Abortion, Indymedia and Free Speech
Last night I published an opinion arguing that the left needs to reconsider its support for abortion. I argued that abortion was not feminist, referred to past feminists and also wrote about the violnce of the act. I challenged the left on issues surrounding poverty and abortion. I now note this article has been deleted. The article was not abusive. It ofered an opinion that the left has it wrong on this issue. I am an anti war activist. I work with poverty issue. I also am pro life. I am not right wing yet Indymedia seems to see fir to censor my views. Is Indymedia and its readers so thin skinned they can't debate a controversial issue? The hypocrisy disgusts me. When I read some of the posts and rants that are published I wonder why a rational argument is deleted. It seems Howard and Indymedia are both fearful of open debate. If this is Indymedia's approach no wonder many activists are cynical about the site.
- 260 reads
Re: Abortion, Indymedia and Free Speech
I was the moderator who hid the story. You can find it in the hidden section here:
http://sydney.indymedia.org.au/hidden/node/51586
From the article:
"Abortion is a degrading act. It degrades women and the child. "
These sorts of comments aren't welcome. I know women who have had abortions and they have no reason to feel degraded. Your comment is pure flamebait.
If you want to support the authoritarian stance of prohibiting abortion, please post on a site which accepts those sorts of view. This is indymedia, a place for people fighting for their liberation. I will not see this place used to facilitate reactionary view points such as anti-abortion.
If the collective and the community think I am wrong, please let me know and the story can go back up.
When I get home I will also move this post to the meta-discussion area, where these sorts of posts belong (or another mod can do this using the node type drop down on the edit form).
Re: Abortion, Indymedia and Free Speech
<<
I was the moderator who hid the story.>>
<<I will not see this place used to facilitate reactionary view points such as anti-abortion.>>
<<I will also move this post to the meta-discussion area, where these sorts of posts belong>>
I could be wrong, but I distinctly smell the stink of narrowminded, stalinist authoritarianism creeping into indymedia.
stalinism!
of course of course, I'm a stalinist for moderating. I've copped this sort of thing over the years many time.
Yknow, if i didn't hide this story I would cop shit as well. Moderators can never win, which ever decision is made, there is always someone who is going to call me stalinist or fascist or whatever.
Get over it, asshole.
Re: asshole!
It appears that this "moderator" is in need of moderation. Unable to keep this particular discussion civil, or respond with a logical defence for this act of censorship, he/she has now resorted to uncivil abuse and name calling. How sad.
Sad?
whats sad is you calling me a stalinist. and now you demand civil debate?
My moderation is open to all to inspect, as per indymedia standards, so how bout you quit with the stalinist remarks.
free speech
Just a note on free speech. The idea with sydney indy is not to facilitate 'anything that anyone wants to say'. No way, we tried that, and it failed. The site gets over run with trolls and biggots, and grass roots activists leave the site.
No more. This place is for liberation. We don't need to discuss anti-abortion/pro-abortion. Your post is nothing new. Take your reactionary views and shove it.
Re: free speech
Any chance of supporting the liberation of those humans who haven't made it to the birth part of life's journey yet? Just wondering.
Re: free speech
And are you also going to support all those 'humans' through their infancy, adolescence and see them off into adulthood? What about the liberation of women who don't want or can't deal with that responsibility? If you force someone to protect the interests of someone else, you should also be prepared to protect their interests, otherwise you're a hypocrite.
Re: free speech
Anti war activist who are also pro life are grassroots activists. We have a consistent view of defending life - from war, abortion and other violent acts. Censoring pro life people who are not right wing will not make us go away.
Re: Abortion, Indymedia and Free Speech
Christine Milne federal senator for the Greens apparently opposes abortion on moral grounds and has exercised her conscience vote (allowed in that state Greens party) in that respect. It's usually why this issue is a conscience vote. I suspect she would similarly agree with the contentious point mentioned by the censor.
Whether it's a story to deliberately inflame toxic dispute is another debate in itself. It would well be so, it might not. It would be a logical tactic of the ultra right clothed in sheep's clothing and seeking to exploit a very corrosive topic to disempower much like gender issues can be exploited both from the Right, and from the Left in a rent seeking sort of way.
To censor the story though show to me a lack of editorial capacity to actually manage this admittedly very difficult topic, famous for disrupting Parliaments here, Congress and Senate in USA, let alone humble SIM.
