Anyone who has been paying attention can see what is coming. This site and the others targeted will disappear from Facebook and ultimately from the Internet altogether, whether as a result of this suit or some other. This suit itself has a very good chance of succeeding, as Muslim Advocates is extremely powerful and influential.
Back in October, Old Joe Biden gave an address filled with cringeworthy pandering to Muslim Advocates, the group that has brought this suit. Nor is Muslim Advocates’ clout something new: back in October 19, 2011, Farhana Khera of Muslim Advocates sent a letter to John Brennan, who was then the Assistant to the President on National Security for Homeland Security and Counter Terrorism, denouncing what it characterized as U.S. government agencies’ “use of biased, false and highly offensive training materials about Muslims and Islam,” including books I had written. It criticized “the FBI’s use of biased experts,” specifically me. Brennan promised in a November 3, 2011 letter to Khera that the government would “ensure that federal officials and state, local and tribal partners receive accurate, evidence-based information in these crucial areas.” That led to the erasure of all mention of Islam and jihad from government counterterror materials, and the birth of the Countering Violent Extremism program, which ignores jihad violence and focuses on a largely imaginary “right-wing extremism.”
So Muslim Advocates has connections that go up to the very top, and likely knows where to find a compliant judge who will rule in its favor in this suit. Also note how the group, with help from the establishment media, has already moved the conversation away from where it should be. Engadget below takes for granted that the 26 groups Muslim Advocates is targeting, which include not just Jihad Watch but the David Horowitz Freedom Center, the American Freedom Defense Initiative, the Center for Security Policy, and other organizations fighting for human rights and the freedoms guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution, really are “anti-Muslim hate groups.” Engadget never even for a moment considers the possibility that some or all of these groups have been unfairly characterized, and neither does any other media story I have seen on this suit. Neither Engadget nor any other “news site” reached out to me for comment, or, apparently, to anyone else involved with the targeted groups, as none of the stories about this suit contain a single quote from anyone except Muslim Advocates and Facebook.
Yet that is really the point that should be at issue here. Is my work and that of the others targeted in this suit going to be banned as “hate speech” without any opportunity for discussion, explanation, or appeal, but simply on the word of far-left hate groups such as the Southern Poverty Law Center, which has a long record of smearing legitimate groups that dissent from the far-left agenda by lumping them in with the KKK and neo-Nazis? The answer to that question appears to be yes. Is the American court system going to take for granted and validate with legal precedent the claim that opposing jihad violence and Sharia oppression of women, gays and others constitutes “anti-Muslim hate”? The answer to that question appears to be yes as well.
So any day now could be the last day for Jihad Watch and other sites that oppose jihad terror. The U.S. will, probably before the end of this year, enter a marvelous new world free of “anti-Muslim hate,” that is, free of any criticism of Islam, jihad, or Sharia. Will that bring an end to jihad violence and the human rights abuses sanctioned by Sharia? Unfortunately, no.
“Muslim civil rights group sues Facebook for ‘misleading’ content moderation claims,” by Igor Bonifacic, Engadget, April 8, 2021 (thanks to Darcy):
A new consumer protection lawsuit alleges Facebook executives like Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg have misled Congress and the American public by falsely stating the company removes content that violates its policies. Filed on Thursday by civil rights organization Muslim Advocates, the suit claims the company routinely allows rule-breaking posts to stay up. They say its actions have allowed anti-Muslim hate to spread on the platform, leading to real-world harm.
As one example of Facebook’s failures on the matter, the organization points to a list of 26 anti-Muslim hate groups it shared with the company. Of those, 19 still have a presence on the network, and many have names with obvious anti-Muslim connotations, such as “Jihad Watch” and “Understanding the Threat.”
“This is not, ‘Oh a couple of things are falling through the cracks,'” Muslim Advocates lawyer Mary Bauer told NPR. “This is pervasive content that persists despite academics pointing it out, nonprofits pointing it out. Facebook has made a decision to not take this material down.” The lawsuit asks a judge to order Facebook to stop making false and misleading statements about its content moderation policies and practices and pay “modest” monetary damages.
Facebook’s Community Standards explicitly bans hate speech. “We do not allow hate speech on Facebook and regularly work with experts, nonprofits, and stakeholders to help make sure Facebook is a safe place for everyone, recognizing anti-Muslim rhetoric can take different forms,” a Facebook spokesperson told Engadget. “We have invested in AI technologies to take down hate speech, and we proactively detect 97 percent of what we remove.”…
Buraq says
Is this hate speech? If so, who or where does it originate from? Jihad Watch? No!
