- that have absolutely not been adequately addressed in general, and certainly not by the 9/11 report. I hope that a lot of different subjects will be addressed here, not just 9/11, but certainly not excluding 9/11, and that a variety of people will feel comfortable posting here.

9/11 is a unique issue of debate. It lies at the core of the Bush Administration's construct for the 'war on terror' and has led to the murders of thousands as well as potential millions into the future.

This is far different than many other issues considered to be 'conspiracies,' such as UFOs, Chemtrails, etc.

There is a great deal of evidence suggesting that the attacks of 9/11 were not only allowed to happen but were made to happen.

Disinformation directed at the 9/11 research and activist community includes extremist positions put out en masse via CDs, websites, and in slick Hollywood-style propaganda pieces in an effort to make us look like kooks, or by the same folks pumping out stuff on UFOs in general. These include holograms, pods, missiles, 'no planes', 'fake planes', etc.

NYC indymedia apparently considers any questioning and theorizing on 9/11 that does not come directly from the mouth of the Bush Administration, FEMA, NIST, or the engineers whose firms have been paid hundreds and hundreds of thousands to explain the events for the government, to be 'conspiracy mongering.'

It is understandable that indymedia editors worldwide feel confused or reactive when their sites are being flooded by those who wish to marginalize the grassroots efforts of the 9/11 movement with anti-semitic and extremist nonsense. I hope that a meeting with real discussion and diverse opinions can keep the spirit of both the indymedia efforts and the grassroots 9/11 truth efforts intact in the face of such propaganda campaigns.

Some of these efforts have been well described at this page:

www.oilempire.us/bogus.html

Good luck!

- Vic
Alameda, CA

Censorship has recently become rampant at the St. Louis Indymedia site as well. From now on, when I visit IMC sites, I'll visit the hidden articles (called the "compost bin" on some IMCs) first, as some of the best articles are there.

Until recently, St. Louis hardly hid anything, now the moderator is trigger-happy. What's worst is she leaves in obvious forgeries, duplicates, and neocon/neoliberal posts. Today she left in two right-wing pro-police articles, one that forged my username. She hid my comments on the thread.

Posters with strong opinions have little incentive to continue contributing to IMCs if their thoughts are just going to be hidden or deleted. If someone says something that might trigger a raid on the IMC computers by law enforcement, or a subpoena from the Feds, I could understand. But censoring because the censor disagrees with an opinion is intolerable.

To my counterparts in KC, my condolences that apparently some of you are having the same problems with censorship as we are in STL.

As I said in another post, it's quite possible the hidden posts are from neocons bumping down ratings, not censorship by IMC staff. So unless you hear from me again, you can assume it's sabotage by neocons and not bad behavior by STL moderators. I hope you folks in KC work out your issues about censored posts on kcindymedia.

If there was censorship, the articles would be deleted, not readable, duh. If every post is present on the home page, it will be un-symmetrical with the column on the left, i.e. too damn long of a page. Anyone can click on hidden articles! The things most "Kansas City" related/ audience related items seem like obvious choices for the main page. Furthermore a lot of things are available elsewhere on the net, and certainly cutting and pasting and forwarding is not the mission of this site. I would like to thank Chuck for the work, and hope you don't take the griping seriously. I am suspicious of the criticism...
sf

Shaun has a good point--if everything ever posted at IMC sites was left up forever, it would absolutely become too much for the sites to hold. Perhaps reviewing Portland's excellent structure would be good. However, postings and related comments that are hidden the same day they're posted (or even within minutes of being posted for some comments), do not fall into this category.

I, too, am extremely grateful for IMC, and for the work that the editorial board has put into making it available for our use. That's the very reason I posted my concerns in the first place--this is indeed a very valuable resource, and it's critical that we continue to have independent media by the People available to the People. If IndyMedia was not an important vehicle for the dissemination of free and honest information, JTTF would not be closing down sites and seizing their servers, etc. And we would not be seeing this very same censorship discussion happening re. St. Louis, NYC, Atlanta, and other cities right now.

I have repeatedly attempted to contact Chuck personally in the past year through emails and phone calls--I have only once received a response, which I originally assumed was because he's busy. Further, I went privately to the editorial board two weeks before posting this piece. So you can choose to be suspicious of my motives--I actually value that position and believe we all need to start paying more attention to people's behaviors and motives. While this feels sad on the one hand, reality bites. This class/power/resource war we're in forces us to re-evaluate our thinking.

As a brief aside here ...I've been asking people to read Brian Glick's "War at Home" for two years... it's imperative that we study the techniques being used against us and learn how to deal with them. Questioning people's and/or organization's motives, when appropriate, is definitely a necessary part of that process of building trust.

I also appreciate the work that Chuck has done in making this site a success. however, i think it is obvious that his censorship practices are not good. he himself says he can't recall hiding articles he hid, and he doesn't know why he hid them. also, reading through the posts that were censored (and the caustic way they are dismissed) i also get the idea that his ideological bias is preventing him from exercising "fair and moderate" judgment. moreover I do not think it should be up to one person to set the political tone for a public, alternative news site.

I hope that censorship can be more of a group effort among the editors than one person's whims.

also, not to split hairs, but yes, hiding posts IS a form of censorship. by making some articles prominant and easily-accessible, and hiding others you are controlling which articles people, in fact, are likely to read. also, just the fact that they are hidden means people are more likely to dismiss them as articles without merit and not read them. so, yes, this is censorship and it should not be brushed off so lightly if we want to keep saying, as in the mission statement, that we are a site for "unadulterated information" and "unfiltered words".

