| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
In FrontPage this morning I discuss the continuing censorship of Jihad Watch:
I began getting the emails several days ago: Jihad Watch readers telling me that they had been accustomed to reading the site at work, but now their employer had blocked access to the Jihad Watch site on company computers. Many reported that the ban on Jihad Watch was explained with the assertion that Jihad Watch contained “hate speech.” This was true even in Federal Government offices. And it wasn’t only the Feds. Jihad Watch was blocked, readers informed me, on the computers of the State of Connecticut; the City of Chicago; Bank of America; Fidelity Investments; Site Coach; GE IT; JPMorgan Chase; Defense Finance and Accounting Services; Johnson Controls, Inc. IT; Boeing; Tenet Hospitals in North Carolina; Provisio; the Sabre Group TSG; Wachovia bank; and others: several people have written in to tell me that as of this week they can no longer access Jihad Watch at work, but haven’t told me where they work.This was not a simple case of employers being annoyed with their workers lying down on the job and spending time reading Jihad Watch instead of working. This is an attempt to silence us, as an email from a federal employee made abundantly clear when he noted which sites were blocked – and which sites weren’t:
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 their political beliefs (or hopes.) It is unfortunate that these people block the very information that we need in these times....With all this happening so suddenly in so many places, obviously this is a decision made in some central location, with impact within all these different places -- but I am not certain of the source of it. I have contacted a web filter service to which several of these organizations apparently subscribe and which therefore may have initiated this general ban, but have not heard back yet. In any case, the matter of most concern in this is the likelihood that the decision was made to ban Jihad Watch was political. If it were merely a matter of filtering out controversial material, sites that treat some of the same material from a different perspective – particularly pro-jihad sites – would also have been banned. But they evidently have not been.Jihad Watch is dedicated to the defense of human rights for all people against those who would impose Islamic law, with its institutionalized discrimination against women and religious minorities, over both Muslim and non-Muslim societies. There is no “hatred” in this, except when we report the words of hatred and supremacism of the Islamic jihadists. We are trying to raise awareness of the nature, extent, and goals of the global jihad, which threatens everyone who loves and cherishes freedom and the equality of rights of all people before the law.
However, to tar all such initiatives as “hatred” is a tried and true tactic of the Left. Intellectually bankrupt as it is, it silences its critics rather than dealing with them on the level of ideas. They can’t answer us, so they try to shut us up and discredit us. Leftists, as well as apologists for Islamic jihad terrorism, label their opponents “hatemongers” and “bigots,” hoping thereby to make people of good will turn away from their message. And the politicized nature of this Internet censorship will come as a surprise to no one.
Committed Leftist ideologues have for many decades waged a war to gain control of the portals of communication. Their stranglehold was broken with the demise of the Fairness Doctrine and the advent of talk radio and the Internet. The Internet, for all its faults, has delivered the coup de grace to the control 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 at Jihad Watch. And so, we are going to fight this. We are establishing a mirror site for Jihad Watch, and will continue to try to get the ban reversed – and in the process, hope to draw attention also to the politicization of Net filtering companies. We are not going to take lying down being vilified and silenced, when we are telling the truth.
Posted by Robert at July 6, 2007 8:24 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
...Information Jihad....
....In Muslim countries, the radio, tv, and newspapers are heavily censored...The Muslims do not want discussion on Islam and they do not want the truth to get out...In Muslim countries those who seek the truth disappear....It is important to keep the truth if front of as many people as possible...Islam for losers..
Posted by: exsgtbrown![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at July 6, 2007 8:39 AM
This is not the end of an era. Jihad Watch, and sites like it will continue to steamroll forward, exposing organizations like CAIR, the yapping chihuahuas of militant Islam.
Now is the time to stay on CAIR....Their membership numbers are in the toilet, they're on the Fed's list of problems, and as soon as the imbeciles at Fox, MSNBC, CNN and other outlets stop having them as guests on their networks (which will probably be never), they will be finished.