Don’t blame the messenger for bringing the message!
After a lifetime of studying Islam’s core texts, Al Qur’an, ahadith, the renowned Muslim historian and philosopher Ibn Khaldun (died1406) famously wrote …….
“In the Muslim community, jihad is a religious duty because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force. The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the jihad was not a religious duty for them, except only for purposes of defense. But Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations.”
mortimer says
Hate speech is two-thirds of the Koran … it’s ongoing rant that Allah hates kafirs and want Muslims to hate them too and punish the kafirs for worshipping ‘incorrectly’.
-Muslims claim that Islam is a religion of peace and love but a statistical analysis of the teachings of the Koran reveal an Allah who prefers hate, fear and terror to love.
While there are over 300 references in the Koran to Allah and fear, there are only 49 references to love. Of these love references, 39 are negative such as the 14 negative references to love of money, power, other gods and status.
Three verses command humanity to love Allah and 2 verses are about how Allah loves a believer. There are 25 verses about how Allah does NOT love kafirs (disbelievers)
This leaves 5 verses about love. Of these 5 verses, 3 are about loving kin or a Muslim brother. One verse commands a Muslim to give for the love of Allah. This leaves only one quasi-universal verse about love: give what you love to charity and even this is contaminated by dualism since Muslim charity only goes to other Muslims. There are over 400 teachings of hate directed against all disbelievers: Jews, Christians, Idolaters and Kafirs.
So much for love. Hate and fear is what Allah demands in the Koran. The hate clearly flows as a river out of Islam’s source texts.
gravenimage says
Thanks, Buraq and Mortimer.
Jim J Fox says
What about transferring to alternative sites such as PARLER or others of which I’m not yet aware?
mortimer says
Jihad Watch should open accounts on all of those alternatives, especially, RUMBLE which is a VIDEO site used by many famous free speech advocates such as Alan Dershowitz.
Using the alternative video hosts will increase the audience of Jihad Watch and PRESERVE all the videos that have been produced so they will not be lost to posterity.
LB says
I sincerely hope every single letter on this site is being stored offline on physical hard drives somewhere. Jihad Watch is a treasure trove of truth and losing it would be almost the equivalent of losing the Great Library of Alexandria which would set back any possibility of resistance to islam for a long time.
Infidel says
That brings up a question that I’d normally not ask, since it’s JihadWatch’s own business, but given what Amazon did to Parler and Microsoft did to Gab, I’m curious: does Jihadwatch have its own servers, or do they outsource that to a web hosting site? And if the latter, how woke-proof is that company?
Daniel Triplett says
It was shocking to see what Amazon did to Parler.
I don’t understand why they were able to do that, and why Parler can’t just plug into the Internet directly and avoid the middle-man gatekeeper altogether. I believe Jihad Watch uses “WordPress” as a host, or server, or ISP, or whatever the relationship may be. You can see the WordPress trademark in the upper-left corner of this web page. I don’t understand exactly what WordPress does for Jihad Watch or why Jihad Watch needs them. However, I have heard of WordPress shutting down other of their clients once they decided those particular websites had violated the imaginary woke subjective standards that WordPress had deemed unacceptable.
I’ve also heard that the owners of the web browsers, such as Chrome, Internet Explorer, Firefox, etc can somehow block and deny websites they deem are un-woke and unacceptable.
Robert getting canceled and silenced would indeed be devastating not only for him, but especially for all Kafirs collectively. His voice and body of work has been and continues to be so important for the cause.
Infidel says
Given that everybody knows where Twitter and Facebook stand, I have little sympathy for those who continue to use those as their chosen social media platforms. Some years ago, I deleted my Twitter account when I saw most of my followers and followees banned or gone
JW has a Parler account: I follow it. They should have one on Gab as well: if the Twitter and Facebook sagas have taught us anything, it’s that we should oppose monopolies at any level. I don’t want even Parler to be the be-all repository of all right-leaning social media activity, which is why I have accounts on both Parler and Gab. I have a Rumble account as well as an alternative to YouTube. Since I’m not a content publisher, I’ve not run afoul of YouTube (yet), and my comments on people’s posts have generally been left alone. Yet I’ve seen YouTube insert unwanted links on videos like one on ‘love jihad’ where they insert a wiki link claiming that ‘love jihad’ is a conspiracy theory, even if the content in the videos clearly demonstrate what happens. If I were still in India, I might consider Koo as well, although they have the annoying requirement of one’s phone number, which violates privacy
But yeah, instead of Facebook, YouTube and Twitter links on the top right of this page, JW should have links to Parler, Rumble and Gab. Yeah, I know what the membership is of all of these, but once JW is booted out of Twitter or Facebook, the question of whether it has a greater reach will be moot
James Lincoln says
infidel,
Also…
Soon to launch, is Mike Lindell’s frankspeech.com.
