Jihad Watch banning update

To the City of Chicago, Bank of America, Fidelity Investments and Site Coach we can now add, according to emails I’ve received from Jihad Watch readers, GE IT, JPMorgan Chase, Defense Finance and Accounting Services, and…the Federal Government — all are now banning access to Jihad Watch, apparently as of only a few days ago.

The email I received from a federal employee is illuminating:

I wanted to drop a line about the inability to access JihadWatch at work. I work for the Fed Gov. Three weeks ago, Memri was blocked. Two weeks ago HotAir, which I used to look at on my lunch break for your updates, was blocked. As of Friday,June 29th, JihadWatch was blocked. I can however, visit CAIR, read anything about Islam, and even get the Arab news. The censors I deal with are from the Dallas area. It is very easy to see that this censor is not operating according to the proper rules of access. They are operating by thier political beliefs (or hopes.) It is unfortunate that these people block the very information that we need in these times….

I have never before received word of so many organizations banning this site all at once, and several people have told me that this may be the result of a ban by a single server on which they all depend (or something like that — my technical knowledge could fit in a thimble). If anyone knows how to find out what single group may be responsible for this, or what I might be able to do about it, please let me know. The Internet, for all its faults, has been the end of the stranglehold the politically correct media have long had on the news. Neither liberal or conservative news outlets dare to face the truth about the global jihad in any thoroughgoing or realistic way, but you can get it here — and I am not inclined to take lying down being vilified (as a hatemonger, which is apparently the pretext for the ban) and silenced, when I am telling the truth. But I am at a loss as to what to do. Any advice anyone may have is much appreciated.

FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint

Comments

  1. says

    There are people in the Pentagon, there are people elsewhere in the government in relevant agencies, who come to this site, and appreciate what it is attempting to achieve. They should now help. After all, so much of what goes on here would, in a better-ordered world, be done by the government itself — for making sense of men and events, and providing a coherent understanding of an enemy, is something that in wartime (and for Islam, it is always wartime, even in the absence of open warfare) the government usually engages in, pays for, distributes. Now it is up to a a handful of websites — and those websites apparently are being systematically censored.

    Help us. Do something, for god’s sake.

  2. says

    apalling! tho not unexpected–one thought for a plan of action is to gather as much info as possible about the mechanics of the “ban”–you seem to have good sources–and post them here–i don’t think people who do these things like the publicity–and you may be legally protected speech under the first ammendment. i’ll be watching–luck!

  3. says

    If Jihadwatch and co. are blocked in their workplaces, then it’s their responsibility to do something about it, to make an appeal to those in charge, and to gather support from others in the company.

  4. says

    Already more than 2 years ago I was baffled when I couldn’t access jihad watch from the Palace Hotel in Interlaken, Switzerland.

    When I checked, the information I got was that JW was a ‘hatesite’-

    I informed you all about it but none of you bothered to even write to them to take the blocking off.

    What about Dershowitz? Harvard? Is nobody willing and able to take this attack on free speech to the supreme court and make sure this madness is stopped?

  5. says

    Elements in the fed agencies (aka, the enemy within, same ones screaming for reinstalling the oxymoronic “fairness doctrine” because they can’t withstand scrutiny) have been systematically banning anything they deem non-pc, and especially anything that doesn’t adhere to their politics…it’s no surprise, thanks to the disease-ridden infestation known as political correctness. Now it’s coming full-circle.

    Anything big enough to give you anything is big enough to take it away…especially when it spells doom for any part of the mechanism.
    But fret not…economic impact and public shame works better than they admit.
    GE is the parent company of MSNBC so that came as no surprise at all.
    JPM?…lol, even less of a surprise, especially since they suck up to half the terror ridden countries on Earth.
    Fed?…LOL, as I said before in another thread, that was the work of the government union, AFSCME, whose heirarchy is in blatant cahoots with islamofascist infestations as well. They even tried banning WorldNetDaily at Defense Department, too…but that failed after tremendous outcry (never piss off the guys in charge of watching nuclear weapons, lol).

    All in all, don’t count on any change…the infestations have infested, and unless they’re purged or marginalized where they should be, it’s only going to get worse…leaving only one resort left…but that’s another forum entirely.

  6. says

    Sheik:

    I informed you all about it but none of you bothered to even write to them to take the blocking off.

    A bit strong. I have a great many demands on my time, and get over 500 emails every day. There are many things I’d like to do that I can’t get to, and many emails I receive that I don’t even have time to read — for which I apologize to the senders. But to say we didn’t “bother” do anything about this, as if we preferred to continue eating bon bons and watching I Love Lucy reruns, is…not quite fair.

    Cordially
    Robert Spencer

  7. says

    Just an update, I work for the New York City Department of Education and of course the computers have filters. Your site is not blocked reguarly, though from time to time it is blocked. I cant quite figure out the logic of when it gets blocked and when it doesnt. So take some comfort that at least in NYC teachers (and I guess any interested students) can acess your site.

  8. says

    Employers have the right to block employees from browsing any unrelated site when they should be working. Nor is it unprecedented that large corporations have PC guidelines, which in this case, allows them to block sites that don’t meet those PC guidelines. So none of this should cause alarm because none of this is new. Let’s not pretend that this PC narrative came out of the blue.

    When the ISPs block JW so that you can not access it from home, then you have a problem. Any ISP can block any site they want, and therefore block access to JW for hundreds of thousands, or even millions of customers with the push of a button. There is no circumventing that, nor is there any constitutional law on which to challenge it. The internet is, contrary to popular myth, the easiest from of media to censor.

    This, I believe, will be the future. As terrorism increases, and the calls to do something about the muslim presence increase, watch the censorship increase with it.

  9. says

    Well stated observations, jcom972. I totally agree.

    Failure to be politically correct in the workplace today is an open invitation to being sued. Big companies with lawyers giving them advice are quick to do the pc dance, even when such actions fly in the face of common sense and fairness.

    Can you imagine a Muslim supervisor finding one of his/her underlings reading JihadWatch during lunchbreak? Oh the horror! Oh the lawsuits for being forced to work in a hostile work environment!

    I’m not hearing of too many lawsuits being filed against Islamic websites calling for the destruction of Israel or the overthrow of America (correct me if I’m wrong), but Muslims have discovered that the quickest way to get American business and government to throw in the towel is to threaten lawsuits.

    This is the lesson taught by Osama BL, no? Hit them where it hurts, in the wallet.