Posted by: DCWatson
at July 6, 2007 8:47 AM
And as much as they say they eschew violence even the mild mannered Amadiyyad branch of the ideology espoused by Mohammed insist that the world be governed by Sharia law.
at July 6, 2007 8:58 AM
Robert,
You probably noticed on the earlier thread that one of your readers found a list of three databases at Web Washer that have JW designated as "hate speech/discrimination." I want to highlight that that same page also contains both an e-mail address and an on-line form for contacting them and requesting a change in categorization, with a list of other categories to suggest. It looks like "political/opinion" is the obvious category of those they list for JW.
Do you want your readership to start making contact with Web Washer in these ways?
We could make quite a blitz.
I'm pretty confident from their page that they are the source of the problem. They brag about making these decisions with their sophisticated "analysts."
Posted by: Lydia at July 6, 2007 9:02 AM
I'm with you, Lydia; whatever we can do to help with this blatant imbalance, we should do.
Posted by: Vee at July 6, 2007 9:07 AM
I would just like to point out that the following:
http://www.securecomputing.com/sfwhere/index.cfm
Database Current Categorization
V4 XL Politics/Opinion, Blogs/Wiki
V4 Politics/Opinion, Personal Pages
3.x Premier Personal, Politics/Religion
Well pointed out lipsore
Now if people can test it at work, we can see if it is still being blocked, the issue is of course the Blogs/Wiki, Personal Pages and Personal which would still get the site blocked in some organisations.
But all credit to this organisation, it changed the definition.
Robert you need to check the site every so often to see if the Jihadists keep trying to change your definition, because they will.
Posted by: Daffersd at July 6, 2007 9:15 AM
The public comments section at JW is no different than public comments sections at many other web sites.
And the Washington Post's public comments message boards have posters aggressively promoting Jihadism, violence, assassination, attacks on USA
So if those banning JW use the excuse that they are banning JW due to the public comments section, then they better be doing the same thing for the Washington Post, etc.
On the other hand, my personal opinion is that the JW message is so important that I would not give those who seek to silence JW the excuse of a public comments section to complain about. That would force those criticizing JW to address the specific information that JW writers have posted, and explain specifically why it is not acceptable.
Posted by: jeffreyimm at July 6, 2007 9:17 AM
And MEMRI does not have a "public comments" section, so that rationale is already a non-issue, apparently.
Posted by: jeffreyimm at July 6, 2007 9:18 AM
"We are not going to take lying down being vilified and silenced, when we are telling the truth."
Im not sure that truth is a dependable defense anymore.
at July 6, 2007 9:26 AM
How about a bumpersticker:
Lift the ban.
Jihadwatch.org
Censorship didn't hurt Huck Finn.
Posted by: pez at July 6, 2007 9:38 AM
This is a concerted effort by unnamed parties to silence conservative news and opinion outlets.
Outrage over the failed immigration "reform" bill by the leftists or the Islamic jihadists themselves are most certainly to blame.
A subversive "fairness doctrine" application?
This must be exposed.
Posted by: awake at July 6, 2007 9:44 AM
This is common tactic used by those who don't want to hear the truth. To "gag" those who speak it. This is not congress of course but still it is worth remembering The "Gag" Rule enacted in congress from 1836-1844 to stop any talk of slavery.
This below is from the Congress archives or click on the link below...
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/treasures_of_congress/text/page10_text.html
It says...
"Am I gagged or am I not?" Representative John Quincy Adams responding to the gag rule in the House of Representatives, May 25, 1836
Why is it important to remember the anti-slave movement between 1830s-1850s? It is because many of the same things are occurring this time. Islam and its defenders will stop at nothing to get their way. Don't be surprised if political correct liberal zealots and elements of the Republican Party form an alliance. This may surprise some but think on it for a minute. Remember all the stories we read on this site the last few months or many stories in the general media. Who were the ones who pushed for this idiotic immigration bill? Who were the ones who wanted the UAE in our ports? Who were the ones who hushed the talk of the certain Muslim countries and their record on slavery? Who are some of the biggest defenders of Saudi Arabia, UAE, and others? I can clue you in they are all not liberal democrats. George W. Bush and his wing of the Republican Party which includes many globalists who have a financial invested interest in keeping so call “Islamophobic” or “Anti-Islamic” talk gagged. That is a fact.
