Operation FREE SPEECH Deleted from Portland Indymedia

That was such a weird comment. Couldn't figure if it was a Kbot or someone on acid.

"KBOO is me, ready to shed her skin. Once we've rid ourself from the attackers, the detractors, the Republican torpedoes, to emerge resplendent, then we can run free and far. "

So once they get rid of anyone slightly critical of their reality it'll be smooth sailing?

And what's a "Republican torpedo"?

If you Google Operation Free Speech the deleted Indy article still comes up in results lol

portland imc - 2013.08.26 - Operation FREE SPEECH
portland.indymedia.org/en/2013/08/424745.shtml‎
Aug 26, 2013 - www.dailymotion.com/video/x13nure_a-message-to-the-pdx-radio-community_news. Hello. This is FREE SPEECH. We wish to inform the ...

Still 404'd.

"Not Found

The requested URL /en/2013/08/424745.shtml was not found on this server."

The real question is who at Indy has the power to delete permanently? Can't think they'd give any drone access to the nuke button....

A few things. First, the article in question has been moved to the compost bin by one workerbee because, while it definitely does violate the editorial policy (as outlined in detail in a separate comment following), the article does not attack a specific individual or propose to commit a crime at a particular time or place (which would mean the article must be taken off completely). It should appear at some time in the near future, but there is no consensus about putting the article in compost and another workerbee may hide the article completely again (but, now must state a specific reason).



Second, portland indymedia does not and will not disclose logs, ip addresses or user information to any party; organization, individual or agency. The principles of unity shared by all IMC's does not allow a site to log ip addresses nor provide any related information, records or logs for any purpose. User-privacy is the priority and this policy is upheld 100%... and has been since 1999 without fail.





Third, one poster said, "Whether the critics are activists or not does not matter because KBOO radio is a non profit accountable to the public." It does matter because the policy prevents activist infighting on the website (plenty of other places to do that). It matters whether KBOO is non-profit, for-profit, or anti-profit and whether the detractors are blue, purple, pink, or green. One can say there should not be a policy against attacking working activists or about moderating activist in-fighting, but there is. If there are attacks on working activists, whether the activists are in Faction A or Faction B, the policy is to take the material down.



To say that workerbees take sides in KBOO's internal struggles is disingenuous at best, misinformed at the very least. Activist infighting is against the policy, it does not matter which side is right or wrong UNLESS some individual workerbee KNEW that some information posted was dis or mis-information. There is no such workerbee. All that can be done is remove comments / articles that violate the policy on ad-hominem, attacking working activists, etc. There is no crystal ball by which workerbees can do anything more.



But, if readers are seeing one side's material moderated more heavily (including this article), maybe that's because one side is using ad-hominem and threats and the other side is not doing that as much. Could be that simple, no?

"A few things. First, the article in question has been moved to the compost bin "

404 is not the compost.

"To say that workerbees take sides in KBOO's internal struggles is disingenuous at best, misinformed at the very least."

Most people aren't saying bees are taking sides. The gist is a Kbot is a bee exploiting Indy. Or trusted by Indy.

"Activist infighting is against the policy,"

There is no "activist infighting". Stop lying.

This comment is one workerbees's detailed description of why the article was first moderated and how the article violates the policy using the text of the article and comments in brackets.

FIRST: Brief correction to the above post... it should read "It DOES NOT matter whether KBOO is non-profit, ..." Sorry.

-------

Hello. This is FREE SPEECH.

We wish to inform the public of a cancer growing in the Portland metro area in the community radio scene, nurtured by the organization known as KBOO radio. [KBOO is named in the first sentence and likened to a "cancer." Clearly an attack on a working activist group... better substantiate with FACTS.]

For years KBOO has been a community resource allowing ordinary people to learn how radio works and let their voice be heard. We are sad to inform the public this non profit institution, created to serve the public, has been hijacked by a small oligarchy, exploiting the brand of KBOO community radio for their personal agenda. [Ad-hominem is clear in the last sentence, criticizing the PEOPLE w/r/t the PERSON'S agenda and naming those people's intent "oligarchy." Instead, this could have been "has been hijacked by a use of the significant airtime to move forward a very select radical agenda which does not represent everyone's view." Here, the AGENDA is being attacked because the agenda does not represent everyone's views... the PEOPLE are not being attacked. If done this way, not ad-hominem.]

This is unacceptable.

When objections were voiced this year about this small controlling party, their response was a cocktail of destructive, abusive and illegal behaviors, culminating in an attempt to obtain information from dissenting members using an illegal phishing scheme. [Again, this goes to the attacking "the small controlling party," but at least gives some facts... still, removing the ad-hominem is easy.... "When objections were voiced this year, the dissenters became the victim of attempts to silence the dissent including an illegal phishing scheme." The subject is the DISSENTERS, not an attack on the "controlling party" and THEIR actions... but, the point is still made.... plus, this has the advantage of making the dissenters sound more credible.]

