A search of the Indy Media web site for something snarky to say leaves me only wondering who has taken over the minds of America's youth in the vacuum left by the relatively benign guidance of the propaganda apparatus of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union?

Anybody can post on an Indymedia site. The socalled editors responsible for any given site may decide after publication to take an article down, if it violates their code, which differs from site to site. In my experience at mainly the Dutch and UK sites this is not done lightly.

Think of it as a webbased usenet group.

"Think of it as a webbased usenet group."

I could think of it that way, but that wouldn't make it true. Here's a link to DC Indymedia's rules for adding, deleting, or changing material on their site. Doesn't look much like Usenet to me.

As Dr. Frank remarked after reading DC Indymedia's rules:

Apparently, at least two members of DC-IM's "editorial board," with no more than one in disagreement, believe that an article alleging a Jewish conspiracy's culpability for 9/11 written by an infamous former grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan sounds like a swell idea. Nice conspiracy theory, Mr. Duke; shame about the KKK. Well, it is "alternative," I'll grant them that.

I suppose that there are plenty of enemies of Israel with money to put into encouraging the return of socially accepted open antisemitism in the United States of America. Certainly this country has standing figures among both Black and White populations who have used hatred of Jews as part of their paths to power. At least some of them can openly express that hatred without losing their core power bases.

Perhpas we shall see David Duke running for office again soon, rising on a tide of oil money.

Dumber than a bag of hammers! That might even be better than "dumber than a box of hair"!

Hammers, hair and all that: nice enough metaphors, but nothing, I say *nothing*, beats "as sharp as a bag of wet mice".

Yes Patrick, Indymedia is not entirely like a usenet group but you still missed the point, which is that a post on as representive of Indymedia as a post on any usenet newsgroup is of Usenet.

Basically, Indymedia works as follows: there's an open newswire on the righthand side of the site where everybody can post as well as an editorial area which the people responsible for the server fill themselves. There is no editoral involvement PRIOR to publication in the newswire, nobody has to approve an article. Nice of you to link to that editorial policy, but how could you miss it was talking about handling complaints, not about approving posts prior to publication?

Take a look at where the David Duke article was published, *in the Newswire area* which means it could've been published by anyone -note the poster stayed anonymous. This has nothing to do with Indymedia as an organisation. It's just as silly to blame Indymedia for that post as it would be to blame you if somebody who cut and pasted it into your comments area...

"Nice of you to link to that editorial policy, but how could you miss it was talking about handling complaints, not about approving posts prior to publication?"

Probably because the section headlined "Editorial Policy" begins "The process for making changes/additions/deletions to featured content on the website is--".

In other words, I didn't "miss" anything, it would appear.

I'm perfectly willing to believe that anyone can post something to an "Indymedia" site. I also note that DC Indymedia has, in fact, an editorial board and a process for making "changes/additions/deletions to featured content." David Duke's exercise in hatemongering has now been up for a full week. Note what the editorial board of Indymedia has done about it.

Personally, if I were on that board, I'd support leaving the piece up and adding some marginal glosses, factually refuting several of his core lies. Evidently, though, even this is beyond the ability of DC Indymedia. After all, it's not like it's important to comment on or refute neo-Nazis, so long as they're allies in what's really important, i.e., destroying Israel.

"It's just as silly to blame Indymedia for that post as it would be to blame you if somebody who cut and pasted it into your comments area..."

My comments area is a lot more clearly marked as an anything-goes bulletin board than Indymedia's "Newswire." But even so, I daresay if someone posted a neo-Nazi rant in my comments area, it would be followed in short order by some remarks from management, i.e., me.

What we're really arguing about, of course, is the moral credibility of the political culture represented by Indymedia. I think that the presence of Israel-haters like David Duke (or the author of the article headlined "THE JEWISH BANKERS ARE GOING DOWN!") on Indymedia strongly suggests, along with what has been evident at recent anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian demonstrations in the United States, that the lefty "anti-colonialist" movement is becoming more and more accepting of fascists, exterminationists, and haters. Martin Wisse argues, on procedural grounds, that this isn't evidence that this is this case. We disagree.

I note, once again, that I grew up in a family that supported the anti-Vietnam-War movement, the civil rights movement, the environmental movement; my father was a university professor; I well remember being in demonstrations on Moratorium Day 1969, and the first Earth Day in 1970. I've spent quite a bit of my life in sympathy with youthful activism, nor is it news to me that sometimes it slips over into the inane or the odious. (See the history of the "New Left", passim.) But it seems clear to me that the modern "antiglobalization" movement has come to entail more and more gargoyles, and less and less cathedral.

Martin Wisse disagrees. This is hardly a surprise. However, repeatedly asserting that DC Indymedia is just like Usenet, or just like my comments area, isn't a very impressive argument. In fact, it's not just like those things, as it turns out.

According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, Duke's commentary in the Arab News is not his first writing to appear in an Islamic publication. I've got an excerpt on my blog.

*Featured* content Patrick, as in content ALREADY on the site.

I'm not arguing about some culture or other, I'm arguing about facts. Anybody can post anything to an Indymedia site. Period. That's what it's for.

Yes, as I *already* said, the people who actually run the server can take the decision to pull the plug on articles, but they rarely do so. Personally, I think this is a good thing.

I stand by my point that you cannot condemn the Indymedia movement just because some anonymous people abuse it. It is fundamentally dishonest to lambast the DC Indymedia people for something they didn't post, then use this "fact" as stick to beat "the antiglobalisation movement" with yet again.

I won't speak for Patrick, but what I would "condemn
the Indymedia movement" for is appearing to give credence
and acceptance to the ideas espoused in the article.

If Indymedia is representative of "the antiglobalization
movement," then the antiglobalization movement has some
very important housecleaning to do in ridding itself of the
species of racism known as antisemitism and the delusion
that the way to a united, socially just world is to
attribute its sad state to Jews and try to extirpate Jews
from society.

"I'm not arguing about some culture or other, I'm arguing about facts."

Of course, that's just a grab at moral superiority. We're all "arguing about facts."

"Yes, as I *already* said, the people who actually run the server can take the decision to pull the plug on articles, but they rarely do so."

It would appear this is meant to be some kind of clinching point, rather than a further indictment. Oh dear.

"I stand by my point that you cannot condemn the Indymedia movement just because some anonymous people abuse it. It is fundamentally dishonest to lambast the DC Indymedia people for something they didn't post, then use this 'fact' as stick to beat 'the antiglobalisation movement' with yet again."

I wonder how many readers are aware that Indymedia is a "movement", as opposed to a web page with several screens' worth of text devoted to its editorial policy and procedures. Imagine, some readers might even conclude that all this verbiage actually implies an outfit that values concepts like "responsibility," "discretion," and "judgement." But, evidently, not. Since, after all, who cares about old-fashioned ideas like that compared to the chance to take some shots at the Jews? And, even better, to libel as "dishonest" anyone silly enough to expect otherwise?

If Martin Wisse is lucky, history will look at this kind of defense of the indefensible, and merely laugh. Mind you, that's if he's very, very lucky.