[New-imc] Beachcitiesimc is not an imc! Relax!

Sun Sep 7 14:10:51 PDT 2003

Members,

beachcities is not, never has applied to be, and can never, ever, become an
IMC. They are not now, nor have they ever been involved with the new imc
process. They are  criminals, frauds, and imposters.

We need to deal with this situation, but under no circumstances can we deal
with their activities internally. They are outside of us. We can sue, press
charges, implore, or insist. We can and will act on this in our own time,
and within the forums of our choosing. The courts. The streets. The world of
the net.

Let's not take up any more space on imc process or new imc on this now. Yes,
imc-legal should look into this, and I for one await their response. The
members of imc-LA may have more to say upon further research. But barring
any new information, let's take this situation home to our locals, see how
we feel, and bring back responses.

The name of the game at beachcities is to waste our energy, not hurt our
good name. That they cannot do. Hurt our name that is. As for wasting our
time, we've got a world to cover, and they are not invited to be our chains.

In Solidarity,

Joseph Eisenschmidt
speaking for myself,
Liaison, imc-communications, SEAIMC

-----Original Message-----
From: imc-process-bounces at lists.indymedia.org
[mailto:imc-process-bounces at lists.indymedia.org]On Behalf Of Shayne
O'Neill
Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2003 10:48 AM
To: .:.:cburn:.:.
Cc: imc-process at indymedia.org; Sheri Herndon; chris at killradio.org;
new-imc at indymedia.org
Subject: [IMC-Process] Re: [New-imc] Re: summary of beachcites
discussion

We may not be in consensus on how to deal with it, but perth has got that
baby blocked until they prove they are legit, or perths
block loses consensus internally.

:)

So no need to stress. Problem solved :)

Shayne.

* Since
------------------------------------
"Must not Sleep! Must warn others!"
-Aesop.
Shayne O'Neill. Indymedia. Fun.
http://www.perthimc.asn.au

On Mon, 1 Sep 2003, .:.:cburn:.:. wrote:

