| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
It's ironic that just as mainstream articles are appearing that say about Islam and jihad what I've been saying for years -- although they've not appeared in the U.S., and were not written by me -- I've been getting word that Jihad Watch is banned in various places.
First, an email from a Jihad Watch reader:
I work in government for the City of Chicago. As inevitable as it is to use the Internet while at work (though discouraged unless it is for offficial business, the reality is that most every employee invariably checks the Internet), I found that your website was officially blocked as of today, Monday July 2, 2007. It was not blocked for the past few years even up until last Friday. You may find it interesting to note that CAIR's website is fully accessible, along with other virulent jihad-oriented websites. When my secular infidel co-workers and I, equally interested in the excellent anti-hate (idem est jihad) material that you provide attempted to access your site today, we received a notice "Blocked. Category: Hate Speech."
I also received this email yesterday:
The PC police at Bank of America have Denied Access to jihadwatch.org.
And this one:
Roberto, Here I am in Denver for training on my new job...staying at the Red Lion Hotel....I go down to the business center here and try to access Jihad Watch....They have something called SITE COACH that will not allow access to the site---reason---HATE MONGERING.
Now, I've long been used to the tactic used by jihadists and their allies -- labeling any opposition to the jihad ideology, and particularly any exploration of the elements of Islam that the jihadists use to incite violence, as "hatemongering." But that doesn't mean I am going to acquiesce to it. This site is dedicated to the defense of human rights against the depredations of jihad supremacism, which would subjugate women and religious minorities. There is nothing hateful about that, and nothing to apologize for.
So if anyone reading this knows of any way to contact the relevant authorities at the city of Chicago, Bank of America, and/or "Site Coach," please pass them along. We are not going to be silenced without offering resistance.
ADDENDUM: Another. This just in:
Same thing happened at Fidelity Investments, your (great) site is now blocked.
Again: if anyone knows any way I can deal with this and try to reverse it, please let me know.
Posted by Robert at July 3, 2007 1:59 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
idiocy (including islam) rules our world
Posted by: TINBH![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at July 3, 2007 2:20 PM
On the positive side, they probably denied access since TOO MANY employees (and probably more often) were accessing it during work hours. Each day more and more are beginning to understand and realize the threat that is islam.
Posted by: PissBeUponHim at July 3, 2007 2:29 PM
Just in time for Independence Day.
Posted by: MP at July 3, 2007 2:32 PM
Leftofascism is hard at work, Robert.
Posted by: Foehammer at July 3, 2007 2:34 PM
The head idiots in charge at the city of Chicago, Bank of America, and Site Coach need to have a fistful of murderous Islamic suras shoved violently up their peace loving asses.
How's that for hate speech?
Funny how this is a contemporary tactic of individuals who have no concept of evil. Keep the masses stupid, clueless and controlled. Suppress individual dissent as much as possible. Live like human cattle, die like human cattle.
Whatever idiot or idiots are responsible for these choices need to be the first in line to suffer an Islamic terrorist attack/first in line to die in the slaughter house...same thing.
Maybe then they will not suppress free speech. Maybe then they will demarcate what is logical speech and what is hate speech.
Posted by: Quantum Infidel at July 3, 2007 2:36 PM
"Hate Speech" now includes exposing the TRUTH?
What's next for these Truth-Supressors, sensoring the news? Oh wait, they already do that.
Posted by: champ at July 3, 2007 2:36 PM
Many firewall appliances manufacturers provide a catogorized download to adjust access rules as a service. This makes it easier for network administrators being they don't need to adjust rules manually. It could be that the word jihad in your domain name is throwing a flag. Maybe you could purchase another domain name and IP address. A name like PRAI.org (Peoples Rights Against Islam) or something like that.
Posted by: Abrog8 at July 3, 2007 2:40 PM
-I have a gnawing feeling that DhimmiWatch.org might NOT be banned, seeing as how that's how many administrative-higher-ups act in the face of Islamic apologists, and 'Progressives'-
Posted by: localmalcontent at July 3, 2007 2:41 PM
Leftofascism is hard at work, Robert.
Posted by: Foehammer at July 3, 2007 2:41 PM
Has anyone considered the possibility that Muslim employees at many of these commercial and civil institutions are working in the IT departments of said institutions and they are the one responsible for the filtering that is going on there.
It also is a possibility that the WAN at these institutions in hosted offsite at large webhosting companies. These companies may also have Muslim employees that have blocked certain sites from being accessed by any of their customers.
Posted by: detocquevilledisciple
at July 3, 2007 2:45 PM
Or better yet.....
PRAI.org (Peoples Rights Abrogate Islam)
Posted by: Abrog8 at July 3, 2007 2:46 PM
Maybe jihadwatch.org should be called rainbowsandbutterflies.org.
Posted by: mustang65 at July 3, 2007 2:52 PM
I would think this has first amendment implications. Just because you are at work doesn’t give the city or any corp free reign to tear up the first amendment. Its all or nothing, if they allow internet access they must follow the rules of the country that they operate in. I would like to see them challenged, they need to be stopped or they will continue to chip away at our rights. How bout it, any JW lawyers out there?
Posted by: tgusa at July 3, 2007 2:55 PM
Bannings like that strongly suggest that whoever is in charge of blacklisting sites isn't actually looking at them, but taking someone else's word for it.
That raises a question: who was consulted for lists of "hate" websites? I would speculate that they went to advocacy organizations for various groups-- gender, ethnicity, sexual preference, religion, etc., etc.
And, if I'm correct about that, who vetted the advocacy organizations? Probably no one. They were all probably assumed to be equally benevolent in their intentions.
Posted by: MarisolJW at July 3, 2007 2:59 PM
So the Empire Strikes Back . . . at least you know you are making an impact.
I am an attorney, and I have actually written e-mail use policies for clients. Since the employer owns the servers, if the employer has a well written policy, they can pretty much do what they want. However, public employers (e.g. the city) has less discretion that private employers.
Government is limited by the First Amendment, while private employers are not. Thus, private employers can get away with discriminating based on content. Government can not.