This alliance is based on convenience. Let’s look at an example. Bush and Bill Clinton see eye-to-eye on these issues. Both are big supporters of the UAE and that was proven when the UAE port deal was going down. Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Bob Dole, and George W. Bush rushed to defend it. Now if that is not a convergence from hell I don’t know what is. There were many others including the Wall Street Journal who screamed Islamophobia quicker then any liberal group could ever hope to do.
The extreme left wingers do it because they believe in multiculturalism and the Bush wing of the Republican party do it for greed and their belief in the Democracy Project in Iraq. That capitalism will overcome all including religious hatred. They are both flawed ideas.
Thus you have been gagged Mr. Spencer. You talked too much about the truth. The extreme left wing doesn’t like you but there is certain segment of the Republican Party who doesn’t like you either. In other words watch out for Judas.
at July 6, 2007 9:47 AM
Ive contacted Glenn Beck and Neal Boortz and Drudge over this, I pretty sure they have my name flagged to go straight into the dumpster already .
Posted by: KAOSKTRL at July 6, 2007 9:47 AM
Robert-
These "gag rules" are an attempt to silence critical analysis of Islam. My hunch is that you have become so effective that there is an orchestrated attempt to silence you and JW. I don't believe in accidents in these matters. (It's not anti-serendipity-LOL.) But the attempt to silence you will be as useless as the attempt to shut down William Lloyd Garrison's Liberator Magazine in the 19th century. Eventually, everyone realized Garrison was simply speaking the truth. His enemies were evil in what they tried to do to him.
The "gag rules" were instituted by people who claimed Garrison's speech was "divisive" and crude hate. The truth was that they simply could not face the truth that Garrison wrote. (There was an attempt to ban such magazines from the post system.) John Quincy Adams became a ferocious opponent (he was never known for that when he was president) of the "gag rules". Hopefully, we will see another J. Q. Adams in congress in the future.
The issue is different, but the substance of the issue is the same with you and Garrison. The reasons for the attempt to silence JW are also the same. The end result for you, as for Garrison, will be the same.
Posted by: Frank at July 6, 2007 10:23 AM
I think it should be obvious to a lot of people that this decision to ban this site from government and corporate use issues from very high up in the government - as in, people who are very close to the President. And if the military is about to ban the use of "jihad" from soldiers' and Marines' speech, then we are truly indeed looking at something which has the fingerprints of very high public officials.
But, we will fight on with the one thing we have in our favor: the truth. At some point the weight and import of the truth has to collapse the propaganda, lies, and denial.
at July 6, 2007 10:24 AM
FredIsinglass-
Nothing really changes with human nature. We have been here before in US history. But the attempt to silence critical analysis by Garrison and others in the 19th century back-fired big time. (Calhoun and others of his ilk even attempted to ban such anti-slavery literature from the post system claiming such ideas were agitation that caused divisiveness. There was a government censorship component then and J.Q. Adams knew it and faced them head-on in congress.)Ordinary people see the truth now too. The cats out of the bag.
Being an agitator for the truth and facts is better than being a liar or trying to hide the facts. Trying to make reality appear to be something else is Flying Imam stuff. Spencer is an agitator for truth and reality.
at July 6, 2007 10:47 AM
Read your history, folks. You will find that my comparison of Robert and Garrison (and the reaction to them) fits. The lesson here is really about human nature.
Posted by: Frank at July 6, 2007 10:50 AM
jeffreyimm,
At the start of all this I was going do do a long post explaining how I thought the web filtering worked, but then thought that there was likely to be such people viewing this site with professional knowledge, whereas my knowledge was more hobbyist.
The situation is changing so that there are central deposities or databases of sites which are checked up on by the web filtering software, the gateway then deciding what sites to ban based on their own criteria.
