History, Politics And Current Affairs

Opinions expressed here are personal views of contributors and do not necessarily represent the companies, organizations or governments they work for. Nor do they necessarily represent those of the Board Administration.
It is currently Mon Sep 25, 2017 3:01 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Aug 23, 2017 7:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 9:02 am
Posts: 15542
Location: Planet Earth, Milky Way, Universe
Tech Blacklisting of Counterjihadists is What Muslim Brotherhood Seeks: Sabotage by Our Hands

pjmedia.com

When one thinks of the embodiment of “hate,” modern-day jihadists are perhaps without equal.

They murder those who refuse to submit to their totalitarian theopolitical belief system in the most vile and horrific ways, from stabbings and shootings to beheadings, bombings, and vehicle crashings.

They revile non-believer “infidels,” from Jews and Christians to atheists and gays, and mercilessly persecute all who fall under their clutches.

But when today’s sophist Left thinks of “hate,” it focuses its sights not on jihadists, but on those who forthrightly discuss the jihadist threat, among other advocates of non-leftist views.

That is the sad reality in light of the emerging story of the blacklisting of such individuals and organizations by major technology platforms.

Spencer has dedicated his life to exposing Islamic supremacist ideology and the goals, tactics, and strategies of its peaceful and violent foot soldiers. He has published several bestselling books, and through his Jihad Watch website catalogues daily the global jihad’s advance and the tragic aiding, abetting, and enabling of the movement by Islamophiliac dupes, useful idiots, and fellow travelers.

For his long rap sheet of thought crimes, he’s paid a physical price. In May of 2017, Spencer was poisoned by a leftist while in Iceland to deliver an anti-jihad speech.

Now he is paying an economic one.

The online payment system service PayPal has booted Jihad Watch from its service under the guise of a user agreement violation, meaning that its financial supporters can no longer easily contribute to the site online. These contributions support Spencer’s public appearances and website operations.

This comes on the heels of a campaign in which the purported “independent, non-profit,” but heavily leftist-funded investigative journalism website ProPublica blasted out an email to various groups and individuals – including Spencer -- fingered by the Leftist Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and American Defamation League (ADL) as “hate” or “extremist,” asking them to in essence prove their innocence while simultaneously chilling their efforts.

It bears noting that the SPLC has previously lumped in conservative nonprofits of all stripes with neo-Nazis, effectively smearing its ideological adversaries.

The questions posed by ProPublica’s Lauren Kirchner included:

1) Do you disagree with the designation of your website as hate or extremist? Why?

2) We identified several tech companies on your website: PayPal, Amazon, Newsmax, and Revcontent. Can you confirm that you receive funds from your relationship with those tech companies? How would the loss of those funds affect your operations, and how would you be able to replace them?

3) Have you been shut down by other tech companies for being an alleged hate or extremist web site? Which companies?

4) Many people opposed to sites like yours are currently pressuring tech companies to cease their relationships with them – what is your view of this campaign? Why?

Spencer directly challenged the notion that his efforts are hateful, and cut to the heart of ProPublica’s efforts, writing in a public response to Kirchner:

For years, Leftists and Muslim groups with numerous ties to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood have smeared as “hate” all attempts to speak honestly about the motivating ideology behind jihad terrorism. In reality, it is not hateful, racist or extremist to oppose jihad terror, and the claim that it is [is] not only libelous but insidious: the intent has clearly been to intimidate people into thinking it wrong to oppose jihad terror, and it has worked, as illustrated by the neighbors of the San Bernardino jihad murderers, who saw suspicious activity at their home but didn’t report them for fear of being “racist.”…The intent of your questions, and no doubt of your forthcoming article, will be to try to compel these sites [Paypal, Amazon, Newsmax and Revcontent] to cut off any connection with us based on our opposition to jihad terror. Are you comfortable with what you’re enabling? Not only are you inhibiting honest analysis of the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat, but you’re aiding the attempt to deny people a platform based on their political views.

What followed was a ProPublica article as Spencer predicted, and the dropping of Jihad Watch from PayPal.

As PJ Media’s Paula Bolyard has detailed in a timely piece titled “ Is Google Working with Liberal Groups to Snuff Out Conservative Websites,” Google is partnering with ProPublica, the SPLC and a “who’s who” of left-oriented publications and organizations to document “hate news,” which has unsurprisingly included articles from a plethora of mainstream conservative sources like The Daily Caller, The Washington Times and National Review.

Could it be that there is a connection between these two efforts?