Posted by: JSobieski at July 3, 2007 3:03 PM
i am going to take a wild guess and suggest that the excuse will be the content of some of the comments posted at JW.
i do try to be on my best behaviour, but please feel free to delete me if that will help to get around this PC "stuff" !
one man's need to rant is totally outweighed by the need to get JW through to the target - or something like that.
at July 3, 2007 3:04 PM
This is actually an opportunity, as offensive as it is. This type of labeling invites a response. It should help Robert get some air time in Chicago.
I do think some of us posters do probably hurt the cause.
Posted by: JSobieski at July 3, 2007 3:15 PM
Robert
In my last job, JihadWatch was luckily not banned, but faithfreedom.org was banned as a hate site, while Chronicles Magazine, where Srdja Trifkovic writes, was blocked for being an 'extremist' site.
It would be one thing if they banned all internet access except for work related activity. But allowing people to browse, say, news sites, while blocking JW, while legal given that they are pivate corporations (okay, not the city of Chicago), is essentially such organizations trying to regulate public opinion.
I normally don't advocate this, but I suggest retaliating with defamatory lawsuits (as opposed to a free-speech lawsuit, where it would be uphill, since any private organization has the right to regulate what its employees do on work time). These clowns wouldn't dare block Islamic or Jihadi sites, which are sources of real hate. Essentially, you have the powers that be taking the path of least resistance: if they knew that banning JihadWatch risked them having to spend time on lawsuits, they'd think at least 50 times before trying such antics.
Surely, there must be a lawyer willing to do this pro bono for you? Any here on JW?
Posted by: Infidel Pride at July 3, 2007 3:18 PM
Banning a direct link is a temporary setback. The antijihad masses will see to it with mirror sites and quotes from the original post by Robert with direct links to the stories of which he and his crew discuss. . . a sort of whack a mole game the censors will tire from and loose.
Recall the global firestorm over the Jylland's Posten cartoons birthed Zombietimes Mohammed Image Archive - which survived all censoring/hacking efforts regardless of continent.
Fred Thompson recently made a statement about the futility of attempting to control speech in the technological age . . .
I’ll tell you something that those who want to control the media apparently don’t know. Everyday, more people are listening to streaming radio on the Web and downloading podcasts. Some popular talk shows skip radio altogether and go straight to the Internet. You can even hear talk shows on Web-enabled telephones if you want, and that will get much easier and cheaper quickly.If the current stars of talk were pushed off the radio dial, they’d get their audiences anyway. The era of controllable media is over, and nothing will ever bring it back.
AMEN to that Fred . . .AMEN.
Posted by: justamomof4 at July 3, 2007 3:23 PM
I would think this has first amendment implications. Just because you are at work doesn’t give the city or any corp free reign to tear up the first amendment.
Oh yes they can.
Government is limited by the First Amendment, while private employers are not. Thus, private employers can get away with discriminating based on content. Government cannot.
True. However, as you know as an attorney, a government agency can have a written policy stating simply that the use of IT facilities of any kind are strictly for the business purposes of the government agency.
The State of Illinois has, as does the Windy City, such a policy in place; if I am not mistaken it is considered a violation of "ethics" to improperly use state or city facilities -- including e-mail -- for personal use.
Depending on how this policy is worded, the offending employee can face disciplinary action including involuntary termination of employment without recourse.
And yes, most employees in just about every IT department these days (especially government agencies) seems to be ... "asian" or "eastern" and that could be a factor as someone above suggested.
Posted by: witness at July 3, 2007 3:25 PM
As for Red Lion & Site coach, they can be brought to heel. After all, the service they are providing is for their paying customers, so if we bombard them with e-mail threatening to take our business elsewhere, maybe they'll listen. As for BofA, they're on their own, while I'm not sure about the city of Chicago.
One thing I do know - if my home ISP were to dare try such an antic, they'd hear from me: no way could anyone tell me what I could or couldn't view.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at July 3, 2007 3:26 PM
I am inclined to believe that JihadWatch was blocked by leftist bureaucrats, possibly after complaints by muslims and probably without any real scrutiny of the website. The left cherish and worship multiculturalism, considering it the pinnacle of moral human endeavor. They will stop at nothing to Balkanize this country because they actually believe, despite reams of evidence to the contrary, that multiculturalism is the only antidote to ethnic/religious/cultural conflict. How can they sit by silently and allow anyone to expose the truth about islam?
They made up their minds long ago that islam is a religion like all others, no worse and probably much better than Christianity, but since muslims suffer from the debilitating effects of bigotry and racism, they are the quintessential example of persecuted victims of American imperialism. Gee, that's their favorite topic and imperative---the defense of the downtrodden. If muslims are violent sociopaths, it's because we aren't nice enough to them. They have no curiosity or intellectual interest in learning the facts about islam because they are moral relativists. Evil exists only in Western Civilization. Once they fix that, peace and harmony will prevail. They are utter morons and just as dangerous as our islamic enemies.
at July 3, 2007 3:27 PM
JW is not blocked at my place of work but other sites are. Something that works here (but of course may not work elsewhere) for Internet Explorer is
Tools -> Intenet Options -> Connections -> Lan Settings
and then uncheck
Automatically Detect Settings
For me, it bypasses the Proxy Server. Unfortunately it is temporay measure as Group Policies refesh this setting :-(
at July 3, 2007 3:38 PM
Well, here it is:
http://www.sitekiosk.com/en-US/SiteKiosk/ContentFilter.aspx
BigDaddy
Posted by: BigDaddy at July 3, 2007 3:39 PM
I wonder if the true hate site, jewwatch.com is blocked for being hate speech.
I would say odds are it is not.
Posted by: gillmj24 at July 3, 2007 3:42 PM
So now if one of us was to go and blow himself up taking along with him a few good citizens of the windy city; would this be construde as justifiable action on the grounds of "Jihadwatchophobia"?
Where is that rage boy when you need him!
at July 3, 2007 3:53 PM
And to think I was shocked earlier by Gordon Brown's "Don't say Muslim" directive.
Well, I was shocked.
But, now I'm extremely shocked. These people who have blocked JW do not know what they've done.