>
> fyi, we have definitely determined that this is the work of a right wing
> group working under the name kobehq.com. that IP and the
> beachcitiesimc.org are the same.
>
> c.
>
>
> On Mon, 1 Sep 2003, Sheri Herndon wrote:
>
> > hi chris,
> >
> > ***summary***
> >
> > - summary of thread about beachcities
> > - next steps and simple proposal
> >
> > yes we have been discussing this on new imc and imc process lists.
perhaps the thread needs to make its way to docs wiki so that we can make
use of the discussion to establish some kind of precedent and response to
future sites like this.  basically, they are not an imc; they are not in the
new imc process; they are violating imc principles of unity, particularly
#10 and criteria J.
> >
> > in terms of a proper response, we are not in consensus about how to deal
with this situation as is clear from the thread and spectrum of viewpoints.
> >
> > do we should make some kind of more formal statement about sites like
this so there is no confusion of people out in the larger community
(including our own).  some people think we should do nothing, some people
feel we should have stronger mission statements, some people feel we need
some kind of process for this, some people say touche to the "opposition's"
use of indymedia tools and name, some suggest we delete links to them so
they don't get higher ratings on google, etc.
> >
> > you have contacted their "chief editor"?  keep us posted.  i'm curious
about what kind of response you might get.  i think making some kind of
initial contact with these people who claim to be (1) hacked (2) in the new
imc process and (3) that they are an imc is at least a tangible first step.
not doing anything doesn't seem like a very proactive way of dealing with
this situation.
> >
> > SUMMARY of this discussion that  has been on both new imc and process:
> >
> > the initial thread was started by ana's post:
> >
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/imc-nyc-editorial/20001031/000235.
html
> > which pointed out that there was a fake right wing website claiming to
be indymedia.
> >
> > blicero followed up commenting that their support of arnold
schwartzenegger was not going to get them easily through the new imc
process.
> > http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-process/2003-August/005079.html
> >
> > xare's post pointing out their list of topics that give a clear
indication of their politics (libertarian/right wing):
> > http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/new-imc/2003-August/004308.html
> >
> > **dave's post congratulating the opposition:
http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/new-imc/2003-August/004309.html
> >
> > clara's post followed with a request for how to handle this
"beachcitiesimc" and what kind of procedure do we follow:
> > http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-process/2003-August/005083.html
> >
> > pseudopunk's response that we don't have a process and are there any
good ideas for such a process:
> > http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-process/2003-August/005088.html
> >
> > blicero's response that why should we care about their site:
> > http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/new-imc/2003-August/004320.html
> >
> > bill's post about "nothing to prevent a right-wing imc and points out
two "process problems" within our current new imc process - (1) strict
consensus and (2) lack of lefty political litmus test - and suggests that we
require new imcs to adopt a mission statement similar to imc seattle's:
http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/new-imc/2003-August/004312.html
> >
> > xare's comments that they don't follow principle of unity #10 and
therefore we have a strong recommendation to not include them in the network
or criteria j about supporting political candidates.  we should find out if
this is a hoax or they really are wanting to be an imc.  xare suggests that
imc la is in a good position to contact this group since they are in the
region.  maybe we add this to a list of "indymedia anecdotes":
> > http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/new-imc/2003-August/004313.html
> >
> > shayne's email about recommendation that perth imc will block this
application:
> > http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/new-imc/2003-August/004315.html
> >
> > mike's response that their website says they have been hacked and to
give them the benefit of the doubt before blocking....
> > http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/new-imc/2003-August/004317.html
> >
> > blicero's response to bill's email saying it's clear that beachcities
will never pass through the new imc process and that seattle imc mission
statement is good but no need to have all imcs use it:
> > http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/new-imc/2003-August/004321.html
> >
> > alan's email states: The whois record for "beachcitiesimc dot org" lists
a contact address (101 Palos Verdes Drive East) that google finds in various
places associated with kobehq.com, an extreme right wing website.  This
indicates to me that there will be no serious attempt to join the network
but instead is an attempt
> > to discredit and disrupt Indymedia by associating extreme right wing
views with it to the casual web surfer." and "I suggest all sites (LA, NYC,
this mailing list archive) remove links to that domain as that is how
google's search ranking works.  We may also consider having any referrer
traffic from that domain include a disclaimer that "Beach Cities IMC" is not
associated with our network.  I suppose it would be at this point that
hierarchical organizations would file a trademark infringement lawsuit."
> > http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/new-imc/2003-August/004323.html
> >
> > several more emails about whether or not to block....
> >
> > another response that since they are not in the new imc process, there
isn't a need to block.
> >
> >
> > some next steps:
> >
> > - they are in clear violation of principles of unity and therefore will
not be admitted into the imc network.
> >
> > - we lack a policy for how to deal with sites like this that claim to be
an imc but are clearly not.
> >
> > - what kind of steps do people feel we should take to be proactive?
alan's email makes some very tangible suggestions that go proactively beyond
"we don't have to do anything and this is a waste of energy".  there have
been some recommendations, even from "our ally attorneys" electronic
frontier foundation, that we consider having a way of holding groups like
this accountable with a copyright infringement.....something we'd only use
in cases like this.  when this has come up in the past and it has been
mentioned, some people say it is impossible that indymedia ever consider
something like that.  perhaps there are pros and cons worth discussing.
> >
> > - what about establishing a simple policy and contacting the group and
making a public statement somewhere - like on new imc page or ???  that
states simply:  "these sites are not recognized by the indymedia network
because they are in violation of our principles of unity .....etc."
> >
> > ciao
> > sheri
> > seattle imc
> >
> > >hey,
> > >
> > >This is Chris Burnett from LA IMC. There is a new IMC claiming to be
> > >part of
> > >indymedia called www.beachcitiesimc.org. I am wondering what their
> > >status is
> > >in terms of joining the network. Some of the information on their site
> > >is
> > >seems very much not in the spirit of an IMC. We are concerned about a
> > >possible
> > >relationship to a right wing libertarian group in the area. (This is
> > >unconfirmed). Any information you have to offer would be helpful. I am
> > >waiting
> > >for a response from their "Chief Editor" as well.
> > >
> > >Thanks,
> > >
> > >Chris
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >imc-process mailing list
> > >imc-process at lists.indymedia.org
> > >http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-process
> > >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> New-imc mailing list. Lista de correo New-imc
> New-imc at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/new-imc
>

_______________________________________________
imc-process mailing list
imc-process at lists.indymedia.org
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-process