https://jamieglazov.com/2021/04/09/mike-lindell-frankspeechs-bonus-for-those-kicked-off-youtube/
Infidel says
Good for him! And I’ll also be interested in what form the Trump social media platform takes
gravenimage says
James, glad to hear this!
Daniel Triplett says
Bitchute is also a great video content alternative to YouTube. I’ve seen some really gnarly stuff on there, like jihad beheadings and such, and a lot of anti-Left and anti-Biden stuff, so I doubt they are censoring much if anything at all.
gregbeetham says
BitChute as well, I couldn’t find a video I wanted on Rumble that should have been there but it was on BitChute, I don’t go anywhere near YouTube if I can possibly avoid it, actually you can watch almost anything on Bing that YouTube has and the content is sanitized of YouTube adverts to boot.
Jim says
Countries ruled by authoritarian or totalitarian governments often have censorship of opposing views. But this was supposedly not the case in America, where we have guaranteed freedom of speech. But the groups that want to censor find end runs around this guarantee. This includes the freedom of tech companies to censor social media as not covered by free speech And now anti-blasphemy demands by Islam. There should be a distinction between critique and slander, but they seem to abolish the difference and call every critique slander. If being a religion gives them that privilege, why not censor all political critique, since political ideologies and parties are also a bit religious for their adherents. Then nothing non-trivial could be stated in criticism of anything ideological or religious.
Cornelius says
>Anyone who has been paying attention can see what is coming. This site and the others targeted will disappear from Facebook and ultimately from the Internet altogether, whether as a result of this suit or some other.
Our fearless leader can see the writing on the wall….and no doubt, he’s right. The internet will soon be sanitized of all “anti-Muslim” content. Jihadwatch and other websites detailing the atrocities of Muslim extremists will become a thing of the past. Bet the farm on it.
But folks, that won’t be the end of it. The reach will extend to news reports that document Jihad attacks. To be sure, the attacks will be covered by the media, but the identity of the perps will be obscured. This is the ‘brave new world’ we have to look forward to.
My question is, will the powers that be sanitize the violence and hatred in the Quran/Hadith/Sirat Rasul? Doing so would deny Muslims their rightful access to the long-held traditions of their faith. My guess is that while the foundational texts will still be faithfully reproduced on-line in all their ugly infamy, any separate analysis/commentary of them that isn’t validating will be ruthlessly repressed.
Peter Buckley says
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGxTwmtPCD0
Give me a call, and I’ll happily take possession of your farm….
Cornelius says
Nothing will make me happier than if I’m wrong. But i wasn’t limiting my commentary to facebook….I’m talking about the internet as a whole. Someday, sooner than later, Robert’s domain name will be revoked, as will be religionofpeace and all the other sites that document Islamic extremism. It’s coming.
Westman says
It would have happened already if anyone actually “owned” the Internet. Entities can only own a port into the common carriers.
Only government can actually control the dissemination of information through laws and punishment. Completely new “Internets” can spring up the outside of corporate control.
The ability of humans to bypass censoring has no limits, particularly now, when individuals have abilities beyond the control of government and corporations. The continued push for censorship will first fractionate social media and if government steps in the “Internet” itself will dissassociate. We see this in dictator governments where the national internet is controlled and tech savy citizens find another way. It will be like squeezing a long balloon, squeeze one place and it comes out in another.
Muslim Advocates or CAIR can never restore an image of Islam it has never had. They would have to keep all copies of the Quran and Hadith out of the minds of unbelievers.
Infidel says
Westman
Ownership of TLDs belong to the entities that own them. The .org is owned by the Public Interest Registry. .com is owned by Verigisign Global Registry Services. The entire list of who owns which TLD can be found here
https://www.iana.org/domains/root/db
I did notice that jw is not taken, so JihadWatch could take that and start a registry service that other groups that find themselves fighting jihad and deplatformed on that basis could build websites for which that could be the TLD
gravenimage says
My question is, will the powers that be sanitize the violence and hatred in the Quran/Hadith/Sirat Rasul?