Posted by: darcy at July 3, 2007 3:58 PM
Why don't these people fight this?
The muslims have just found another way to stop knowledge from being spread about their ways. This is their goal and the way that they can gain ground. They blossom in an ignorant society.
Posted by: R_not at July 3, 2007 4:00 PM
...new book title......BANNED.....
Posted by: exsgtbrown at July 3, 2007 4:05 PM
Sod the lawyers - aren't there any whizzkid hacker readers who can get in there and bugger up the filters?
Surely this is not impossible in an era when a 16yr-old boy from the valleys of South Wales (and take my word for it - the valleys of South Wales are places even hicks call Hicksville. I'm Welsh) can hack into the Pentagon's file inner sanctum?
NIKE
Posted by: Sir Henry Morgan at July 3, 2007 4:10 PM
Can anyone who knows WW2 history furnish a parallel of something like this happening with the Nazis? Because, history repeats itself, you know...
Posted by: darcy at July 3, 2007 4:12 PM
This is the same disgraced Chicago where a cowardly jury acquitted 2 Hamas terrorists earlier this year. Chicago suburb Bridgeview is as much Hamastan as Gaza, and the meek locals all around are groveling dhimmies. Revolting.
Ruslan Tokhchukov, EnragedSince1999.
Posted by: Enragedsince1999 at July 3, 2007 4:23 PM
Abrog8 makes a good point which has to be investigated first before we jump to any conclusions that JW is being banned for actual (as opposed to incidental) content. The fact that it seems to be simultaneous in a number of places suggests that the title word "jihad" is causing the problem. If it's no mistake and JW is singled out for hate speech then this is a very serious matter.
Posted by: alexon at July 3, 2007 4:23 PM
robert,
i think you should consider sueing the persons responsible for defamation for calling you a racist. even if you did not win it would still give you the opprotunity to discover who exactly the parties responsible for this slander against you are.
Posted by: irish_infidel at July 3, 2007 4:27 PM
Is there a way to find out what other sites are blocked by City of Chicago, Bank of America, Red Lion, and Fidelity Investments? I would like to know what other sites these organizations want to censor. Can this can only be done by trial and error or can Site Coach or the firewall/blocking program be accessed to get a listing of blocked sites or perhaps tags or keywords. I am sure that there are JW readers and contributors with the sophistication and computer knowledge to provide this information.
Posted by: Alek at July 3, 2007 4:34 PM
This may serve those being blocked for the near term.
Posted by: Abrog8 at July 3, 2007 4:38 PM
Robert-
Something like this happened to LGF some months ago. Charles was able to get the category of his site changed. I think it was due to pressure from readers.
Posted by: astuddis at July 3, 2007 4:42 PM
Question, doesn't the CAIR website use the word "jihad"? I am sure they do so, this isn't the excuse to ban JW. This is another attack on the ability for anyone to have a meaningful discussion about Islam. This is just another example of how our enemies use our own rules against us, and when I say enemies I don't mean Islam. The dhimmitude is so thick you can cut it with a scimitar. Robert, keep it up, please! When you are censured it just means you have gotten under their skin and boils are forming. Thank you, Robert and JW!!!
"Islamophobes of the world, Unite!"
at July 3, 2007 4:44 PM
Greetings:
This give you a good idea of the sophistication of the jihadist media war.
They go after all kinds of sites to purge what illuminates and thus distresses them.
My personal favorite was a YouTube clip entitled "Doing it Iraqi Style" which was a surveillance video of an Iraqi in a "man-dress" having sex with the back end of a donkey while his partner held on to the front end.
Posted by: 11B40 at July 3, 2007 4:45 PM
We need more details of the denial message. What is the firewall manufacturer? The name of the company effected is not very helpful. I tested the WatchGaurd SurfControl service and JW is not listed in the hate speech catagory.
WatchGaurd defines it's hate speech catagory as follows;
Advocating or inciting degradation or attack of specified populations or institutions based on associations such as religion, race, nationality, gender, age, disability, or sexual orientation
Promoting a political or social agenda that is supremacist in nature and exclusionary of others based on their race, religion, nationality, gender, age, disability, or sexual orientation
Holocaust revisionist/denial sites
Coercion or recruitment for membership in a gang* or cult**
Militancy, extremist
Note: we do not include news, historical, or press incidents that may include the above criteria (except in graphic examples).
*A gang is defined as: a group whose primary activities are the commission of felonious criminal acts, which has a common name or identifying sign or symbol, and whose members individually or collectively engage in criminal activity in the name of the group.
**A cult is defined as: a group whose followers have been deceptively and manipulatively recruited and retained through undue influence such that followers' personalities and behavior are altered. Leadership is all-powerful, ideology is totalistic, and the will of the individual is subordinate to the group. Sets itself outside of society.
at July 3, 2007 5:01 PM
If the block is because of "Hate Speech" it should be protested loudly. However, I work in a large public school (for you Brits, that's a government school) and find sometimes either or both Jihad Watch and Dhimmi Watch are banned for a few days, then it gets un-blocked. When I checked into it, I found the school system (rightfully in my opinion) installed software designed keep the teenagers from accessing porn.
The reason JW/DW had been temporarily blocked was that too many posters had repeatedly used the f-word or other obscenities in their posts. So let's be careful about using obscenities and other nasty language because JW/DW is a valuable resource for whole families and needs to be accessible even to teens. Besides, having met Robert, I know he is a man of absolute decency and a class act, so while we are guests on his site, we can at least abbreviate the foul language.
Posted by: Provoslavni at July 3, 2007 5:13 PM
I found this legal action
http://countenance.wordpress.com/tag/censorship/
and this complaint
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2007/03/istevecom-banned-by-kmart.html
then this configuration
http://www.sitekiosk.com/Help/SiteKiosk/sitecoach/index.htm
It seems SiteCoach is old news. Probably not many effected by it. I would like to see more details on the others being blocked. Like is it a hardware or software firewall. Who manufactures it.
Posted by: Abrog8 at July 3, 2007 5:17 PM
How about complaints agains muslim sites by employees who are denied access to Jihad Watch. Get their sites banned. If they aren't banned as hate sites, then bring a lawsuit against the employer. Just an idea.
