This article about another one that was censored by "hiding" it...so is it still available to be read...is it still there now ...?
After the article below about "Americana" being spoken or not in this USA, it was also posted on www.la.indymedia.org on same date, but quickly in another day it was "hidden" and not accessible if link was not already saved elsewhere.
The question of censorship was left "unhidden" momentarily but then the computer ID'd by their hacker-organizer-volunteers have a clever way to insure NO MORE BAD THINGS ARE EVER POSTED ON THEIR PRIZED WEBSITE. Though many articles saying opinionated and some extremist views are posted regularly. But only the extreme Left Side Only, so-called "liberal" views are allowed, and who decides who is Left-enough ?
or Liberal-enough ?
or who authorizes the elimination of access to a so-called Free Speech and open communications local website ?
The actions were not announced nor will they probably be admitted, but the act is clear in that there is No Access allowed from the writer's computers [which are easily identified by numbers available on programs that are accessed by any website's clickers].
So the secret game continues, with apparent non-action while eliminating anyone who has anything not-postitive, not-wanted, not-complimentary on the 'owners' of Independent Media in Los Angeles' website. Of course, they have the right to exclude anyone, for any reason, right ?
Anyone can stop someone from making any unwanted statements on their blogs, websites, or commentary. It is called "monitoring" not for consistency, but for convenience. Most often, websites inform the ones who are being excluded with any form email to not just leave the writers waiting and wondering..."what did I do wrong here ?"
"WRONG" is whatever someone doesn't like or agree with. "wrong" is any dissident, different, "other", or questioner that wants to disagree with the prevailing propaganda or messages.
Most blogs and comment sites only monitor out not what is "other" than their main theme, but those who use many nasty malicious words intended to insult or tittilate or offend. Not for being "on the other side" of a controversial issue.
This is the article that was previously available for anyone to read, or to comment or disagree or criticize on the LA Indymedia website. It is being reposted and exposed here, though this writer can NOT access it any more to find out if it still exists visibly or has been "hidden" or eliminated altogether on the Indy site.
The Dictatorship style of demanding only agreement & obedience & alliances & bowing & kowtowing & deferring & subservience & all that is not usually called "American" by preference or tradition either is prevalent there, but not in many web places now. Some people get huffy and righteous and take their power of control OUT on anyone who criticizes them, but they are not claiming Freedom of Publishing speech and free thinking as their main motto either. Indy medias do. But dont act on their own words and beliefs. Wonder why ?
Independent Media is NOT AT ALL INDEPENDENT - but demanding the submissive dependence of it's writers to be only in it's 'good graces' and thus it's readers are limited & controlled. or self-censoring as well. No differences allowed. No questioning the rulers of that website and their censoring ways. No admission of their prejudices or biases either. No letting others learn of how the site is actually run, obviously differently than their written Editorial Policy and Mission proclaim. The hypocrisy is now complete and their rule over their website is truly owned and run by those who have the very same biases...only ! no one else allowed there !
http://la.indymedia.org/news/2009/07/229271.php reads as this :
"CENSORSHIP AT INDYMEDIA REPEATS AGAIN and AGAIN"
posted on Friday, Jul. 31, 2009
summary: Indymedia every so too often decides to CENSOR an article by hiding it from public view...but based on nothing more than it's own group's version of what they like politically or an article that someone there with the power of that clever click who has decided what was offered to the LA public readers now needs to be "gone !" out of sight ! Why they do this is unrevealed and non-transparent. And LA.Indymedia offer no way to reverse their discriminating acts either as there is no one ‘home’ when a letter is written to firstname.lastname@example.org either !”
see http://la.indymedia.org/news/2009/07/229219.php which has been hidden, because it was what ? Nothing according to la.indy’s editorial policy or mission, for sure !
This has happened at least twice before to this writer and probably more often to others who may not check back after initially publishing their divergent views. Has it happened to you ?
Can anyone please explain the repeated hiding/censoring of articles arbitrarily or even deliberately discriminating against any writer who does not strictly FOLLOW some undeclared formula or bias held by this site ? As this hypocrisy of saying that they are believing in 'free speech' but then they eliminate that freedom at will has to also be exposed elsewhere now.
An article that was reposted from another published journal that was obviously not "liked" enough to keep for open reading, so that article was HIDDEN [as in hidden posts, all in pink and not available unless one knows how to access these ]....
for what visible reasonable cause ? Because someone did not agree ? or Someone who has the authority to 'take out' information that may be reliable, actual, accurate or even debatable was not wanted on la.indymedia.org ?
Is this not contrary to the intentions, purpose of this free speech website ?
other very weird articles appear all the time, but only from those who claim victimhood and thus are obviously acceptable in that case...
other articles berating any authority are loved and left intact.
a comment to the article was left visible while the re-poster was blanked out to not be seen unless a clever person happens to click the right button because they already know a Censored Article exists .
What is the explanation ? none given.
What is the purpose of choosing which side Indymedia prefers over others they dont happen to like or agree with ?
What is the propaganda bias located in these pages ?
The article about language speaks against corporations and businesses pretending to cater to certain groups to gain their favor and for more profits and customers. The capitalist nature of procedures pretending to be ‘for the people’ is noted to be actually more for the benefit of the capitalists than the populous.
dont ask because no one wants to tell. We expect this article to be quickly eliminated as well, as criticism, even constructive and accurate criticism surely cannot be allowed within such a self-righteous group that makes unilateral decisions contrary to it’s own mission & policies.
However, quoting here directly from la.indy’s posted editorial policy and mission, they claim one thing and then do another. Here is what the website states - see for yourself please ! :
[Note: underlined statements are for sorting thru the platitudes]
“We support local, regional and global struggles against exploitation and oppression”. [ but does this mean not allowing another group view that also claims this intent besides the particular ones they chose to believe and
“ We function as a non-commercial, non-corporate, anti-capitalist collective.” and “... collectives organized along anti-authoritarian principles of open and transparent decision-making processes, [snip]... and the elimination of hierarchies. Los Angeles Independent Media Center participants shall not act in a manner that endangers, intimidates, or physically harms any member of the group [snip]...Indymedia members shall strive to act in a respectful manner to other members of the collective as well as the public.”
and their posted
“Mission Statement: To encourage a world where globalization is not about homogeneity and exploitation, but rather, about diversity and cooperation. [snip] To cover local events that are ignored or poorly covered by corporate media.... [snip] ”and environmental justice directly from their perspective. [snip] To encourage, facilitate, and support the creation of independent news gathering and organizations.”
So why are these statements on the la.indymedia site while the actions of it’s members doing otherwise ?