Second Indymedia Server Seized in UK Within a Year

GarconDuMonde writes "For the second time within the past year, an Indymedia server has been siezed in the United Kingdom. This time it is the Bristol Indymedia server (currently redirected to the United Kollectives IMC site); this follows on from the Ahimsa siezure last October. The current siezure was carried out using a search warrant by the UK police at approximately 16:30GMT on June 27th, 2005. This was despite being warned by lawyers "that this server was considered an item of journalistic equipment and so subject to special provision under the law" (press release). Bristol Indymedia is currently being supported by the National Union of Journalists (NUJ), Liberty and Privacy International. Other media organisations have declared their support."

Comments

Re:Umm

[EiZei]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indymedia All hail the wiki.

Re:Speech isn't as free in England as the U.S.

[ettlz]

I thought only a court injunction can prevent publication of material in the UK, and judges are often loathed to issue these except where personal privacy or safety is at stake. As far as I understand, there isn't even a Government mechanism to legally force newspapers to keep quiet over military secrets; the "D-notice" mechanism is an advisory system, based upon mutual agreement.

Re:Not true

[elander]

How about quoting the entire article instead of just the first paragraph:

ARTICLE 10
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. this right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Article 10 isn't a carte blanche to publish anything you want, it comes with responsibilities too. In this case, "for the prevention of disorder or crime" seems applicable, since someone apparently boasted about their own violent criminal behaviour on the site.

Non-nutty news coverage

[zoney_ie]

Choose the BBC. It's not perfect, but it's a huge amount better than the alternatives. The World news site does indeed cover many stories that aren't otherwise in mainstream attention.

Having the stories edited professionally is a big plus. Also, while some stories can be biased, one is likely to see differing points of view, particularly in the editorials, and ever-increasing comments sections. The "Have your say" articles are perhaps more interesting because all comments aren't published, but rather a selection of differing views from people in different locations.

They are quite accountable, with a "Newswatch" section where corrections and responses to criticism are published. Readers can email and offer comments on or corrections to any story - indeed I have done so in the past myself, and the response (changing the article) has been swift.

For a mainstream news organisation, that hails from one country, I don't think you could expect anything of a higher standard than this.

Re:Well....

[aussie_a]

Seizing servers without a judicial verdict is kind of iffy.

Lucky that didn't happen in this case. FTFA:


On Tue 21st June, the police contacted an IMC Bristol volunteer asking for IP logs.

They didn't get the logs, so they contacted a judge and received a search warrant.

No not really

[Sycraft-fu]

Seland claims they are a nation, that doesn't make it so. What is and is not a nation is partly in what the world agrees on, and partly what you can enforce. If you have the might to break off from another nation and enforce that right, you can become a nation. This is pretty much how the USA started (though they also had help from France). They beat off their founding nation and thus established themselves as independant. In contrats the Confedracy (the states that broke off and rebelled during the American Civil War) failed to do that and are now again part of the USA.

It's also partly in what others recognise. There are a number of nations that are incapable of self defense, yet are widely recognised as legit and have countries ready to go to bat for them. The Vatican is such a country. It is a small district, entirely contained in Italy and without any sort of defense, save that provided by the Swiss. However it is internationaly recognised as a soviregn state and any attempt to conqure it would lead to a massive backlash from most of the world.

Well, Sealand has neither of these. It has no military, no security force to speak of. A division of regular troops from just about any nation would be sufficient to conquer it. Nor does it have any diplomatic status. Nobody appears to recognise it as a legit nation.

Thus if Britan took it over, I imagine most would view it as a recapturing of a military installation they built in the first place and legitimately own.