Posted by: TexasInfidel at July 3, 2007 5:18 PM
Well, I have sent brief but meaningful e-mails to Red Lion Hotels Corp., Bank of America, and Fidelity Investments. "Meaningful" in that I said I would never avail myself of their services as long as JihadWatch.org was banned for their employees. And for Red Lion, for it's patrons.
Posted by: darcy at July 3, 2007 5:20 PM
CAIR is already starting the harrassment backlash drumbeat. I just found this piece of propaganda posted at the website for KTVU, a San Francisco television station:
"Report: Harassment Of Bay Area Muslims On The Rise"
POSTED: 2:02 pm PDT July 3, 2007
http://www.ktvu.com/news/13617040/detail.html
The local CAIR chapter claims to have documented everthing from "taunts to fatal assaults." Funny, but I'm a news junkie, and I don't remember reading/hearing about any fatal assaults in The Bay Area attributed to anti-Muslim sentiment. On the other hand, how many fatal assaults have Muslims perpetrated on innocent victims around the world?
Posted by: Kalifornia Kafir at July 3, 2007 5:24 PM
Alek said
Is there a way to find out what other sites are blocked by City of Chicago, Bank of America, Red Lion, and Fidelity Investments?
I'm no expert on firewalls or content-control programs, but here is what I understand. All http requests at the site are routed through a proxy. The proxy looks at the address being requested, and if it's "bad", redirects to some "Access Denied" page. The content-control program comes with a list of thousands of "bad" sites. The administrator at a particular site can add addresses to the "allow" list or to the "deny" list to customize it. I'm sure the content-control program also includes periodic automatic updates (just like virus protection software).
Probably, jihadwatch.org recently got added to the program's list of "deny" sites; maybe these three businesses use the same content-control program, and so they all got updated at the same time.
Another possibility is, as suggested above, that "Asian youths" working as admins in those companies took it upon themselves to manually add jihadwatch.org to the "deny" list. Perhaps there has been some coordination on some of the Islamic websites (similar to what they do with utube) that the admins are following. Or, perhaps the coordination came in the form of pressure from "major stockholders".
To see a list of what sites they deny and allow, you'd have to be an administrator at one of the businesses. We're probably not going to be able to get that information.
If I worked at one of these, I'd consider (carefully and politely) inquiring further about what the process is for deciding which sites are censored. I might even quietly contact someone in the networking group (by phone, not by email), to see if they had any additional information (eg. What software do they use? Who has authority to change the "allow" and "deny" lists? Is there a procedure, is there any oversight? Is there a change log?).
Since I'm a customer and not an employee of BofA, I'm more free to press them on this. Of course there will only be some canned response, but the PR offices are very sensitive to this sort of publicity. I'm also a customer of Fidelity, so I'll write them too. I'd recommend others to do the same.
I was just thinking the other day about how amazing it was that no-one has yet tried to stifle JW/DW. I really thought that either our government or the Saudis would have done something by now to stop the free flow of information about Islam. Perhaps I was too cynical ... or ... perhaps this is the opening salvo.
Posted by: special_guest at July 3, 2007 5:28 PM
Something like this happened to LGF some months ago. Charles was able to get the category of his site changed. I think it was due to pressure from readers.
Posted by: astuddis at July 3, 2007 4:42
Here are a few links from April: (reverse order)
(Websense update, block removed)
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=25023_Websense_Update-_Block_Removed&only
(Websense damage spreading)
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=25019_Websense_Damage_Spreading&only
(Update: Websense Blocking LGF, the Company List)
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=25016_Update-_Websense_Blocking_LGF_the_Company_List&only
(Websense Blocking LGF, Emails Pouring In - Update! Is Websense Fibbing?)
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=25013_Websense_Blocking_LGF_Emails_Pouring_In_-_Update!_Is_Websense_Fibbing&only
(WebSense Blocking LGF)
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=24998_WebSense_Blocking_LGF&only
at July 3, 2007 5:51 PM
From what i gather there are at least three different offices under Fidelity Investments in Chicago.
The Home Page phone number is 1-800-FIDELITY
Posted by: Dar al-harb at July 3, 2007 5:51 PM
Looking at the up side, I'm thrilled, ne OVERJOYED to hear that someone, and perhaps multiple people woking in Chicago government are on our side. It gets so discouraging living here, between 2nd amendment issues, being declared a "sanctuary" area (Cook County), and the constant cloud of being represented by Senators Durbin and Obama, not to mention Jessee Jackson (Sr and Jr) and his ilk.
Posted by: dm60462 at July 3, 2007 5:59 PM
Abrog8 makes a good point which has to be investigated first before we jump to any conclusions that JW is being banned for actual (as opposed to incidental) content. The fact that it seems to be simultaneous in a number of places suggests that the title word "jihad" is causing the problem. If it's no mistake and JW is singled out for hate speech then this is a very serious matter.
Posted by: alexon
The Hate Speech part is enough said.
It needs to be faught tooth and nail.
If muslims can spew thier bile on you tube all the live long day and in public and not be considered Hate Speech,i fail to see how Jihadwatch or any of it's allies come even close.
Like i said i would be taking my pitbull jawed jew lawyers for a walk.
I can see if it's because of a work thing.Maybe the workers can view JW and it's allies while the muslims are on break praying?
Or maybe an anti jihad praying room with full internet access and JW as the homepage?
Hate speech.Obviously hate speech is in the confused category with the word innocent?
Posted by: Dar al-harb at July 3, 2007 6:04 PM
Here's another link about LGF filtering, (and JihadWatch), from a year ago, which may not have been resolved:
(Web Censors Block Anti-Jihad Sites?)
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21468_Web_Censors_Block_Anti-Jihad_Sites&only
at July 3, 2007 6:07 PM
"Fairness doctrine"?
Posted by: Hugh at July 3, 2007 6:29 PM
Saying that Jihadwatch is hate speech, is hate speech.
I'd sue 'um.
Posted by: feralcat9 at July 3, 2007 6:33 PM
for slander.