    Fortunately it seems likely that all the employees of such companies where JihadWatch may be banned probably have internet access at home and will continue, perhaps even more fervently, to read it on a daily basis.

    This is a disturbing development and I do think noise should be made, and remedies pursued. Good luck to all.

  10. says

    Robert — DoD network controls at the unit/ installation level place filters to prevent access to unauthorized sites…they are normally directed at personal pages adult content etc…however often important information sites are blocked.

    Any DoD employee who thinks a site blocked should not be can contact their unit level information officer and request the filter be lifted for particular sites.

    I did that with your site well over two years ago and with a several other sites I use for open source information and research related to the study of the war on terror and staying current with national security issues.

    It’s not a conspiracy at DoD, I cannot account for private sector and the filter services they contract with…that may be in some instances.

    DoD employees should contact your information officer…if there is some confused pushback on this let me know and I can help run it to ground.

    Best GIJoe

  11. says

    Mr. Spencer:

    May I suggest that you contact Farah over at Worldnetdaily if you haven’t already?

    Since they are no longer blocked perhaps a little publicity about JW’s situation is in order.

    Unfortunately, making internal changes to policies inside government agencies or companies is difficult unless you have suffered monetary damage as a result and can prove it in court.

    So, until Hillary gets her “legislative remedy” for talk radio and internet news services enacted, my suggestion would be for all you to hang together — otherwise you will hang separately, as Franklin once said.

  12. says

    I went to WND and could not find a “contact us” or commentary section to try and enlist some support.

    If someone has an address I will write.

    From post above:

    “Any ISP can block any site they want, and therefore block access to JW for hundreds of thousands, or even millions of customers with the push of a button. There is no circumventing that, nor is there any constitutional law on which to challenge it”.

    It seems to me that the first part of your statement about what an ISP “can do” is correct, but I have serious doubts about whether there is “any consitutional law on which to challenge it”.

    I would like to do some more reading on this. Do you or anyone else have citation of authority for this statement?

    I wrote to Conservative Book Club who sells Robert’s books to let them know that if jihadwatch was censored, the book club could be censored for spreading “hate speech”, and to ask for their support and assistance. ( I don’t know what they can do but it beats sitting here stewing)

    I also ordered a few stickers here at JW. I am going down to the local branches of BoA this week at night and find locations to, ahh, express my concerns.

  13. says

    “Gates of Vienna” encountered similar access limitations some months ago and looked into the matter in some detail. Here is a link to a posting there: http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2006/10/interior-dialogue-redux.html

    My personal opinion FWIW is that it is suitable for employers, including governments, to filter website availability from the workplace, and that the filters can be fairly arbitrary (especially for private employers). I am not saying that an employee ought not to complain, but it doesn’t seem to me that there is some right to unrestricted web access from the workplace.

    My dumb suggestion of the day would be to do a reverse complaint: Instead of complaining that Jihad Watch was cut off and nameless Islamist sites weren’t, instead acknowledge the legitimacy of workplace filters, note that Jihad Watch access was cut off, and argue that specific Islamist site X should also be filtered out, with three sentences of specifics about the Islamist site. Perhaps “unindicted co-conspirator” could be the centerpiece of one of the sentences.

    Three thoughts about the “hate site” label:

    1) It does seem that employers or departments want to delegate to some commercial service or to a central IT department the task of monitoring web sites and tagging them. This makes sense to me. To choose one example, jihadist web sites change names and domains constantly. Large corporation Y knows it can’t keep track of this stuff so it hires filtering service Z to do it.

    2) To avoid controversy and second-guessing, the filterers and their subscribers want the reason for filtering a site to appear to be clear cut and self evident, so the labels are “porn” and “hate site” and so on. If there was a label *between* “political opinion” and “hate site” such as “very controversial single-issue advocacy and opinion” then perhaps the service could support reasonable restrictions on workplace web access without having to label a site “porn” or “hate.” For all I know there exists such a label. It does seem that there is a real difference between, say, “Islamaphobia Watch” and the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal; yet both would be “political opinion” and an employer might validly want to filter out the former and retain the latter, without labelling the former a “hate site.”

    3) Finally, the little I recall from the Gates of Vienna story was that there are indeed gate-keepers who decide whether and how to label particular sites, and many subscribers simply use those labels to do their filtering. Therefore, it seems these gate-keepers are or ought to be prime targets in what folks call the “information war” or the “culture war,” and that anti-jihadists should learn how the gate-keeping function works and how to influence it. I’m sure there is a web site somewhere about precisely this topic. :-)

  14. says

    This is where we need public interest law firms on our side. Judicial Watch is a possibility. Law students might work as interns for JW for this case or for similar cases. This shows how we need a law school that is on our side, or at least a law prof with law students who want to work on this.

    There needs to be a network of conservative action law firms. There exist some fragments of that. The right needs this type of infrastructure more.

  15. says

    Is there any possibility that JW has been banned because TOO MANY EMPLOYEES were reading on the site when they should have been working???

  16. says

    Push risk management and terrorist risk. Companies have to do risk management. Jihad Watch is low cost education in terrorist risk.

    Country risk. Companies pay Kissinger Associates and other firms big bucks to get country reports.

    Investment firms like Carlyle Group invest operate in countries to get high returns.

    Corporations often have risk management officers. If not the CFO may have that responsibility.

    Jihad Watch is low cost information on this subject.

    Price of oil risk and oil availability. Many companies have a dependence on the price of oil. Financial institutions will see oil impact financial markets. Industrial firms are dependent on oil and the price impacts them.

    Jihad Watch has information on Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Iran, etc. War or a missile strike with Iran has been discussed on this site and its impact on oil prices.

    You might also feed in a few more articles on this subject and develop a relationship with the financial press or other specialty press in national security. A few guest articles from the financial press or specialists in risk management, country risk, etc. can also help here.

  17. says

    Employees of public firms should speak to their IT administrators and have JW whitelisted if they find the site blocked. That should work in the majority of cases, and forestall future blocking. But to anticipate future blanket blocking that impedes the mission of JW I would suggest that some handy tech-savvy adherents volunteer resources and cyberspace to erect mirrors, with different domain names. Also, proxy servers and other means can be set up to circumvent any such limitations. The main problem to consider is that “jihadwatch.org” is a well-branded URL, and diversifying to other site names may weaken the readership or make it harder to consolodate readership. The tactic of moving site names every few months may work for jihadists, who are outlaws on the run anyway, but it does not work as well for an organization that seeks to unify and educate the mainstream public. Web-savvy visitors should connsider what appropriate measures can be taken to preserve the Jihadwatch “brand” while guaranteeing multiple-route access to the main site or mirrors.