…………….
Cornelius, that would be un-Islamic.
Wellington says
It is a comment on our time that telling the truth about Islam constitutes hate speech.
Westman says
It is absurd. Now we have Biden telling us the Constitutional Ammendments are outdated and unimportant to his desires.
Make Facebook “…pay “modest” monetary damages.”? Facebook would spend Muslim Advocates into bankrupcy before it would would set a precedence of paying for every opportunist.
Perhaps this lawsuit will be the determining of whether US free speech dies. More censorship is not in Facebook’s financial interest and might even make Facebook’s “nerds” think for the first time about the value of their own personal freedom. The SPLC may eventually find itself on the Tech Giant blacklist.
Wellington says
Though I am an ardent capitalist, Westman, overwhelming monopolies like Facebook and Google actually damage capitalism and harken back to that early and very imperfect stage of capitalism known as mercantilism whereby giant monopolies crushed business initiatives over and over again. Same is happening now with the immense added negative of “the giants” also crushing freedom.
President Teddy Roosevelt, extremely well informed on history contra Joe Biden and Barack Obama, understood all this about capitalism operating optimally when dealing with the giant business monopolies of his time and that is why he engaged in trust busting. So did President William Howard Taft, Roosevelt’s successor, though he didn’t get credit for this even from Roosevelt although the Taft Administration engaged in 80 antitrust lawsuits versus 25 by the Roosevelt Administration (N.B., I think Taft a much undervalued President, another example being that in four years he put away more land for permanent preservation than Roosevelt did in seven and a half years—but I digress).
So much “in the mix” right now as you pointed out. I hope the result is optimal for liberty and a true sense of fair play. Sadly, matters don’t look good right now for the preservation of either. Descent continues.
Westman says
Elegantly explained, Wellington.
I’ve observed the “descent” since the middle 1960’s from general unity after WWII to today’s vulgarity and hedonism. In my ignorant youth I once thought that the expanding socialism would bring a better more equal human existence. Now I know it brings more inequity while failing to change human behavioral tendencies. The empetus toward equal outcomes simply reduces society toward low standards that solidify into low achievement. Perhaps this is a strong factor in the death of empires.
The monopolistic abilities of the Tech Giants and Big Box merchants is alarming as they seem to be challenging government, our representative, as the final power. The corrupt campaign laws seem to have permitted the big pockets to own the “citizens voice” in the US Congress.
As we observed after GA proposed voting reform laws, powerful entities are wanting more than a congressman’s ear. It is past time for another look at antitrust.
Infidel says
Wellington
Yours is an interesting take, particularly on President Teddy Roosevelt. I’ve heard conflicting opinions on him: Tucker Carlson, for instance, praises him for saving capitalism by breaking up the monopolies, whereas Mark Levin excoriates him for having a disdain for the constitution. I was curious to see where most people stood on this.
Incidentally, RS’ book on the presidents – where does he stand on President Teddy Roosevelt?
gravenimage says
More censorship is not in Facebook’s financial interest
……………..
Facebook has already shown that ideology trumps access for them.
James Lincoln says
So true, Wellington.
The Allied forces would have never won World War II if telling the truth about Nazi-ism were considered hate speech…
gravenimage says
James, grimly truth-telling about the Fascists often *was* suppressed and shamed pre-WWII.
James Lincoln says
That is true, gravenimage.
Luckily, most of the the citizens of the Allied forces finally woke up before it was too late…
Wellington says
True, gravenimage, but nowhere with the power that suppresses and shames in our time. Huge difference I would argue.
Restriction of truth in America, anywhere as well in other of the most free societies throughout time, has always occurred, but never to this degree in America and this is most worrisome. Actually, quite ominous.
gravenimage says
Agreed, James and Wellington.
somehistory says
” Will that bring an end to jihad violence and the human rights abuses sanctioned by Sharia? Unfortunately, no.”
Absolutely not…because the more power they are given, the more power they will wield. And most of their “power” comes on as violence. Stoning, raping, murder….all in the future for those who are subjected to these beginnings.
If one cannot speak against the evil, the evil will prosper and control.
gravenimage says
Yes, Somehistory–such suppression of any critcism of Islam will just further embolden Jihadists.