Like any database it has to be administrated and updated, one of the ways is to have users report it, but that is haphazard but useful, another is to send bots around the site looking for certain words and checking out how often that the words appear based on a points sysetm, in that way they change the definition of the site.
When I looked at LGF I noted that the main posts were very carefully written, but the comments had their share of B**b Me*** comments. As it is a site administrated by Charles he can control access to parts of his site.
The issue about comments is that if the bots are not able to identify the comments as separate to the articles then it will do this scanning with the comments.
As we know human checking is costly so this is how these databases will be administrated, I hope that the fact that the definition of the site has been changed manually over-rides the bots, in which case you are right, if not then it is most definately not a red hering.
As for MEMRI I think the bots could have picked up the hate from the translations, which is quite amusing really.
As Mr Spencer challanged this his defintions have changed, which we can see by the fact that his site can now be accessed in certain companies, we should also note that this is patchy in some of the government offices which is likely to show that some of the gateways are not checking the database all of the time, perhaps using a downloaded copy for speed.
I do not think that JihadWatch has been banned at all by the elites, I believe that it got categorised as hate speach and therefore was automatically blocked as that.
Posted by: Daffersd at July 6, 2007 11:17 AM
Just FYI for Mr. Spencer: Here at Smith Barney division of Citi, access to JihadWatch.org is available as always. (Yes, I am surprised, as anyone familiar with this company would be!)
Posted by: bondmanp at July 6, 2007 11:40 AM
I'm a bit concerned about posting the names of companies which permit access to JW/DW, MEMRI etc.
as this information can be used to contravene the intended purpose of publicising this issue.
Perhaps simply stating that certain (unspecified) success has been achieved while identifying locations which continue to block anti-jihad websites will be most useful.
at July 6, 2007 1:02 PM
Many things may be "relative" in life, but Truth should never be treated as such. And Truth is not abstract, as some would have you believe.
Whether you are left, right, or somewhere in the middle -- Truth simply is what it is. And if you fall into any one of these categories and you choose to run away from the Truth, then shame on you.
As far as Islam & Truth are concerned; I see relative AND abstract Truth working side-by-side and deceiving those who CHOOSE to be deceived. But I also see the obvious Truth about Islam making it's entrance as well.
And if you can let down your guard and get out of your denial, then the Truth about Islam will become very clear to you too.
The Truth won't bite -- it will set you free.
Posted by: champ at July 6, 2007 1:19 PM
Memo to Daffersd:
One of the 20 ways Islam plots to take over the USA by the year 2020 is to eliminate American freedom of speech and replace it with hate crime bills nationwide. In fact this is #1 on the Muslims' tactics list.
The fact that freedom of speech (here JW) is being replaced with "hate crime" action is EXACTLY WHAT the Middle East is aiming to do to the USA as part of an agenda to destroy our nation and replace it with an Islamic state.
Don't be such a naive fool. Islam made this silencing of JW possible and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
Posted by: pythagoras at July 6, 2007 1:37 PM
Jefferyimm: So if those banning JW use the excuse that they are banning JW due to the public comments section, then they better be doing the same thing for the Washington Post, etc.
Not only that, but chatrooms as well. I like to use Yahoo's 'Islam' chat as an example, because this is bottom of the barrel stuff. Anyone who has gone there and 'monitored', know's what I mean.
The internet is full of 'hate speech'. None of it should to be banned to begin with, but certainly not for political or religeous reasons. Some hate speech may be laced with profanity, and threats. Profanity is used to insult, or is an expression of frustration, or to make a strong point. It should not be banned, but those who dont use it, should feel free to 'speak' to those who do. And web sites are not out of line by expecting a higher standard of speech, than the gutter. Threats should be investigated and prosecuted.
The internet should be open to all ideas and terminologys, but not to threats.
To ban JW/DW for ideological/political reasons, is a threat to the truth. Worse than that, it is a threat carried out. I have read and posted here for about three year's and have read some of Roberts books. At no time, not even once, have I read RS indulging himself in 'hate' of any kind.
The disclaimer should insulate the site from the responsibility of commenters. If someone complains to Yahoo about hate speech, they just brush it off as 'free speech'.