  18. says

    People like to read about themselves. If you want to get unblocked, you want the CEO, CFO, Chief Risk Office, Chief Legal Officer, etc to want you unblocked. So you write about those people.

    They want to hear what other companies are doing.
    So start picking that stuff up. They also want to hear what people in government and think tanks say about this.

    There are organizations that have terrorism as part of what they cover.


    Risk Management Association

    terrorism site:abanet.org

    Results 1 – 100 of about 3,530 from abanet.org for terrorism.

    These organizations have conferences and people talk. Someone from there might want to post their talk or a summary and a link.

    There are people who try to promote these groups who work for them. They want coverage.

    There are lawyers, consultants, etc. looking for exposure who can write on this.

    You could tag stories such as legal, Supreme Court, Davos, Risk Management, Price of Oil, etc. Have an index and way to access these.

    Let law students or business students or even a law firm or consultancy put together a set of links on legal cases relating to terrorism, Islam in America, etc. This can be done in several countries.

    Have information on nitty gritty detail of law, terrorism, intelligence, oil markets, country risk, investment in the Middle East, etc.

    If the people at the top of the organizations want to read your site, it will be unblocked. The above can also open up new opportunities in many directions. This also gives opportunity in your organization. Someone in it can interface with people at the other associations trying to promote their groups. They probably have their own association.

    Do original interviews, or let people post them. Some of these can be videotaped, so you can post that. If you can have original content about the people who decide whether to block you from your interviewing them or posting interviews done by 3rd parties then they will unblock you to read about themselves and their peers.

  19. says

    Mr. Spencer here is the reasons your site has been blocked at JP Morgan Chase

    JP Morgan Chase

    Reason: JPMorgan Develops Islamic Finance Structure For Islamic Development Bank

    http://investor.shareholder.com/jpmorganchase/press/releaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=229532&ReleaseType=Current

    No doubt there are $$$ ties at the other places when you start to dig into it. I keep syaing it there are two dangers from within. The left wing extreamist and their PC dogma however just as dangerous (if not more becuase they have $$$) is the businesses who deal with muslim countries. This site would do damage to those business deals.

    As for the federal government we all know they were starting to cut off sites that were deemed not helpful for muslim relations. Just look at the press releases over the last few months from Homeland Security and the FBI. Hell look at what Bush himself is doing and saying.

    You are upsetting the apple cart for lots of folks who are getting rich. It is going to get worse before it gets better.

  20. says

    In the previous thread, Mick_n_NYC provided this:

    SiteCoach is part of the program SiteKiosk made by a German company called Provisio, also located in Chicago. Contact information – email, phone, mail, can be found here: https://www.provisio.com/en-US/Company/Contact.aspx

    On the previous related thread I linked to this:

    Looking up details about SiteCoach, one finds

    Alex McDonald is managing partner of SiteCoach an Internet marketing firm specializing in SEO, PPC management and tracking software

    At the very bottom of this link one can find direct contact information, including a toll free phone number for this managing partner – listed in TX. Additional detailed contact info here (scroll down for highlighted info)

  21. says

    1) Boycotts and exoduses. Several of those are financial institutions, tell your broker that you want the site unblocked or you will have to withdraw your money.
    2) Mirror sites, tunnels, etc. Solicit volunteers to set up sites and protocols to bypass the blocks. My goodness, if Naseem can get access from Pak, we should be able to construct a workaround.

  22. says

    “terrorism index”

    “terrorism insurance”

    Results 1 – 100 of about 313,000 for “terrorism insurance”.

    terrorism “chief risk officer”

    Results 1 – 100 of about 42,200 for terrorism “chief risk officer”.

    Business schools, law schools, econ departments, and their associations all cover this and want exposure.

    David Warsh at Economic Principals is a free lance journalist who does original reporting, i.e. interviews people, calls sources, etc. He covers meetings of economic associations, etc. He goes there, interviews people, and then writes about it on his website.


    Economic Principals

    terrorism site:economicprincipals.com

  23. says

    I suggest asking Charles Johnson of LGF. He’s had this kind of thing happen before and always manages to marshal the troops in an effective way. I’ve posted an OT note about it in an LGF thread, so we’ll see if any of the lizards can give some e-mail address to write to.

    It’s all very well to say that private employers have a right to ban sites. Robert isn’t proposing _suing_ them, just _telling_ them that this is a bad idea, that JW is not a “hate site,” and that they are bowing to PC ideas and blocking important info. Moreover, the federal government is in on this, too, and deserves even more grief about it. IMO, federal employees ought to be accessing JW for their _work_, because it’s such a great resource. That it should be banned even for consumption on breaks is a symptom of our government’s determination to bury its head in the sand. Is it really the case that our federal government doesn’t think people should access the type of information available here? That’s a bad sign for our national security.

  24. says

    Dear Robert:

    I know you are busy but you must immediately add a little sidebar which explains how to get around internet censorship. Maybe Charles Johnson can help you with that. Here is a very good site that explains in great detail how to bypass internet censorship:

    http://www.zensur.freerk.com/

    Many methods exist for circumventing internet censorship. However, I recommend using the JAP software program; the excerpt below is taken from the website referenced above:

    4.3.5.1 JAP
    JAP is an free and open source anonymity tool invented by a German university. It sends your traffic encrypted through different mixes, so that absolutely nobody, not even the owner of on of the mixes know who is accessing which site. This is also one of the best tools to circumvent censorship. Just follow the installation instructions on http://anon.inf.tu-dresden.de/index_en.html or http://www.anon-online.org/index_en.html on installing the Java client (available for Windows, Unix, Linux, OS/2, Macintosh and others). Here is a list of the included servers and on which port they are connecting to:

    The InfoService – infoservice.inf.tu-dresden.de:6543

    Dresden-Dresden – mix.inf.tu-dresden.de:6544
    Dresden-ULD – mix.inf.tu-dresden.de:26544
    New York-Berlin-Dresden – class25.scs.cs.nyu.edu:6544
    Regensburg-HU/IWI – in: 132.199.134.2:3000 — out: dali.wiwi.hu-berlin.de [141.20.103.68]

    Not working at the moment:
    Dresden-Luebeck – xx:9544
    Luebeck-Berlin-Dresden – fddi-passat.mesh.de:6544

    4.3.5.2 Httport
    http://www.htthost.com/

    4.3.5.3 Localproxy
    http://proxytools.sourceforge.net/

    4.3.5.4 HttpTunnel
    http://www.http-tunnel.com/
    http://www.nocrew.org/software/httptunnel.html
    http://www.infoanarchy.org/wiki/wiki.pl?Httptunnel

    I hope this helps, Robert.