One I think is best to remember its a conscience matter and to keep it civil. Indeed most pollies in Australia prefer to quarrantine the abortion debate as non party political, or over, or conscience vote.
I understand the NSW Greens refuse a conscience vote. My personal view is that contraception is by far the preferable but not always available solution to such a traumatic decision/experience (and that's a gender inclusive comment).
Re: Abortion, Indymedia and Free Speech
I'm not a reactionary or a "troll or biggot". I am a grass roots anarchist and liberationist and I don't support the "authoritarian stance of prohibiting abortion". However I do support the views of the original writer.
For too long the 'left' has been hijacked by the abortion industry and its supporters. When will the supporters of whales, forests, orangutans and gorillas on the left wake up and understand that abortion is the destruction of human life? How can anyone oppose war yet support abortion? This has nothing to do with religion or morality. A human life is a human life, pure and simple. Birth is not the start of human life, the creation of a human zygote is the beginning of human life from any scientific or medical point of view. Abortion is the destruction of that life.
In the 21st century, it is difficult to see how those who support the destructive practice of abortion can reconcile their views with the pro-nature, scientific enlightenment which most of us now enjoy. The materialistic, life destroying practice of abortion belongs in history's dustbin along with war, fascism, sexism, genocide, nuclear weapons, concentration camps and wildlife destruction.
Indymedia's reputation is on the line here. Will it allow the continued censorship of those with views which differ to the views of the multi-billion dollar abortion industry and its lobbyists?
Re: Abortion, Indymedia and Free Speech
If normal trolls eat spam, what do vegan trolls eat?
Re: Abortion, Indymedia and Free Speech
tofu
(tofo is a common nickname for 'activist spam' )
Re: Abortion, Indymedia and Free Speech
please point me in the direction of the church / evangelical website that has give host to a fraction of the space this site has given to the enforced pregnancy, anti choice nut job lobby.
seriously show me the bible bashing website, with the pro choice info... otherwise we can safely stick your cry for free speech in the hypocrite basket.
you wana talk about free speech start in your own backyard.
stop spaming the site with same old shit, we have all heard your same misinformation over and over and over again...
Re: Abortion, Indymedia and Free Speech
There are a multitude of conceptions of life beyond the so-called 'scientific or medical point of view'.
Indymedia becoming authoritarian
It is very concerning that he original article was censored. The Murdoch press is often accused of only reporting certain lines. Yet here we see Indymedia sticking to a politically correct so called lefty line that states if you are pro life you are not progressive/left/activist. This is nonsense. Left/Right doe not mean anything when it comes to abortion. Some of the most vocal defenders of RU486 have been women from the Liberal party. The moderator also speaks of liberation. So do many pro lifers - for the life made but not yet born as well as women from male dominated structures which at times lead to abortion.
The decision to delete a non abusive pro life post written by an anti war activist is shutting down debate. Indymedia has taken the same approach Howard does when he gets dissent in the ranks. Shut it down. Like it or not there is a significant pro life progressive movement. There is a spectrum of views including religious pro lifers who are also pacifists, pro life gays, pro life atheists. We do not all fit into the box painted in pro choice propaganda.
Respect for all life and opposition to violence - war, abortion, capital punishment is a consistent position, NOT right wing or left wing. Would Indymedia censor a debate on war or does it accept that there is a variety of views about if and when it is okay? Censorship of ideas is the first step to the authoritarianism that the moderator likes to mention. This decision should be overturned. If you don't like my ideas counter them with better ones but don't try to deny they exist.
I would be willing to edit this story for you
I could edit the abortion story so that it is not offensive. You can't abuse women who have had abortions or might do so in the future. There are ways of putting your point across that are non-offensive. If you want to email me the original story I think I can make it publishable in such a way that no-one gets upset. I think you are entitled to your opinion but you are not entitled to hurt other women.
Re: I would be willing to edit this story for you
What, so I place my ideas in your hands so they become acceptable? Are you serious? What has happened to Indymedia? Would you be so concerned about hurting a soldiers feelings if an anti war article was posted. You are using censorship to promote your ideas as superior. The slippery path to authoritarianis. I never thought I would see such similarities between Murdoch and Indymedia.
Re: I would be willing to edit this story for you
yep, well too bad. because of the trolling of all sorts over the past few years, it's become necessary to remove unwanted material, and promote the stuff we are about.
The volunteers who run this place don't want to see reactionary crap like yours posted.
Im confident in saying that most people want anti-abortion postings removed.