Posted by: feralcat9 at July 3, 2007 6:34 PM
Interesting that all these JW block's are happening at about the same time. It would be possible to develope a conspirasy theory over it, that may turn out to be more than a theory. It would be interesting to know how many of these banning's were 'in house', and how many were influenced by someone outside...Banning JW from the workplace is a silent weapon...it has made no noise untill now...
Posted by: duh_swami at July 3, 2007 6:35 PM
I think somebody above already mentioned that the first step to trying to change the categorization is to identify where the blocking is coming from. Aside from the Red Lion email, which mentions Site Coach, do any of the other emails contain information on the blocking entity? Robert, can you email them and ask for more information? A screen shot would be ideal.
Posted by: FloatingRock at July 3, 2007 6:41 PM
Abrog8-
Very nice work around. Thanks for the link.
Mr. Spencer:
Consider having the site(s) mirrored under a non-threatening name for access through filters.
Ihadawatch.org, perhaps? (The name is available.)
And put a big countdown clock at the top of the page ticking off the days to Midnight Eurabia, perhaps?
Posted by: profitsbeard at July 3, 2007 6:44 PM
Duh_swami, it’s likely that all of the companies involved use Site Coach for their filtering, although there may be another filtering application involved as well. Generally the way it works is that Site Coach will maintain a master list on their servers, which they are responsible for and which their clients will periodically update from. The companies probably have no idea this change occurred unless they’ve already gotten feedback.
You may be right about the possibility of a conspiracy in so far as Islamists and their liberal friends may have had an email campaign to encourage the blocking of Jihad Watch.
at July 3, 2007 6:54 PM
Someone up above mentioned "JewWatch".
It would be neat of JihadWatch if they had a companion website called "ChristianWatch". Then leave the page blank SINCE there are no Christians bombing people. How difficult is it to put up a one page website and then list ALLLLL the violence committed by Christians in the Name of Jesus?
The site would be boring, but it would make a point.
Sample story: Christians take 6 year old child and straps on Safety seat. No explosions occurred of course and the child reached their destination safely.
Posted by: FLLegal at July 3, 2007 6:56 PM
Can the readers back-door in from DhimmiWatch or is it banned as well?
I will not be doing any banking with BOA, who also solicits credit card accounts for illegal aliens. The city of Chicago has been reached by the pukes at CAIR.
Never fear, Robert, this will just make people all the more anxious to read JihadWatch when they get home. I don't access JW at work, I do access it from my house.
Not the ultimate consolation, but accessing from home is still available, and still large. Here is some ranking information for JW:
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=jihadwatch.org&url=jihadwatch.org/
Posted by: Prickzilla at July 3, 2007 6:58 PM
We're not going to be silenced....at all.
at July 3, 2007 7:00 PM
Ford motor have blocked this site as well, also Dhimmi watch.
The way round it is to look at the cached pages on google, a couple of days late but all there.
at July 3, 2007 7:06 PM
While it’s possible that the word “Jihad” in the domain name might have flagged JihadWatch to the filtering company, it’s unlikely that that alone is responsible for the block. Mirroring the domain name may be a short-term option but eventually they’ll get around to blocking the mirror as well. The quickest way to tackle the problem is to convince Site Coach and any other filter company that might be involved that JihadWatch is not a hate site.
Posted by: FloatingRock at July 3, 2007 7:12 PM
"Blocked. Category: Hate Speech"
This is a good example why I have always opposed any kind of hate laws or codes that are ligsalated by any government in the United States. To some well intentioned people such laws and codes sound good, but the simple truth is that that thery have no other purpose than to punish people for what they think -- and subsequently say.
Voltaire said "I might not agree with what you say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it." That used to be the ideal in our free and democratic society, but now, after a generation of being conditioned to believe that stampling out hate is more important than preserving freedom of speech, we're now faced with the inevitable consequences of forgetting the wisdom of what Voltaire said.
You cannot have a free society and accede to the government the authority to punish anyone for what they or anyone else thinks and says.
This is not normal in a free society, it's an aberation -- and a dangerous one at that.
Some very dull-witted people think that these laws will be used only to target bonafide hate groups, and that really truthful and honest people and groups have nothing to worry about. Well they had better wake up. any law that can be used to silence others can also be used to silence them. And enforcement of such laws can be, and will be, incredibly selective. the fact that Jihad watch is blocked in the Chicago government office and the CAIR site is still accessible, is proof of that.
The winners in all this won't be the do-gooders who think they're combating hate, it'll be the hate mongers who are combating truth and free expression.
There's a new Hate crimes law that just sailed through the House, and is about to sail through the Senate. It could very well be construed by courts to restrict what a clergyman can preach from his pulpit regarding his version of what constitutes sinful bahavior.
I don't think we've seen anything yet. Tragically, I believe the day is comming when honest people like Robert Spence will be hauled before Judges to answer for their crimes.
Posted by: rational at July 3, 2007 7:24 PM
I tried to login to jihadwatch.org yesterday at the VA. Guess what? It was now listed as a hate site. I queried the webmaster and he doesn't have an answer. I'm going to continue my questioning.
Posted by: The IMO at July 3, 2007 7:24 PM
If I had employees, I would block jihadwatch as well. You are there to work, not read articles.
Posted by: baraka66 at July 3, 2007 7:25 PM
Well I can tell you what chicago's problem is, and it's the jihadists willing accomplices within their unholy alliance, called AFSCME (american federation of state city and municipal workers union), aka, "anti-american fanatical socialist communist militant employees" (that conclusion based on their own words and actions-not mine), the second most militant leftist labor organization in America.
fidelity investments is also no surprise since most of their operations is in boston...nuf` sed.
More political correctness...home of the oxymoronic "fairness doctrine".
Posted by: jcom972 at July 3, 2007 7:27 PM
For those of you who want to get around the block, try an anonymous connection proxy. The following link works, but my network isn't blocked, but it maintains the anonymus connectin proxy during browsing:
http://anonymouse.org/cgi-bin/anon-www.cgi/http://frontpagemagazine.com
Posted by: scattergood at July 3, 2007 7:33 PM
The way round it is to look at the cached pages on google, a couple of days late but all there.