If 'hate' speech was really banned from the internet, there would only be gardening, auto repair and financial web sites. Even the auto repair is suspect because I have heard people say' I 'hate' working on cars', and people 'hate' losing money on bad investments, so there go those two, but gardening can stay, there is nothing hateful about growing tomatoes. Oh no, I was just informed by another swami, that some people say that plants have live's so it is 'hateful' to grow them for food. Well, there is a good website on flower growing, but I guess since some of them are edible it is 'hateful' to do that also. Drat...well I can always read Drudge...what, that to!!!???
at July 6, 2007 1:47 PM
Nice to read Robert vent against the Left in no uncertain terms. I'm well aware he's been critical in the past, both here at JW and in his books, but there is a persistent belief expressed here and elsewhere that the Western Left can be co-opted and incorporated into a future anti-Jihad coalition.
My own feeling is that the only way we're going to win this thing is to defeat the Left politically in the West, and then re-write the rules of engagement on everything from ethno-religious profiling in our security and immigration policies...to the restoration of empiricism and genuine scholarship in our universities.
There are individuals on the Right who are clueless about Islam and its theological disposition for intolerance, but on the Left the problem is systemic and based on an established (and entirely corrupted) world-view.
Posted by: Cornelius at July 6, 2007 7:01 PM
There are individuals on the Right who are clueless about Islam and its theological disposition for intolerance, but on the Left the problem is systemic and based on an established (and entirely corrupted) world-view.
Posted by: Cornelius at July 6, 2007 7:01 PM
I agree with you. The core "Right" in America is very individualistic, anti-authoritarian, has roots in an anti-monarchical attitude that really can be traced back to before 1776. The "Right" in Europe and the "Left" in both America and Europe are rooted in authoritarianism. Islam is at its core the engine of Arab Imperialism, is authoritarian and monarchical in nature, and hence will find some or a lot of sympathy from the political "right" in Europe and the "left" in Europe and America. However, an educated "Right" in America will stop Islam because of its authoritarian nature.
The extreme "Right" in America is really represented by Libertarian types. Islam is not compatible with the individualism that is at the core of the American "Right". They don't believe in individual "rights". They are another totalitarian ideology. The "Right" in America is waking up to that reality. Islam is a totalitarian-fascist ideology that is at its core the engine of Arab Imperialism.
Posted by: Frank at July 6, 2007 8:03 PM
They try to do the same with our military forces in the sandbox, too...but our troops know easy ways to get around those blocks (no, they won't say how as it'll only tell the 5th column how to try and block that, too...which makes us wonder who's on what side).
Posted by: jcom972 at July 6, 2007 8:05 PM
One thing that strikes me about the "Left" in America is how clever they have been at conjuring up images of the European Right in discussions re the "American Right". However, the core American Right is as far from the European Right (or the European Left, the American Left, or Islam) as Barry Goldwater is from Hitler, Stalin or Bin Laden.
Posted by: Frank at July 6, 2007 8:13 PM
Interesting comments Frank.
Also interesting is the absence of anti-Jihadi voices on the Left today (unless one still refers to Chris Hitchens as a man of the Left)....in stark contrast to the numerous anti-Soviet voices on the Left that existed during the Cold War, even though the Soviet model - monstrosity that it was - was far closer to the vision of the anti-totalitarian Left than is political Islam today.
It appears that multiculturalism and political correctness have had a more enduring influence on the Left-wing of the political spectrum than ideological affinity once did. It shows the extent to which we have our work cut out for us.
Posted by: Cornelius at July 7, 2007 1:31 AM
Chaps,
When I come up against a barrier, I do this. I go to anonymouse.org and type in the website I wish to access (which has been blocked) and I usually get past the block. Note that they might block anonymouse.org if they are clever enough
Posted by: Spartacus at July 7, 2007 3:53 AM
That's good advice Spartacus and the dander's are up above this post! Here too. And now from a former bullhauler and a pig hauler; this is BS & PS!
Posted by: Malaria_Kidd at July 7, 2007 6:46 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.)