Typically I try to stay out of comment drama, but this seems to be a common issue among indymedias in the US....

Historically, Indymedia has been a largely anarchist and anti-authoritarian project, not just in Santa Cruz, but globally. As such, I've noticed that collectives tends to rely heavily on the old anarchist concept of "freedom of association" in their editing process.

Personally, were I an editor, I wouldn't put up with sexist, racist, classist, or homophobic comments. Likewise, I wouldn't keep around comments from Zionists, fascists, and other right-wing trolls, nor let Leninist and otherwise authoritarians use anti-authoritarian media as an organizing platform.

In my experience, comments posted by friends that have been removed have been a useless waste of bandwith, and the removal was completely justified.

Sure, I have some issues with Santa Cruz Indymedia, most of which are just issues I have with Santa Cruz "activists" who do the bulk of the posting, and the projects that are focused on in this city, but some are with the moderation. For example, the invitation to Last Night Santa Cruz taking precident over the bus strike on the features section when the strike was going on. But if I had big enough issues with it, I would join the collective, or start my own website.