[Seattle-editorial] Proposal to hide

[Jeremy Kahn]

I would disagree with hiding this: we don't block on grounds of 
"pornography" or "inappropriateness".

Our policy for hiding is for specific reasons, as laid out in 
http://seattle.indymedia.org/policy .

   1. To provide an unmoderated, open-publishing newswire in accordance
      with established IMC policies and philosophy.
   2. To maintain the newswire and website as a community space, and a
      safe environment for users, especially members of disempowered or
      marginalized groups.
   3. To acknowledge that speech has the power to cause injury, but that
      instances of injurious speech should also be seen as opportunities
      for insurrectionary response.
   4. To preserve the quality of the website as a useful media resource.


On which of these four points would you block this? neither 
"inappropriate" nor "pornography" appears here for a reason, because 
they're awfully subjective.  (The same problem applies to "poor taste" 
and "offensive", for the record.)

Can you clarify, please, Joseph? Do you think this injures the "safe 
environment"? I'm not so sure.

--jeremy

Joseph wrote:

>Proposal to hide the following article on the grounds of pornography. The
>man is seen nude at desk. This is totally inappropriate for the newswire.
>Joseph
>
>Title: peacetool_FR
>
>http://seattle.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=25729&group=webcast
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Seattle-editorial mailing list
>Seattle-editorial at lists.indymedia.org
>http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/seattle-editorial
>  
>