Mike says
now just like Farrakhan stayed until this followers killed a capital cop
gravenimage says
The Nation of Islam is still on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/OfficialNationOfIslam/
john smith says
So is Death to America, Gravenimage
gravenimage says
Yep. I haven’t read this book, John, but it looks pretty ugly.
john smith j says
I don’t know nothing about the book GI, but Death To America is a site on Facebook.
I would give you the link if I knew how to do it. I hate to admit it but I’m clueless with things like that.
gravenimage says
Anti-free speech Muslim group sues Facebook for not removing Jihad Watch and other sites opposing jihad violence
…………….
Because opposing Muslims raping, enslaving, or murdering you is “hate”. I hope Facebook does not cave–but grinly have no reason to think that they will not.
Boycott Turkey says
There’s other websites to put Jihadwatch on like rumble bitchute and telegram I really hope this website doesn’t get taken down it would be devastating to free speech. The only hate speech is in the Koran that’s the only thing that needs bringing down Islam is the real hate and facism also from what I understand free speech is part of the US constitution Biden should be impeached for this.
Infidel says
Okay, I didn’t see this news on Breitbart or anywhere else, but here is news of 2 California cops showing up at the home of a Twitter user for merely criticizing AOC. Note that this is happening in the US today, and this user wasn’t a right wing extremist, as Twitter has probably made them extinct on their platform
https://www.opindia.com/2021/04/usa-police-visit-twitter-user-for-criticising-congresswoman-aoc/
Regardless of whether AOC’s office was behind this or not, the idea that our cops can go after people for mere tweets, as if all regular crime has ended, makes us look like we’re already in an Orwellian era
gravenimage says
Deeply disturbing, Infidel.
And I live in California–and had to learn about this from a newspaper half-way ’round the world. Odd times.
Infidel says
Originally, it was just IT services that were outsourced to India. But it’s beyond surreal when we have to get our own news about our own country from there as well!
James Lincoln says
Infidel,
I knew that this type of stuff was happening routinely in the UK.
Now in the United States???
Infidel says
James
That’s what shocked me as well!
somehistory says
We should all remember that: cops need a warrant to arrest someone when that person is in their own home.
They need a warrant to enter the home…unless they are allowed inside or invited in…then they can look around. And when looking….they’ll walk about unless instructed otherwise by the homeowner or renter.
And if they can actually see something that they view as “cause,”….then they can be more aggressive.
Don’t allow them past the door without a warrant…unless you have called them and wish them to enter and talk about a problem, etc.
We want to be able to trust the officers…but some are not worthy of trust. Sounds like these guys were out of bounds.
Just look at all of the people who openly,,,. sometimes on television… threatened Mr. Trump with death and they didn’t get any visits.
gravenimage says
Meanwhile, Jihadists are making use of Facebook:
“UK: Luton jihadist admits using Facebook and Telegram to disseminate Islamic State films”
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2021/04/uk-luton-jihadist-admits-using-facebook-and-telegram-to-disseminate-islamic-state-films
Walter Sieruk says
It’s not “hate speech” in any genuine sense of the term nor is it “Islamophobia” to reveal to the public the terrible dangers of Islamic terrorism and Islam’s “holy book, the Qu ‘ran,” which inspires many Muslims to engage in the violence and killing of the jihad for Islam. As seen in the Qu ‘ran i,for example 2:919.4:89.9:5,111,1123. 47:4.
This truth expounding information site ,as other similar site is apposed to Islam but it’s also very well understood by the supporters of this site and most readers of this site that Muslims are not Islam. Therefore to be against Islam is not ,in any way to be against Muslims.
In fact many Muslim have been harmed and even killed because the the violent because of the brutal aspects of Islam. As with female Muslim by FGM and the malicious and murderous action so Inappropriately called “honor killing” because of Islam . Likewise the Muslims who died because of the deadly violence of al Qaeda and ISIS are many.
So since Muslims aren’t Islam such information site as jihadwatch do not post “hate speech ‘
Trevor Loughlin says
You are right, the real racists are the multiculturalists. They think that this appalling misogynist death cult is good enough for people with brown skin.
latha says
You can shift all your content to the Russian Browser, “Yandex”. Hope you have a backup in external devices. You can continue from there if you are banned here though I must say there is a lot of pressure applied on them as well to publish freely.
Infidel says
Yeah, just make sure that no criticism touches President Putin
Boycott Turkey says
If Muslim groups can sue Facebook because of jihadwatch then can’t Christian Groups and non Muslims sue Islam for its verses that incite hate against them in the Koran ?