    You must keep at it Robert, Hugh, et al.. Your views are almost on the verge of becoming mainstream. Goodness me, even Irshad Manji is now saying what you have been saying for the past 5 years.

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v5/content/subscribe?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2Fstory%2FLAC.20070704.COMANJI04%2FTPStory%2F%3Fquery%3Dirshad&ord=5752498&brand=theglobeandmail&force_login=true

    “Moderate Muslims denounce violence in the name of Islam but deny that Islam has anything to do with it. By their denial, moderates abandon the ground of theological interpretation to those with malignant intentions – effectively telling would-be terrorists that they can get away with their abuses of power because mainstream Muslims won’t challenge the fanatics with bold, competing interpretations. To do so would be to admit that religion is a factor. Moderate Muslims can’t go there. Reform-minded Muslims say it’s time to admit that Islam’s scripture and history are being exploited. They argue for reinterpretation precisely to put the would-be terrorists on notice that their monopoly is over.”

    Of course Irshad doesn’t tell us how she would reinterpret Islam!

    Sincerely,

    Mentat

  25. says

    Robert, This is frightening (should the likes of JihadWatch and MEMRI now be banished, we will have less truth telling), but may be an opportunity. You have gained much respect at National Review, and those folks — along with conservative radio and some Web sites — are flush with the pleasure of having beaten the immigration bill. Perhaps publicity now would engage some of the same troops, including the likely Republican candidate, Fred Thompson.

  26. says

    i) Complain to admins about CAIR still being accessible. Provide them with lists of information about CAIR being a co-conspirator for terror. Do so anonymously, of course.

    ii) Robert could set up a mirror website without the code “jihadwatch”. The important thing is to build up a reactive mass of readers.

  27. says

    Lydia & Mentat are absolutely right: contact Charles at LGF. He had this same problem a few months ago, & managed to set things straight w/in a few days.

  28. says

    Robert,

    A rather simple, perhaps obvious suggestion, but it may work in some instances …

    Who do you think decides to block these sites within an organization? It is probably someone in the information technology department (IT) or maybe a particular execuitive who directs the head of IT to block the site because they have a particular, personal objection to what you are doing here (either because they are of the pc crowd or actually sympathize with your target). The people at the organization that actually have the authority to change this may not even know that this site (and others) are blocked. You may want to try and get a list of organizations that block your site, find out who runs the organization, and send them a letter pleading your case. I think the blocking of sites is really supposed to be geared towards keeping porn and gambling out of the worksite – not sites such as yours.

  29. says

    jihadwatcher said

    Employers have the right to block employees from browsing any unrelated site when they should be working. Nor is it unprecedented that large corporations have PC guidelines, which in this case, allows them to block sites that don’t meet those PC guidelines.

    Yes, the employer has the right to block whatever they want, it’s their equipment. No lawsuit can force them to allow access to Jihadwatch.

    But I, their customer, also have every right to associate with companies that share my basic values, and disassociate from those that do not.

    If a company blocks access to human rights organizations, child welfare organizations, and educational sites, but allows access to neo-Nazi sites, antisemetic sites, and NAMBLA (association of pedophiles), then I am free to decide that this companies values should not be supported by my dollars. If they block Christian, Jewish, and Hindu sites, and only allow access to Muslim sites, that says something important to me. I am free to contact them to voice my complaint, or to contact the media and see if they are interested in the story, or to create my own website to publicize that company’s position, or to set up a picket line outside the company.

    I am not required to do business with Muslim-owned businesses if I do not want to. I can avoid pro-jihad, or anti-Christian, or anti-Jewish, businesses if I want to with no explanation required.

    This is a land of freedoms, and those freedoms will work in our favor, as long as we get off our *sses and protect them. The jihadists have billions in petrodollars to support them. We have to rely on grass roots activism, that’s our only strength.

    As clapner said above, the best thing is to get as much information as possible. For those who work at these companies, try to find out (without getting yourself in trouble, just do it politely)what program they are using to do the blocking, who is in charge of administering the program, how to add/remove blocked sites, if they have a policy to guide the selection of blocked sites, etc. Don’t even specifically mention Jihadwatch, just ask about the mechanics of how it works.

    Also, try to find out what other sites are blocked, or not blocked. JW has a nice list of links to anti-jihad sites; see how many are blocked. I’m still trying to find a similar list of pro-jihad websites that people could use to see how many are not blocked.

    Robert, you will need to contact the software company (if we can find out which one it is) that creates the list of blocked sites. Also, keeping a running list of companies that block access to JW somewhere displayed on the front page would be useful. JW readers can then make an informed decision on which businesses deserve their patronage. You don’t have to call for a boycott, just give us the information.

    In a war of information, fighting this type of censorship is the front line of the battle.

  30. says

    jihadwatch.org was just banned under the board of educations “hate speech” this week so now I can’t come here and read the news from my work location.

    I’m disgusted

  31. says

    Slipping into conspiracy theory mode, this seems a bit too coincidental that all of these servers are blocking within such a short time frame. They can’t ALL be using the same software. Seems to smack of coordination. What or who is the common denominator? Someone out there can figure this out. Does the “Freedom of Information Act” cover this regarding the government sites? What specific information needs to be requested?

  32. says

    Are we living in a world-gone-mad? We are if they’re calling the Truth “hate speech”! These truth-blockers need to open their eyes.

    Blocking JW is so backwards because it suppresses the Truth. Islam is also backwards, in part, for the same reason. One poster stating being able to access the CAIR website but not JW. Is there a connection?

    So much for our freedoms — and so much for common sense.

  33. says

    “I went to WND and could not find a “contact us” or commentary section to try and enlist some support.”

    Leave Iraq Now,

    You must not have scrolled down. Their contact is at the very bottom of the page, on the right.

