[Seattle-editorial] Dennis Bejin

[Troy Prouty]

I certainly disagree with his content - however I think that IMC should not 
act - Time will take care of it - people will bother him enough that he will 
tone it down or leave...  I think it is safe to just let it be and watch to 
make sure no threats go out on either side !

Thanks.. Troy*


>From: jonathan lawson <jonathan at indymedia.org>
>To: editorial at seattle.indymedia.org
>Subject: [Seattle-editorial] Dennis Bejin
>Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 09:53:44 -0700
>
>The noise level is rising with this guy, his posts, the flame responses to
>them and his consequent dissing of the IMC and increasing
>self-referentiality... should we open a conversation about intervening?
>
>I've been ignoring his posts because we have no mechanism for removing
>posts based on objectionable content unless it's REALLY objectionable--i.e.
>its perceived offensiveness to a group of people would chase people away
>from the site if left unchecked, and that concern would have to outweigh
>our goal of opening publishing privileges to everyone.
>
>I haven't thought DB's posts have risen about that bar. Provocative, yes,
>maybe repugnant, but prudishness is not a valid reason to remove a post.
>
>However, the sheer magnitude and repetitiveness of the posts is clogging up
>the newswire. His literally daily posts are generally not duplicates of
>each other (that would make removing them easy) not are they usually just
>links (also an easy call to remove)... but I think a suggestion MIGHT be
>made that they are all basically the same thing over and over
>again--pedophiles are victims of discrimination, pedophilia is normal,
>pedophiles are people too, yada yada--and that the ceaseless repetition is
>less of a get-the-word-out journalistic effort than it is a conscious
>attempt to jam our site. THAT would be a violation of our policy, as a
>newswire poster actually pointed out yesterday (see
>http://seattle.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=16508).
>
>We have made decisions twice to remove en masse "classifications of posts"
>by a particular author --not banning them per se, but defining a class of
>their posts which were verboten past and future. We discussed carefully the
>decision and them posted it on the website for purposes of transparency.
>This was effective, long term, in dealing with the J.C. and Robert Meade
>"Bobby" "Israel" Deaf Messenger problems, and the same thing might be done
>here even though this guy's schtick isn't as insane as Bobby's or as
>virulent as J.C.'s.
>
>My comments are mean to provoke discussion. Thoughts?
>
>[his posts recently have gotten more self-referential, and contain more
>attacks on the IMC and other posters.. maybe giving him a little more rope
>will make an eventual decision easier.]
>
>jl
>
>_______________________________________________
>Seattle-editorial mailing list
>Seattle-editorial at lists.indymedia.org
>http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/seattle-editorial




_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com