This level of vindictive pathology is more akin to the defensive maneuvers of a destructive cult than a community radio station that espouses the values of social justice and free speech. Therefore we have decided to expose this cancer so these vampires cannot continue to make their living at the public's expense. ["vindictive pathology," "destructive cult," "cancer," "vampires," how freaking much ad hominem can you really put into two sentences and wonder why this article was taken down for ad hominem / activist in-fighting? The sentences say, these PEOPLE are evil and so we must get rid of THEM. Why not the AGENDA and TIME ALLOTMENTS at KBOO are not fair because these THINGS are not representative and THIS PROPOSAL must be STOPPED (WON? have no idea which proposal is which.)]

As the station heads towards bankruptcy, a renewed effort to hide facts to keep the money flowing has motivated the controlling party to convince people talking about problems in a progressively irrelevant cocoon is the same as solving those problems. [Again, attacking the "controlling party's" perceived motivations rather than the IRRELEVANCE of the cocoon which is the ACTUAL PROBLEM. Instead, "As the station heads towards bankruptcy, there has been renewed focus on progressive talk which will not actually solve any problems."] By giving people the illusion of doing something, it has lulled the alternative community into believing their voice is being heard when in fact their voices are being redirected into an echo chamber with no chance of effecting change in the real world in a meaningful way. [Almost no ad hominem in this sentence. FTW! But, maybe "By giving people the illusion of doing something, [the station's current format] has lulled.....]

Soliciting financial donations under these circumstances.is deceptive and fraudulent. We hope in exposing the rot that has infected this public community resource, the public may reclaim control of the KBOO community station. [Almost not ad hominem, but also still an attack on the organization (or maybe "rot" is these PEOPLE, not the FORMAT/FOCUS?). What is hard to understand is, why is the poster attacking an organization which the poster *seems* to want to "save" or to have continue to do its work? People typically attack an organization or person when they want to see it fail. Is the poster trying to help or hurt this working activist group? If it is hurt, then this post likely conflicts with the editorial policy; if it is to help, then this post might be HELPFUL criticism and merits discussion (if it weren't for all the ad hominem). It REALLY is hard to tell which this post is (helpful/attack) because of the language used and choice of ad hominem over substance.]

We may not succeed. KBOO's time in community radio may be over and, if this is true, we will let the sun set gracefully on this chapter of alternative radio history.

But even so the task remains to drive out the micro cult that has hijacked KBOO using radical rhetoric to mask a private agenda of exploitation, control and abuse. [Yet again, "micro cult," "private agenda," .. in what way is this not ad hominem against working activists (although not personally named?) It is unbelievable that somehow anyone reading this would think this DID NOT conflict with the editorial policy against ad-hominem and attacks on working activists/groups.]

The controlling Party and their supporters must be prevented from exploiting other progressive organizations. If this is not done, more people will be sucked into the orbit of these personalities and the toxic pseudo alternative culture used to recruit more victims of their propaganda. [Again, again, again.. "the controlling Party," "these personalities," "their propaganda". This post is mainly just a diatribe against PEOPLE at KBOO and very little against WHAT KBOO IS DOING (or NOT doing) or even the particular propaganda or culture with which the poster does not agree. This post is a call to arms against PEOPLE at KBOO, not really a call to arms against any SPECIFIC CULTURAL PROBLEMS or SPECIFIC propaganda. Certainly, the post does not in any way point to or describe a SPECIFIC SOLUTION (other than against people) to the format problems / time slots (guessing that's what the fight is about?) or any SPECIFIC CHANGES to the culture. In any case, the article is commentary, not reporting, although local. The editorial policy allows commentary which is not reporting to go to compost in general, but this rarely happens when the commentary is local.]

Transparency is a two way street. [Most of the posts to indymedia, both articles and comments, have been by anonymous posters. There does not seem to be a lot of transparency as the tactic used. However, anonymity is encouraged on pdx indymedia.]

Knowledge is free.

Thank you for listening. [Listening is great. So rarely practiced after September 1996 on the ol' net.]

Editorial Policy is here => portland.indymedia.org/en/static/edpolicy.shtml







Principles of Unity are here => docs.indymedia.org/view/Global/PrinciplesOfUnity -and- here portland.indymedia.org/en/static/about.shtml#principles







[The principles only require protecting the security/anonymity of users. But, pdx imc has always gone much further in terms of not handing over information when asked for it, although there is no more specific statement by pdx imc beyond the principles. It has always just been a given that IMC's don't give any info and none have willing since 1999. The EFF has fought off plenty of requests for various IMC's, including Portland, over the years.]