    You can send a letter to the editor at:

    letters@worldnetdaily.com

    You can also send a letter directly to Joseph Farah at

    jfarah@worldnetdaily.com

  34. says

    It’s no secret that I have few friends on this site including Robert himself (who has told me I am not welcome here). One wonders why my presence is so objectionable to him and others when we are ultimately allies. Despite Robert’s lack of hospitability towards gay-liberal supporters of his work, such as myself, my loyalties have hardly shifted. I strongly support the basic efforts of the contributing staff (despite personal disagreements about certain policies advocated here).

    In fighting the censorship of this site, I have devoted personal time and energy by writing to whomever I can think of to reverse this policy.

    I wholeheartedly oppose the censoring of this site.

  35. says

    jihadwatcher said

    Employers have the right to block employees from browsing any unrelated site when they should be working. Nor is it unprecedented that large corporations have PC guidelines, which in this case, allows them to block sites that don’t meet those PC guidelines
    ————-

    This is true for private business. It is NOT true for Federal, State, or local government offices, for public school systems, or for universities that receive federal funding. In all these places, the principle of equal access applies. While the Supreme Court does allow these to block pornography and hate sites that advocate violence, they cannot block something on political or ideological grounds.

  36. says

    So they label JW as hatemongers but they have no problem with the murdering scum. What does that say about these corporate rats, it says that they would sell us all out to the islamists for some greasy money. When we start getting serious after the wmd attack, I recommend that these rats are given a one way trip to Pakistan, givem a copy of the bill of rights and a parachute and a kick in the arse out the door. Write your representatives, let them know that when they limit free speech, when we allow censorship from the person behind the curtain our civilization is put in grave danger. The house is the peoples house it is closer to the people than any other part of guvment so focus on them, tell them we need new laws that protect our rights in the workplace. These are the people that just tried to give your job away to illegals, now they are trying to destroy your birthright you country your family.The scum that deal with islamists, that give them payoffs are taking our tax money, funding the enemy and crapping on everything this country was founded on. I consider many of these unelected guvment institutions to be as big a threat to us as the islamists themselves. Boycott them, if they are knowingly or unknowingly helping the islamists and if we eventually pursue the islamists through the rico statutes get these companies as co conspirators, take them down, destroy their ability to do business, then kick them out of our country for good. Lets see how they like that. The US government, a government of the islamists, by the islamists and for the islamists. Disgusting, ordinarily I am against the islamists when they attack, but if they attack these filthy rats I somehow believe they will be doing all US citizens and all freemen worldwide a huge favor, I for one will be hoping for the best. The internet is the greatest threat the islamists face and the guvment as well as corps know this, still they are on the side of the islamists, this makes the German American bund of pre WWII look like boy scouts. Their slogan, I’m against JW but I’m for the islamonazis everyone has priorities and so should we. Enemies of the people, that is all.

  37. says

    the Supreme Court does allow [some]to block pornography and hate sites that advocate violence

    Provoslavni,

    Isn’t “hate site” the very loophole most JW blockers are using?

    We’ve seen how the Chinese were able to block democracy-promoting sites, with the help of software provided by Microsoft. The very same tools are probably being used here. Many of them have broad selection criteria so that the original blocking of pornography or so-called hate sites led to the blocking of sites that had similar names but totally different content.

    JW and MEMRI (among others) print articles that would seem to promote hate. But no notice is taken of the fact that they are not the originators but instead are trying to alert the world to the danger it faces. These broad-based blockers mean the baby goes out with the bath water.

  38. says

    Kafir Nonbeliever,

    I don’t recall ever telling you you weren’t welcome here. If I did, it was not because you are “gay liberal,” but probably because of other matters: your tone-deaf and blunderingly, thunderously offensive posting on the occasion of Dominic’s death springs to mind.

    In any case, obviously you are welcome here: you aren’t banned, and plenty of people have been.

    Happy 4th.

    Cordially
    Robert Spencer

  39. says

    It will get worse before it gets better.

    Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would at the same time be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

    -Federalist #10, attributed to Madison

    Robert asks about what to do. I’d suggest sitting tight, staying safe, and typing away. There might be a Cabinet position in your future.

  40. says

    Can’t this be used benefit JihadWatch?

    Why can’t the double standard be illuminated via another best-selling book, a series of high-profile interviews, or a frank side-by-side example of what these companies block vs. what they allow.

    Let the light shine.

  41. says

    since monday D & J-watch as well banned at Deutsche Bank….have to wait to have some interesting updates till I’m not at home!

  42. says

    I wonder the reason given for banning memri.org.

    Is that site, which translates verbatim Middle East news, speeches, etc., also classified as a hate site?

    You will get to the bottom of it. This is an issue of major importance for free speech. Jihad watch is clear and incisive on the issues. Someone wants to silence your voice of warning.

  43. says

    Stop the whining and use this as a political opportunity. Street theatre is wonderful for getting media stories … media stories mean more people know about this web site which counters the censors.

    1. Make some signs saying “Osama Bin Laden Loves This Company, Let Us Tell You Why?”

    2. After reading on the Internet how to write and send a press release to the local papers (by fax). Get your friends (and yourself, if you are not afraid of getting fired) to picket the front of the building.

    3. A week later, issue another press release that you plan to have a “die in” in front of the companies building. Get friends with signs and lay on the sidewalk in front of the building until the police come and tell you to move on.

    4. If you are really bold, dress as terrorists : make sure you’re comically dressed so as not to be confused with the real thing.(carry a big cardboard bomb … I’d recommend getting 5 feet of cardboard concrete pillar form and paint it read and write … we blow up infidels and small puppies) Don’t make any provocative comments about Muslims in general since the media will try to get these comments in order to discredit you (I’ve got experience as an environmental protestor … never trust the media. Use them, but don’t trust them.) Keep to the message, that the company is banning web sites of people who are fighting against Muslim extemists. Have a spokesman so the media can only talk with one person.

    5. Have someone video the entire event and take pictures. This protects against false media stories and is good for youtube. distribution. Always listen and be polite to the police. They often will let you get away with breaking minor civil ordinances if you are orderly and tell them what you are doing. The police are the good guys … even if they have to shut you down. Never never disrespect the police. We use to get away with lots of eco-theatre stuff cause the police knew what we were up to, that we were not dangerous, and that we’d go away when the police needed us to pack up the protest.