And was “singling out alt-right sites for destruction in the wake of the Charlottesville riots,” by the likes of “Google, GoDaddy, CloudFlare, [and] Apple,” as Bolyard noted, a catalyzing crisis that enabled the left to wage war on legitimate conservative voices, lumped dishonestly as in league with “fascists” on the “right” (identity politics-obsessed national socialists being firmly on the Left notwithstanding)?

There is much more to be written on the broader question of the Left defining anything antithetical to its regressive progressive ideology as “hate,” then using purported civil rights organizations and media outlets that are effectively leftist fronts to legitimize attacks meant to destroy conservative voices. Their actions are nothing less than discriminating against fellow Americans on the basis of ideology, and the Left should be called out for its ideological bigotry. If the market is allowed to function in an unfettered manner, it may ultimately punish the Left for its discrimination, through promulgating parallel services that cater to non-leftist subscribers or operate on a basis independent of ideology. But consider the wasted resources needed to create essentially redundant services. Also, and much more importantly, this will damage our cultural fabric.

On the narrower issue of seeking to figuratively behead counterjihadists by threatening their ability to operate on the internet, it bears noting that the leftist entities leading this charge in league with tech titans are in effect unwittingly achieving the Islamic supremacists’ stated desire.

The muzzling by the Left of those who expose Islamic supremacist ideology and the attempt by its adherents to triumph over Western civilization is the perfect representation of what the Muslim Brotherhood called for in its “ Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Brotherhood in America.”

As noted in the memo, the Brotherhood’s aim is “civilization jihad,” a “kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers [Muslims] so that it is eliminated and God's religion [Islam] is made victorious over all other religions.”

The stifling of voices that seek to counter these efforts – and more broadly the threat to free speech that is growing daily in America – would seem to be a positive development in the eyes of the civilizational jihadists.

Presumably, the Muslim Brotherhood -- which continues to skirt terror organization designation – would happily agree.

_________________
I am Charlie


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2017 8:39 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 6:02 pm
Posts: 2539
I'd say that the most effective way of dealing with this sort of thing would be to extend the first amendment to cover quasi-governmental organisations and financial institutions and oligopolies. That way a bank or financial institution could not refuse to do business with someone due to their political views. It would only be when a particular organisation has been designated a terrorist organisation by the government or that the organisation is involved in some kind of other illegal activity (selling cannabis for example) that cessation of provision of services could take place. This would only apply to the largest organisations in most sectors and to heavily regulated bodies such as telecommunications providers, electricity providers, gas providers, internet service providers and financial providers. Google would be caught by this as would Paypal, Microsoft, Amazon and significant slew of providers who have decided to discontinue providing services to things because of the political views of the operators of the businesses or due to the sectors the businesses operate in (firearms dealers for example).

Time these leftie tech companies and financial institutions got a few lawsuits directed at them to make them respect freedom of speech. Not sure whether this could be done by statute or whether it would require a constitutional amendment. The amendment would be better as it would be harder to undo.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2017 8:46 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 9:40 pm
Posts: 5441
The problem that many of these tech institutions have is whether they serve as a forum provider, or as a moderator.

Their argument has consistently been the former, such that a person offering illegal services or file sharing on their site is solely responsible for the content. The forum provider takes down illegal content when notified, but does not have an affirmative duty to do so prior to making it available.

If they start censoring the content on their site, especially legal but distasteful content, that defense goes away. They then become responsible for all of the content posted on their site.

Someone didn't think this through all the way.

_________________
(English doesn't) just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.--James D. Nicoll


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2017 8:53 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 6:02 pm
Posts: 2539
KDahm wrote:
The problem that many of these tech institutions have is whether they serve as a forum provider, or as a moderator.

Their argument has consistently been the former, such that a person offering illegal services or file sharing on their site is solely responsible for the content. The forum provider takes down illegal content when notified, but does not have an affirmative duty to do so prior to making it available.

If they start censoring the content on their site, especially legal but distasteful content, that defense goes away. They then become responsible for all of the content posted on their site.

Someone didn't think this through all the way.


Thing is it's not just moderating content, which has defamation and copyright and indeed sometimes trademark elements. It's denying services because of someone's political views. That's what I want to squash by extending the first amendment to those oligopolistic, highly regulated or both oligopolistic and highly regulated industries.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Aug 27, 2017 11:29 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 6:02 pm
Posts: 2539
Well, well, well. Looks like a lawsuit has been filed along just the lines that I was thinking concerning freedom of association and freedom of speech.

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/the-hid ... dom-clash/

Looks like Amazon is the target of this particular suit and it will be interesting to see how far this goes.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group