Posted by: idiotboy
--------------------------------
Cached pages on google??? How do you do this?
Posted by: Provoslavni at July 3, 2007 7:34 PM
I remember the LGF incident like this one. It was reversed pretty quickly, so there's hope.
To the poster who mentioned foul language as a possible cause: I think if it were that (I know I'm guilty, although I like to put symbols in for letters when I'm letting the expletives fly), the site would have come up as "Profanity" not "Hate Speech". This was definitely an ideological move, not a moralistic move, by the site blocking software manufacturer(s).
Posted by: venividivici at July 3, 2007 8:07 PM
This is an opportunity. Someone in the USA should get some friends together and have a peaceful protest calling for these banks to stop censoring anti-Jihad web sites. You could send out a press release and get some of the media to come out. Make some comments about how this action makes the Banks look pro-jihadist or something like that. A couple hundred thousand people might see the news story and come to this web site.
Use these sorts of situations in a non-violent manner as an opportunity. Whining about being wronged is like masturbation. It feels good but gives birth to nothing. Engage in peaceful political activism!
Posted by: James Martel at July 3, 2007 8:09 PM
If I had employees, I would block jihadwatch as well. You are there to work, not read articles.
Posted by: baraka66 at July 3, 2007 7:25 PM
Would you block the CAIR site, or just jihadwatch?
Posted by: Prickzilla at July 3, 2007 8:12 PM
Letter to Fidelity and similar to BOA....Common folks...Ramp it up!
Dear Fidelity
It has been broght to my attention that Fidelity Investments has had the web site Jihad Watch banned from company internet access.Please understand my disapproval.Jihad Watch provides a valuable service by informing the public of inherant dangers of islamisism. It may be that Fidelity did not by their own accord ban this site but rather was banned by some service...for this you get the benefit of the doubt for now. I have been a Fidelity customer for over 25 years and have a fair amount of assets with your company but will not hesitate for one second to pull all assets and redirect them to another company if this condition is not alleviated. Thank you for prompt attention to this detail.
at July 3, 2007 8:33 PM
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
Judging from the executives who own and operate the firm, it is highly unlikely that they are Islamists or sympathizers. See their profiles here: https://www.provisio.com/en-US/Company/Management.aspx
Interestingly, if you go to Yahoo! and type in "jihad watch" as the search criterion on a machine running SiteKiosk the denial returns: "Forbidden keyword - Jew Haters!"
The term may have been or is being used by an Islamic support group. I am sure an email from Robert will correct the problem.
The others are more mysterious. It is not a simple matter of a software program that limits public kiosks for the safety of children, but a clearly purposeful act by the organization and the firewall programmer. Although third-party site and keyword lists are available, the network admin can add or subtract from it according to company policy. I did this myself. Many innocuous sites get blocked by filtering software. It was just a matter of the person saying to me "Waaa, I want to see this site" and my adding the site to the permitted list.
I know that BofA settled a discrimination suit brought by Arabs last year(they received the case along with their purchase of FleetBoston) and their reputation was sullied by it - could be linked. Another problem is the number of H1B's from the Middle East running IT departments. Nothing is in place to prevent them from site filtering at their leisure. However, the word Jihad is hot and will be present in most denial databases. It may be harmless oversight, but if a request to add this site is denied then there is a clear indication of Dhimmitude.
at July 3, 2007 8:40 PM
"This is a good example why I have always opposed any kind of hate laws or codes that are ligsalated by any government in the United States."
rational: We're soulmates, then. The first time I heard the term 'hate crime', I nearly fainted. What crime is not a hate crime?
And, hate speech--Jesus, Mary and Joseph! (Start dialing 911, progressive.)
I keep feeling like we're just a law away from thought crime!
Posted by: Abscedere at July 3, 2007 8:40 PM
I’m not saying that people shouldn’t email the individual companies that use SiteCoach, but I would recommend emailing Provisio first, the makers of SiteCoach.
Their contact page is here:
http://www.sitekiosk.com/en-US/Company/Contact.aspx
at July 3, 2007 8:43 PM
Copy of a letter I just sent to Fidelity:
I have money in a retirement acocunt with Fidelity, and have for some years. It's come to my attention that access to the website jihadwatch.org has been officially blocked on Fidelity computers. The excuse offered is that the site is a purveyor of "hate speech." Nothing could be further from the truth. Any reasonable person who spends just a few minutes reading the site will attest to this. Singling out this site for suppression is a naked attempt to stifle reasoned criticism on one of the most vital issues of interest to Americans, and indeed the world today. This affront to common sense and the principles of free speech is only compounded when websites such as CAIR.org and other purveyors of actuall jihadist hate speech remain accessible.
As a private business, it is of course Fidelity's prerogative to ban any site that it chooses. But you should be aware that this sort of unwarranted censorhip creates a very negative impression on your firm, and will surely result in loss of business. I will be instructing my financial advisor to remove any funds I have in Fidelity accounts immediately.
at July 3, 2007 8:51 PM
Screw Fidelity....or should it be muslim infidelity????
Anyone out there got money in that weak company move it out as I did with my last employer.
I am earning big returns with Primerica and they are a solid US company...no jihadist ties.
I will inform my other insurance partners and clients about this crap with Fidelity.
at July 3, 2007 9:44 PM
Prickzilla, your stat link provides a traffic graph indicating declining hits.
Hugh's comment, "fairness doctrine" hits a nerve.
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
further examination reveals:
the one political candidate that Alex supported in 1992 was Douglas Anderson
JSTOR: The Supreme Court, the First Amendment, and Bad Journalism ... 27 Colum Hum Rts L Rev 57, 64-67 (1985); Douglas Anderson and Marian Murdock, ..... 395 US 367 (1969) (upholding the fairness doctrine which required ...
Not very current but interesting, none-the-less.
at July 3, 2007 9:51 PM
If I had employees, I would block jihadwatch as well. You are there to work, not read articles.
Posted by: baraka66 at July 3, 2007 7:25 PM
Would you block the CAIR site, or just jihadwatch?