  44. says

    Kafir Nonbeliever,
    Lack of hospitality toward gay liberals? Guess what, no one cares what your sexual preferences are so keep them in the bedroom where they belong. The homosexuals for the most part seem to be a one issue group, the issue, sex, better watch that as you can see by the islamists, getting too wrapped up in sex is not healthy. There is a difference between a classic liberal and a leftard, the leftards have hijacked the classic liberals and are dragging you to your death. Wanna get thrown off of a building as people stand around applauding and ululating, don’t worry it will happen unless we get a handle on the America hating leftards. I am considered a right wing extremist, but I have more liberal values than most if not all liberals. I was for equality before there was any money in it, being a former boy scout I was for enviormentalism before liberals were even thinking about it. I don’t care what peoples sexual orientation is, I don’t want to know about what strangers do with their privacy in the bedroom as long as they don’t try to hump my leg, I care not. In a contest between me and liberals to see who carries more liberal ideas a tie is the best they can expect, between leftards there is no competition. The biggest difference between me and classic liberals is that I know what I stand for and I mean it. I wont back down from those views for any safety, security, job, influence, they as we have seen will. I may not agree with your choices but I am not the judge here and I refuse to become like the islamists.

    James Martel,
    Great ideas, we have the tools to fight them we just haven’t taken them out of the toolbox for a number of decades. We have been too busy being tolerant and now we are being forced to tolerate the intolerable, enough, it is long past time to fight back.

  45. says

    1. The easiest way to approach this banning
    is to give us some names and addresses and
    allow your readers to write snail-mail to the CEOs.
    We can write courteous respectful letters that
    inform as to the high value of this site.

    2. Get Frontpagemag to talk about this and Charles Johnson at LGF to help.

  46. says

    The Federal Government is banning …

    I’m sorry but this can’t stand. There is something very wrong when a site like JW gets banned, not to mention MEMRI.

    Ironically, ss it so happens, it seems that Digg.com has banned MY site, Foehammer’s Anvil, from being diggable as of today. They also yanked my most Dugg article to-date yesterday from their servers, removing the 100+ comments completely.

    I should also note that I did not Digg the article in question, nor did I make any request to any reader to do so. The response it received was overwhelming. The article was also not buried. On the contrary — despite the 90+ bury attempts in the comments, the article was well over 100 positive Diggs when it was forcibly removed by the Digg.com crew.

    I have emailed them a polite inquiry as to why they have taken these actions against my site (I already have a very good idea of why, but I’m going to build up to my full wrath organically), and then I will move into action from the point of either receiving a response or being completely ignored.

    The thing that Digg is going to find out — stepping on me is like stepping on a landmine.

  47. says

    These banks and other companies that operate under our capitalist system that makes America great, have employed the cultural marxist totalitarian ideology of political correctness now. Ironic, yet unfortunately not surprising in our PC society. Bless you Mr. Spencer, and keep up all the great work. This site and your writings are a shining beacon of truth in a world clouded by the chokehold of political correctness, and must read. We will not give in.

  48. says

    Look it is easy to say it is some leftwing nut or some political correct manager gone mad but it is multiple sites in a close and coordinated manner.

    “City of Chicago, Bank of America, Fidelity Investments and Site Coach we can now add, according to emails I’ve received from Jihad Watch readers, GE IT, JPMorgan Chase, Defense Finance and Accounting Services, and…The Federal Government”

    I am sure the list may even be larger because we have just heard from them yet. This is not some moonbat but instead it smacks of corporate earnings and playing nice to get deals. Just look at some of the companies “Bank of America, Fidelity Investments, and JPMorgan Chase”

    Let’s look closer at the kinds of business these companies engage in.

    (1) Fidelity Investments

    Bank of Riyadh has a Global Real Estate Fund that is run in cooperation with Fidelity Investments.

    I found this on the http://www.thememriblog.org/ their source is Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, London, July 2, 2007. Do some Google searching and things come up also.

    (2) Bank of America

    Has been handing out credit cards without social security numbers needed. They also were involved and some other shady business dealing including money laundering. Everybody knows for years people like Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahayan (Died in 2004, UAE); Kamal Adham and other Arabian big wigs were involved along with Bank of America (along with the CIA) in BCCI (Bank of Credit and Commerce International). I doubt Bank of America has severed all their ties to the people involved.

    For more just Google it…..

    (3) JPMorgan Chase

    As I stated before: JPMorgan us involved building Islamic Finance Structure For Islamic Development Bank. It also appears JPMorgan has a love affair with Dubai

    See this link from 2004

    http://www.ameinfo.com/61609.html

    Thus in conclusion can it be possible that this coordinated attempt to block a site that talks about troubling aspects of Islam is caused by a fluky convergence of moonbats or a group of sellouts. My money is it a bunch of sellouts.

    As for the federal government it is just doing what Homeland Security, FBI and President Bush wants. Bush I am sure hates this site (if he knows about it). I know that is a tough pill to take for some people but it is the truth. Bush does not have the same views as those who follow this site. Let’s be honest G.W. and his ilks are no better then the extreme leftwing we make fun of all the time. Mr. Spencer ask yourself why do people like Hannity or some of the other conservatives who attack or ignore your work despite the evidence do what they do? In fact they try and cover it up. That is what this is…

    They are trying to “rub” you out. It should not be shocking either. In fact expect it. Nothing comes easy in this world and those in power have made many friends and money from Muslim countries like the Saudi Arabia and UAE. Do you really think these fat cats are going out without a fight? Hell no! The Empire has and will strike backā€¦.

  49. says

    This is further proof that proof that the communists have in fact won….by brainwashing our youth who are the cultural Marxists morons in government. I have lost hope for this country.

  50. says

    The best thing to do in my opinion, is to boycott the dhimmi organisations who are blocking the site.

    Pull your money out of the named banks, and investment companies, and tell them you’re doing so because of their policy of not allowing access to anti-jihad websites that are primarily concerned with the safety of America and with it’s citizenry. You don’t actually have to name any websites.

    This will have a two fold effect. The first will be that the share prices will drop, the second will be that the Arabs won’t be happy losing their investment, so may well cut their losses and run. They only want American money, because they’re losing money hand over fist right now. Help them lose more of their money.

    Write letters to other organisations telling them they should be ashamed of their anti-Americanism.

    They’ll soon get the message.

  51. says

    Robert;

    I would suggest:

    Contact Provisio and let them know that this is not a hate site, and why. They may mistakenly believe it is a pro-Jihad site, (based on a cursory examination or the name), or may not know anything about it at all but blocked it because Islamists sent them emails claiming it was. The quickest and easiest way to resolve this is to get the site reclassified as LGF did, although that was a different filter company.