After some experience with organizations that get caught up in divisive turmoil, I would have to say this is a non-issue. Calling out an individual is suspcicous. I risk my standing with other friends in the community here, and I clearly idenitify my first and last name unlike some others. These articles are accessible on "page two", if you will, of the site. I'm on my way to the meeting folks, and every other meeting of every group you're involved in. You're after someone who has not enriched themself, and you're trying to look like a defender of liberty. It is laughable that you think the larger audience isn't savvy enough to see through the attempt to score points here.s.f.

Janice wrote:

"I have repeatedly attempted to contact Chuck personally in the past year through emails and phone calls--I have only once received a response, which I originally assumed was because he's busy. Further, I went privately to the editorial board two weeks before posting this piece. So you can choose to be suspicious of my motives--I actually value that position and believe we all need to start paying more attention to people's behaviors and motives. While this feels sad on the one hand, reality bites"

This is absolutely untrue! I've gotten no phone calls from Janice and don't recall any direct emails from her. I'm also unaware of any "private" editorial meeting. Such a thing would go against IMC principles of openness and transparency.

At this point, I have to conclude that Janice is making this stuff up about me in order to undermine me because I don't agree with her take on 9/11. This is not just irresponsible, but it undermines the work of activists in this community.

Sara: Hiding posts is NOT censorship. I'm a librarian and activist against censorship, so I know what censorship is. There isn't any censorship on Indymedia as we aren't agents of the government. The Indymedia network and each IMC have policies about what is acceptable for publication on the open newswire. When you participate in this project, you consent to those guidelines. The same holds true for any other website. You have to abide by the guidelines set up by the people who run a website. If your post is removed or deleted, that's just what happens on websites. You are totally free to start your own website. Of course, editorial and moderation decisions often involve a judgement call about items that aren't covered specifically by policies, but are closely related to standing policies. I see no need to apologize for my moderation decisions on this website--I've been very careful to stick to existing guidelines for this IMC and practices that are common around the IMC network.

Finally, this whoe attack on me is unfair as nobody else stepped up to help moderate the newswire. It's also disgusting that somebody would lie about my actions and about their efforts to contact me. My email is pretty available and I'm on the IMC KC editorial list.

So far, the situation is that a message was deleted which was posted by someone using only a first name, and this deleted message was alledging the newswire editor's unfair moderation *on another website*. I assume if some anonymous person made an accusation against you about your behavior outside this site, it would be in the best interest of all to show this to the community, etc. I would hope all such posts never make it public! I don't see anyone at fault here; things are heating up with domestic dissent, and we will have difficult topics amongst ourselves. We need up-to-date communication with each other without getting bogged down in recycled pet interests off the web. The community does not need us to model agression and fear.
s.f.

As one of the founding board members, I would like to point out that KCindymedia was borne from altruistic visions to provide an open, alternative resource for the entire KC activist community.

The suggestion that Janice is bringing this censorship issue to light because of a different political opinion is absolutely ludicrous. I work with Janice on a daily basis and know her to have a great deal of integrity (and talent). Her 911 beliefs have not a whit to do with her pointing out (appealing) to the KC activist community that Chuck has been unilaterally censoring kcimc.

As an indymedia activist, I appreciate knowing about a site's censorship practices before taking the effort and time to contribute. Janice has done the activist community a service in bringing this serious issue to the attention of the kcimc board (and the larger KC community).

Jan H.

Free speech is the lifeblood of democracy. Those who fear free speech fear democracy. There is usually an underlying reason: they are cowards, but they are also elitists. They think they are better than everyone else, but have no way at all to prove it. And since they are cowards, they never confront their adversaries. They sneak. Could this be why someone would erase articles from a web site without asking for approval from the majority?

Chuck is not "Anarchy", "Anarchism" or "The Leader of the Anarchists"; we all have names, faces, hopes and desires and we are each responsible for our own actions and equally responsible for the actions of the groups we work within.

That said, because someone has a problem with Chuck, it shouldn't extend to all anarchists; to do so would be to commit a logical fallacy. Conversly, extending commradship to anarchists as an abstraction, appreciated no doubt, still should not be used emotionally to mount an arguement. I understand that it was used to illustrate that there was no ideological bias in actions in this case and that these were not the motives in this case. I just don't want anyone to make these leaps because folks will/do;)

On a side note (the most important part actually because the rest was rambling), the IMC structure is based in anarchist principals. As such, the IMC structure allows for any hierarchies or power inequallities to be easily subverted....it practically begs that you do it. It eschews hierarchical relationships because of its decentralized nature. If you got a problem with it, if you don't like how it's being run or you simply have something to add all you got to do is add your hand. Go to the meetings and become the media. That simple, problem solved.

It's hard work and takes time but real work does and liberty requires real involvement.

chuck, i looked up "censor" in a dictionary and got this as the main entry:

to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable

I do not believe censorship is only the domain of government or can only be practiced by government officials. many non-governmental groups censor without calling what they are doing censoring or having a written policy as such. anytime someone in a position of power/authority in the group controls the information in order to keep people from drawing conclusions or opinions that the censor does not believe they should have, this i believe falls under censorship.

conforming censorship to preset guidlines does not make it not censorship, it just makes it censorship with guidelines. whether your censorship was justified or not (i.e. conformed to the guidelines) is another discussion.

you are right @@, more involvement is the solution to this problem.

i do not think creating another kansas city imc would accomplish much besides splitting the momentum of this one. on any website, you will want people to filter out spam and duplicate posts. this would also give them the power to make ideologically-biased decisions or even just mistakes. with one person this is a lot more likely than with a group. collectivization is the solution and the goal.