Posted by: Prickzilla [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 3, 2007 8:12 PM
I would block all sites that are not work-related. Many companies and government agencies have a similar policy. Although it wouldn't surprise me that jihadwatch is being singled out.
Posted by: baraka66 at July 3, 2007 10:07 PM
Islam Targets America:
(20 Tactics Used by Islam to Take Over the USA by 2020).
#1: replace America's Freedom of Speech with 'hate crime' bills nationwide.
Apparently Islam has already succeeded with this one!
I also feel strongly that America is being set up for an Islamic coup d'etat by the leftists.
I am convinced of it. And this story about Jihad Watch is confirmation of it in my view.
Americans BEWARE!!!!!
By the way, everyone, notice that Muslims are always exempted from these 'hate crime' bills - Islamic hate seems always to be kosher with the leftists (especially when against the United States).
Hate is evidently OK with hate crime bills when the hate is Islamic in origin and anti-American!
Posted by: pythagoras at July 3, 2007 10:12 PM
Interesting, neither JW or DW is blocked in Saudi Arabia.
Posted by: Matt A. Moros at July 3, 2007 10:42 PM
A couple of hours ago on the radio I heard Hugh Hewitt telling a story announced today that bomb-making website access would not be allowed in Europe. He followed-up by saying that "no way" could any free speech ban like that be implemented in the US. I wonder what else could not be banned here?
Posted by: lycaste at July 3, 2007 10:42 PM
baraka66:
You should be banned from having employees.
I am personally grateful I do not work for you.
Any employees on their breaks should have access to the internet if they so choose and there is nothing absolutely wrong with employees' reading updates concerning the global jihad something that affects us all.
Shame on you. The world does not need any more control freaks!
Pythagoras
Posted by: pythagoras at July 3, 2007 11:05 PM
I just thought of a way around this problem!
Internet service is possible on some cell phones equipped with computers and no employer to my knowledge has yet found a way to stop employees from accessing internet sites this way.
Any employee who has a control freak for an employer that would stop their accessing Jihad Watch website during their workday (admittedly employees should access Jihad Watch on their breaks, preferably) could get a cell phone with internet access and service and get access to internet sites that way while at their workplace.
Posted by: pythagoras at July 3, 2007 11:14 PM
An interesting aspect about the Internet age is that at the same time that more and more employees have access to the Internet at work, productivity continues going higher and higher.
Posted by: FloatingRock at July 3, 2007 11:17 PM
There's a new Hate crimes law that just sailed through the House, and is about to sail through the Senate. It could very well be construed by courts to restrict what a clergyman can preach from his pulpit regarding his version of what constitutes sinful bahavior.
I don't think we've seen anything yet. Tragically, I believe the day is comming when honest people like Robert Spence will be hauled before Judges to answer for their crimes.
Posted by: rational at July 3, 2007 7:24 PM
Bush, disappointing as he has been in so many ways, has already said that he will veto this bill if it is passed. Hate crime/speech bills are ridiculous and a federal hate crime law would be superfluous, as most states already have some type of law already in effect. Good grief, isn't our judicial system already clogged up enough with muslim litigation against employers, airline passengers, businesses, radio stations, and anyone else they think they can destroy with their contrived, supremacist grievances?
If a person is convicted of a "hate" crime in a state with a hate crime law on the books, will he be tried by the state or the feds? All crime is motivated by hate one way or another and nobody can read another person's mind.
As for talk radio, if the left wingers try to shut down conservative talk radio, the big name hosts could easily follow Howard Stern to satellite radio, which is not licensed by the F.C.C. They can try as hard as they want to impose their left-wing media monopoly on America, but they will fail. It is truly pathetic and insulting that the pompous asses in Congress think the American people are so stupid that we are hypnotized and controlled by talk radio hosts. They're terrified of the internet already and the UN is still trying to gain control of it, so we can never let our guard down. If our own leaders would give away the Panama Canal and pass NAFTA, they are quite capable of giving away the internet to the islamic controlled UN.
Posted by: Susanp at July 4, 2007 12:15 AM
They may block it in their business's but they cannot block it anywhere else and I am passing this on to other's. LOL...the workers can go home and keep up with Jihad Watch!
By the way..im transfering my business from Bank of America to another bank. Bank of America has lost's it's brain power.
The Muslims cannot stand it when we rise up and keep our country.
Posted by: Cher at July 4, 2007 1:05 AM
"All crime is motivated by hate one way or another and nobody can read another person's mind."
Good post, Susanp. The problem is that they think they can read other peoples minds, and hate crime laws are the means by which they can hang a "phobia" sign around the neck of anyone who expresses an unapproved thought and punish them in a court of law.
These laws shouldn't exist in any jurisdiction in the U.S., including Federal, State or local jurisdictions.
No matter at what angle you look at them, hate crime laws are intended to punish people for what they think, and to force people into silence out of fear of punishment.
I wasn't aware that Bush intends to veto the current hate crime legislation, but don't underestimate the determination of the ideologues to saddle this country more of this undemocratic legislation. If they don't get what they want this time around, and they're not able to overide a veto, they'll get what they want with the next Administration.
Vetos aren't the real solution anyway. The real solution is for the American people to snap out of the fog they're in, and realize just how sinister hate crime laws are.
Posted by: rational
at July 4, 2007 1:29 AM
Neither can many politicians either...
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/6/30/104915.shtml?s=lh
...which explains THIS conflict-of-interest, and why the trips trying to make foreign policy over the head of the President (which is a blatant violation of the Logan Act...and a felony).
at July 4, 2007 1:31 AM
This Monday both Jihad Watch and Dhimmi Watch were blocked as Hate/Extremist sites at my federal government agency workplace. I would suggest that it's probably not a coincidence that the sites were blocked at so many workplaces virtually simultaneously. I haven't read through all 90 comments preceding mine, so it's likely that someone else has observed that probably the situation results from a filtering service in use by many IT departments that has just decided (for whatever reason) to add the sites to their blocked list.
Posted by: Laizerel at July 4, 2007 1:43 AM
Good morning everyone and Happy 4th of July!