    Contact info:
    http://www.sitekiosk.com/en-US/Company/Contact.aspx

    Try to determine, by asking those that send you emails about being blocked, if there is another filtering company involved other than Provisio (SiteCoach). It may be Provisio alone, but let us know if there is another. I think that usually filtering software will announce that they are responsible for the blocking whenever a site is blocked. Otherwise, perhaps there is a link for “more information” or something. If nothing else, people should be able to contact their IT department to find out what filtering software their company is using, and repot back.

    Keep us updated with a list of the companies who are being blocked and whether you’ve discovered other filtering software involved, so that your readers can help out.

    The more information we have, the easier it is for us to help.

    If Provisio is unresponsive or refuses to reclassify the site, then it’s possible for us to try and convince each company and government agency involved to unblock the site in-house. Companies can exempt specific web sites from being blocked even if that site is listed in Provisio’s master list.

  52. says

    PMK,

    The court allows blocking of hate sites that advocate violence. Nowhere does Jihad Watch advocate violence. In fact it exists to decry and expose the violence of the the jihad. Therefore it is not legal for government or federally-funded institutions to block it.

  53. says

    sales-america@provisio.com
    support-america@provisio.com

    Subject: Categorization Error

    Provisio;

    It has recently come to my attention that your filtering software is incorrectly blocking http://www.JihadWatch.org, (which is a news and analysis site), as “hate speech”.

    JihadWatch gathers Jihad related news from around the world but does not in any way condone Jihad. JihadWatch is NOT an Islamic web site, although it reports on Islamic activities.

    Please reconsider your classification of JihadWatch and correct it’s listing to news and analysis.

    Sincerely,

  54. says

    I am a cybersimpleton, but I do have money invested with Fidelity, and accounts at other offending institutions. I will, hopefully tomorrow, call Fidelity and express my concern about JW and MEMRI being blocked, and insinuate that I, along with many others, may well transfer money out of Fidelity if the blockage continues.
    Since sites such as CAIR’s remain unblocked, I strongly suspect, along with a few other posters above, that Muslims or their enablers who work in IT for the offending companies are the ones who have blocked these sites. Even if this is only partially true, or not the case at all, I strongly agree that Infidel societies are committing a grave error allowing Muslims accesss to higher education, especially in the hard sciences, medicine, and information technology. In the wake of the recent events in the UK and the censorship of important websites such as this one, the basis for my assertion should be self-evident.

  55. says

    the reason why this site and other sites like this that are censored is because Rich saudi businessmen own large shares of ge, jp morgan chase, citigroup, and other banks, businesses.

    The real enemies of the west are the saudis.

  56. says

    I agree with very little on this website, but I do find it interesting to read from time to time. The best answer for individual readers who have the site blocked is probably using RSS and google reader or some other web based RSS reader tool.

  57. says

    Dr. Spencer

    You can add the Veterans’Administration hospitals to the JW banned list for…well, hate speech (on the VA monitor screen)…

  58. says

    “The court allows blocking of hate sites that advocate violence. Nowhere does Jihad Watch advocate violence.”

    Provoslavni,

    I never said it did. But Robert shows us the newspaper articles where imams advocate violence and preach hate. The point is that since people are allowed to block some sites it is possible JW got caught up in the net. You don’t know what their criteria are. It has happened before in other situations. People blocking pornographic sites ended up blocking sites which offered information on STDs, for example.

    JW doesn’t advocate hate or violence. But what criteria are used to determine which site to block? Either JW is being blocked arbitrarily by a single person (unlikely) or someone is using a piece of software which analyzes site content and it is not sufficiently sophisticated to tell the difference between news and advocacy.

  59. says

    I’ve received a response to the email I sent Provisio, (see above):

    Hello [I’ve removed my name],

    I will forward your request to allow this URL to our development department.
    Under PLUS-/PAYMENT BUNDLE -> CONTENT FILTER -> CUSTOMIZE you can manually allow
    this page to be displayed

    Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions.

    Best regards,

    Heinz Horstmann
    Sales Manager

    PROVISIO, LLC
    205 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 1610
    Chicago, IL 60606
    Ph: (312) 528-9290
    Fax: (312) 528-9291
    http://www.sitekiosk.com

  60. says

    The part stating, “PLUS-/PAYMENT BUNDLE -> CONTENT FILTER -> CUSTOMIZE”, is most likely referring to how a network administrator can override the filter to allow access to JW.

    It being July 4th, I wasn’t expecting a response today and I somewhat doubt that anybody will review this in the development department until tomorrow at the earliest.

  61. says

    I just replied to the email thanking him for the timely response and asking to be informed what the development department decides.

  62. says

    Had a better chance reading through some of the posts…most likely Jihadwatch, dhimmiwatch were banned at my work on Friday because I couldn’t access them Tuesday.

    I work for IT and I know the people who make the IT decisions there and although they answer to the superintendents, ultimately they make the decisions, very good sway over the decision makers.

    What they’ve done is bann the site under the “Hate Speech” category. There is a games, a violence and a hate speech category. How the filter works is sites are added to it by updates, from another server. Any website that would have any mention of a keywords, like games…even on a website banner advertisement for another company. Not sure on the exact method of how the software distinguishes between many sites, but if it’s dumb software it may take keywords, and use a formula of how many keywords are triggered from a site determines if they will be red flagged.

    The filtering system at the board of education has a huge pool of websites that are blocked under those categories. This filtering software is like all updates, a “living” filter, meaning it is always adding websites to it’s block list. This server gets its update list from the filter software companies who ever it would be.

    I’m pretty sure this is software that many organizations and government are using because the board of education is obviously a government organization and this happened in southern Ontario. It is an extremely liberal politically correct board and has a huge amount of multiculturalism in it’s make up.

    Either way I’m ticked off …I don’t ask for much…my blueberry poptarts and my Jihadwatch !

  63. says

    Dear Robert,

    I have noticed very unhelpful hate speech left in the comments, probably by agent provocateurs for the express purpose of getting Jihad Watch censored.

    Could we perhaps help you by volunteering as supporters to help moderate this sort of stuff?

    I would be happy to take a turn on a rota and i am sure many others would too, given what is at stake!!

  64. says

    Hi Robert,, Folks,,

    HAPPY 4TH of JULY EVERYONE!!

    Was curious to see if a friend of mine in Chicago, could see the site. I asked him to check,, and he is ok,, on a private ISP.

    Again,, THANK you,, MR. Spencer,, for all that you are doing!!