Power corrupts they say
So it is the tyranny of the majority is it? Are you saying the majority overides basic rights to free speech? Are you saying that I can't voice an opinion because a majority of readers oppose my views? Do readers only want to read what they agree with? Shuldn't Indymedia be about rational debate and discussion of issues? Or is it now about enforcing the party line. Power corrupts they say and a little bit of editorial power has corrupted Sydney Indymedia and made it ver thin skined.
Tyranny and Indymedia
I'm afraid that is the case. For example, this is not a website promoting the National Party. If you posted stories about the National Party, they would be removed as they would be wasting space that should be used for other purposes. It is a bit tyrannical, I suppose, but there you go. There must be heaps of other forums where you can put forward other views. Debate on abortion in the past, has brought out the very worst in people. There were some very nasty, angry posts about that topic about a year ago, I remember. No-one gained anything from the discussion and a lot of people got offended. It just isn't worth it. People become extremely agitated and irascible about this topic. It is not possible to have a rational discussion. It is a topic best left alone. People have made up their minds in a particular way, and it is not possible for them to change their positions, which they hold very fiercely, at all.
For the record
I once put an anti-abortion story to the front page. I soon got a visit from several members of Italy Indymedia (on IRC).
You can read the transcript here:
http://lists.indymedia.org.au/pipermail/imc-sydney/2006-January/003109.html
Re: For the record
Good on you for having the courage to do that. Seriusly. My issue is that who defines opposing abortion as being right wing? It seems you may have even questioned this? Opposing abortion as part of an overall consistent ethic of life is not right wing. I oppose war and capital punishment, I oppose torture and the arms trade, I oppose all weapons of mass destruction... and I oppose abortion. I do not oppose it out of a desire to maintain gender roles. I oppose it because I believe all human life has value and that better solutions to problems can be found through non violence. Seriously, read up on late term abortion and then argue that it is not violent. What about groups such as Feminists for Life who are strongly feminist but oppose abortion because they view it as a result of male oriented structures? http://www.feministsforlife.org/ Would you deny them a post on Indymedia? Or pro life gays who oppose abortion out of fear that gay babies will be aborted? Abortion is not a left/ right issue. Some of the most vocal supporters in recent years have been Liberal party women. Indymedia should not shy away from an issue because it is controversial. Debate is a sign of a healthy activist community. Censorship is a sign of a fearful one.
People get very wound up
That is the problem. You'd think if they met in person they would murder each other, they get so angry at the opposite viewpoint. People cannot seem to be civilized about this kind of debate. Both parties to the 'discussion' suddenly become psychopaths when in real life, they are probably quite normal.
Re: For the record
My issue is that who defines opposing abortion as being right wing?
Yeah that one shits me too. I get sick of leftists calling anything they don't like 'right wing'. Right wing and left wing, in modern context, indicate a preferred economic model, that is, individualist/capitalist on the right, or collective/communist on the left. As far as anything else, religion, abortion, racism, whatever, those can be found on both wings.
Seriously, read up on late term abortion
I can't say that I agree with late term abortion, unless it's to avoid death/injury to the mother.
Feminists for Life who are strongly feminist but oppose abortion because they view it as a result of male oriented structures
That's a new one. But bunk I think. Let women decide what they do with their own body, not the state which is a male oriented power structure.
Or pro life gays who oppose abortion out of fear that gay babies will be aborted?
Now that's getting desperate. You could apply that to anything. 'Ban abortion because children could have the diabetic genes'. or any number of other things.
Censorship is a sign of a fearful one.
The good old C word gets thrown at me quite a bit. My skin has grown thick.
The anti-semites complained about censorhip. The shit-posters complained about censorhip. The racists complained about censorship. and on and on. It seems we are always these big evil censors when we remove stuff. Fact is, yes, indymedia is bias, and we remove stuff. There's no scandal there. The days of people posting whatever the hell they want are well and truly over.
Last but not least, banning abortion willl not stop it. It will just send it underground. The black market is not the people to be doing surgery. Abortion needs to stay legal so those that want it can have it safely.
I am not saying abortion is a particulalry good thing, but if you want it stopped, work on projects which will prevent unwanted pregnancy in the first place.
A wise response
You are very wise, Cameron. I never realized this before. I thought you were just a dictator. : )
Re: Abortion, Indymedia and Free Speech
We have seen the same regurgitated anti choice crap a million times. This is supposed to be a news site not campaign central.
When you have news, bring it. Your not convincing us, just annoying.
Post new comment