Here's an interesting article on how CAIR views conservative commentary as incitement.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200707/CUL20070703b.html
Also, check out Pamela Gellar's site at Atlas Shrugged for an exchange between Cal Thomas and a Mulsim nimrod named Hussein Abish. Cal makes mince meat out of the Muslim guy.
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at July 4, 2007 1:46 AM
Robert:
I'm with Infidel Pride, Irish Infidel and any others whom I've missed (with apologies) who say "sue the bastards!" Don't take this shit lying down!
Posted by: templar at July 4, 2007 2:16 AM
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at July 4, 2007 1:46 AM
Here’s a link to Cal Thomas’s full radio commentary discussed on Neil Cavuto’s show.
http://www.breitbart.tv/html/2535.html
I already liked Mr. Thomas but my estimation of him just went way up.
Posted by: FloatingRock at July 4, 2007 3:21 AM
Dhimmis at work. The freedom of speech only for CAIR. I am getting worried
Posted by: hemoglobin at July 4, 2007 3:56 AM
It could be possible that the site is blocked because of the word jihad in the title.
There's some pretty dumb people around who may think it's an Islamic terror site .
Seriously, the people working in these places should ask why they have no access to such a patriotic website.
Posted by: Jerusalem Posts at July 4, 2007 4:51 AM
Get your Republican party reps onto it.
Is the USA still land of the free?
This is cultural jihad - and its anti-American.
Posted by: Stefcho at July 4, 2007 4:59 AM
Hate speech, are they serious? That's a laugh. I live in the UK, we have seen several attempted terrorist attacks by members of our health service who used their working days to access true hate sites. I have never seen a less hate filled site than Jihadwatch. Sure, there is sometimes anger but HATE SPEECH? If I was you I would check who exactly decides within your organisation who is responsible for blocking websites. After all, with so many Jihadists infiltrated into government and public bodies we would be naive to ignore the FACT that we are being attacked from the inside. Come to london and walk into any public office, it's like a mosque, you can't tell me that these people are not using their positions to employ their fellow muslims or to block us "infidels" from accessing information that shows the failings of islam?
Posted by: DaveMate at July 4, 2007 5:20 AM
The way it works at my company is that certain words are selected and things are blocked on the word alone. I was always surprised I was able to access Jihad watch because of the word Jihad. Many sites now have really benign sounding names so that they get around this blocking filter.
Posted by: PLCinTEXAS at July 4, 2007 7:55 AM
Maybe it is time to march on down to your BofA branch, call them, or write them an email asking why you should continue your relationship with a company which blocks the sites of those who would expose evil while leaving the evil they expose fully available. It indicates a basic lack of interest in any real security. (Many of these jihadi web sites become infected, perhaps intentionally, from time to time. Jihad Watch has no such reputation.)
{^_^}
Posted by: jdow at July 4, 2007 8:12 AM
Chicago of all places! What a crooked place! All three sets of cops in town where crooked there. They have witches all over when I was there. This is telling now they have muslims there. Everyone is afraid to say sht! I commend you Robert and if there is anything I can ever do for you let me know. My town, is deaf also! In grave denial!
at July 4, 2007 9:12 AM
Robert,
Get your ducks in a row and start getting some face-time in the media.
A national debate as to why it is that what Jihadists say is considered “Hate Speech” when someone who is not a Jihadist reports it.
Posted by: panos at July 4, 2007 9:57 AM
this one is good too http://anonymouse.org/anonwww.html
I recommend going with the paid service. I travel a lot to eastern Europe and a lot of sites are banned there. This and proxify are great!
Posted by: Lady Predator at July 4, 2007 2:38 PM
Is the USA still land of the free?
Posted by: Stefcho
---------------------------
I've lived in many countries and I'd rank the US around the middle in freedom. In Russia there is no regulation of the internet at all. Nothing is ever blocked.
As for personal freedom and the right to be left alone, this has ceased in the US. In many ways the US is less free than Red China. For example, in most American states there are "clicket or ticket" laws where police will pull you over and fine you if you don't "buckle up" while driving. Even communist countries don't consider it the government's business if you wear a seat-belt or not. It's your own neck that might get broken. So in this regard the US is virtually totalitarian. The same is true for motorcycle helmet laws, vehicle inspections, the size of the commode tank on your toilet and the infinite list of things that the American nanny state has decided to regulate. Let's face it, the Constitution no longer protects any American.
Posted by: Provoslavni at July 4, 2007 4:28 PM
That "Gmbh" was my first clue that Site Coach was a German company. I've been hearing things about that place such as an absolute prohibition on Home Schooling and "Hate Speech" laws, so it may be that Germany may be about as PC infected as California. So, is it "Brave New World" or the Oceania of 1984?
Posted by: JeromeFromLayton at July 4, 2007 8:10 PM
OK, I'm back again. This afternoon, right after work on an Air Force Base, I tried jihadwatch on my work station. Result: ACCESS DENIED, FORBIDDEN CONTENT, "Political", etc. Then, "has been logged" appeared near the bottom of the pane. Oh, please, I hope some twit tries to make a case out of it. Our local Congressman is a lot like Newt Gingrich and I'd love to let him chew on something like that.
Posted by: JeromeFromLayton at July 6, 2007 1:17 AM
Robert:
Here is an elegant solution that may suffice to allay the fears or the conditions which may have put your site on the blacklist:
On the comments links, have them go to a completely different internet site with a completely different host and IP address, domain name, hoster.
This way they can ban the often contentious peanut gallery commentaries which are likely what are causing the bans in the first place.
This way JW can stay as Robert and his representatives intend but also allow the commentary afterwards that should likely appease the Gestapo.
Of course this is a bit more difficult to manage, but better than an outright banning which can be difficult to remove.
Posted by: HardBody at July 6, 2007 1:44 AM
"This way JW can stay as Robert and his representatives intend but also allow the commentary afterwards that should likely appease the Gestapo.
"
meaning the Gestapo can ban the commentary sites and leave the main site free.
Posted by: HardBody at July 6, 2007 1:48 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)