    Namaste

    )0(

    solsticewitch13
    dar al harb

  65. says

    Why not first perform a simple test,albeit maybe lengthly,by someone working at one of these places who have blocked JW and visiting repeatedly another site,like CAIR (spit).

    To see if it will be banned by the system.

    If the system is programmed to block any site that has nothing to do with the buisiness at hand that at least would be some type of relief,not that it’s right.

    I’t would not be acceptable for me to use a computer for persoanl use at work.But on lunch breaks thats your time.

    I too am really upset about this as it is under “hate speech”,thats what really bothers me.

    Someone mentioned litigation and thats expensive with invetigative work,but a long time ago i stated there should be a collective or ANY law suit where an imam and a mosque incite,the heads of the terror states should be sued,even our gov. should be held accountable.The old saying “we won’t deal with terrorists”….BS.

    The truth is the only way to get publicity and the attention of the bleeding hearts is to burn and destroy (the new norm),then you get your way.

    This is what your gov. chooses to listen to.

    This though will all work out because what JW and the other banned sites and all of us have in common is we are right and the truth is on our side.

  66. says

    I agree with “Concerned Citizen” and others about boycott.

    A good informative campaign and site with a list of companies, as well as the background story and what’s at stake here (our freedom), should be made …with a banner (hate the word banner, but…) for freedom-defending blogs/sites can be spread. The penetration on Internet is quite important.

    BTW:
    Christianity is systematically bashed and Islam promoted on the university of my hometown, and the picture’s the same on universitys in Europe (and I would guess also in US now a days), so I think it’s important that a strong voice unconditionally against what is happening – the islamization – is established.

    Reading tip about this islamization: Bat Ye’or interviewed by Atlas Shrugs.

    atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2007/07/bat-and-me.html

  67. says

    Yes, I would like to thank you as well. You have given your life for this cause. I am sure that you were aware of the dangers before you started this, and most of us know just how dangerous it can be for you now.

  68. says

    If this is true I shall yank my accounts from B of A. Please let us know how this issue is involved. I have never found “hate” in anything that Robert of Hugh post.

  69. says

    If this is true I shall yank my accounts from B of A. Please let us know how this issue is involved. I have never found “hate” in anything that Robert or Hugh post.

  70. says

    If this is true I shall yank my accounts from B of A. Please let us know how this issue is involved. I have never found “hate” in anything that Robert or Hugh post.

  71. says

    I am terribly distressed by the banning of JW. I agree that some of the comments are distasteful, but we still do have freedom of speech. Furthermore I have never found “hate” in the original articles such as those posted by Robert, Hugh, Marisol et al. Maybe some occasional sardonic humor at worst. On the other hand the education done by JW is most valuable and should not be lost.

    I just donated $25 to Jihad Watch through my Pay Pal account. It is hardly anything, but I hope that all JW readers will make a donation to help fight those who are trying to censor this website. I am not affiliated with Jihad Watch in anyway and do not know any of the members personally. I just want to see this survive.

    Scroll down on the left side of the page. Please make a donation.

  72. says

    >>>Is that …solsticewitch13 In dar al harb??

    Or Is that a wink?

    Posted by: Dar al-harb

    >>>

    LOLOLOL!!!

    Yep,, it is solsticewitch13,, living in dar al harb,,

    since the 7th century nut cases,, divided the world into 2 camps,,, glad I am in the land of the SANE AND FREE!!!

    solsticewitch13
    dar al harb

    “freedom is just another word for nothing left to loose”,, Janis Joplin

  73. says

    With increased exposure comes increased responsibility. I emplore all JW/DW community members to meter their comments as many unseen eyes are now upon us.

    The timing of the mass-banning is peculiar to say the least. Typical response: The Islamic jihadists rampage, again, and the important immediate thing to do is to ban sites that provide the factual truth about the incidents.

    greatcometof1577 is right, follow the money. This thing stinks from the head on down.

  74. says

    One reader mentioned the comment posts…..that is what I suspected….from my own experience of how IT works from the inside…..I don’t even think that IT knows this site exists let alone have a political view on it.

    Somehow someway it’s falling under this hate speech category, and I’m pretty certain it’s due to keywords that trigger, they are counted and enough triggered keywords would red flag the site.

    It very well could be the comment posts that are flagging this site, I suspect that is the source of the problem.

  75. says

    This is not the only site around and public opinion is no different, the worse thing now is the government saying you are not allowed to use the term Muslim if they are terrorists, wonder who is wearing the veil.

    Relating to recent news:
    What if the ill person has been ill due to alcohol poisoning or had to have his stomach pumped and if he was surrounded by Muslim doctors.
    A: They should help all humans are equal?
    B: Do not help; maybe he will die in his own vomit the sinner?

    Unlike Jesus he welcomed sinners are they are the ones who need help, not Muhammad’s way that cuts your head because he is so superior and became a Muslim before you did. Maybe not all Muslims are like this but why so many fall into this way of thinking no other religion does out side Satanism, sacrifice to the Gods, hard to tell who the pagans are these days.

    Also those doctors who orchestrated the London car bombs are not as cleaver as they seem. Those canisters need extreme heat to blow up, and one was a genius? I think he should read Shakespeare or throw the Koran its for their best interest.

    Also why is the UK so dumb in letting people in from Iraq that we know we are still at war with? If conspiracies are true then the government who are Biblically blind and maybe dark forced inspired are part of the same satanic cloud that creates the problem only for us people to agree on handing over our freedoms so that one day as the Book of Revelations warn, the earth will bow down to an anti-Christ system, where the next step will be ID cards and like cattle we will be marked and tracked. There are two systems at play here and the bad is using the badder to get evil.

  76. says

    But I, their customer, also have every right to associate with companies that share my basic values, and disassociate from those that do not.

    Yes, you have the option of taking your business elsewhere. That is what they will tell you.

    This is true for private business. It is NOT true for Federal, State, or local government offices, for public school systems, or for universities that receive federal funding. In all these places, the principle of equal access applies. While the Supreme Court does allow these to block pornography and hate sites that advocate violence, they cannot block something on political or ideological grounds.

    Yes, they can, and they do. They can block whatever websites they want, whatever websites they deem offensive, or “hate” websites. That title “hate” has no quantifiable definition and thus can be used to justify any censorship at any level. Indeed, the government already has dubious hate crime laws on the books which themselves are arbitrary and for which they do not have to answer. PC ideology is apart of government policy, surely this is not shocking news to our readers.