Hello. Robert Spencer here from Jihad Watch. Several days ago I received this email:
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....
Also, all this week I have gotten emails telling me that Jihad Watch has suddenly been blocked in all sorts of places: Fidelity Investments, JPMorgan Chase, even the City of Chicago. Word is that Jihad Watch and other sites have suddenly been labeled as purveying "hate speech."
This 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.
In reality, 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.
And so, we are going to fight this, as best we can, and I am sure MEMRI and HotAir are also. Today I am going to contact every organization that, according to emails I have received, has banned Jihad Watch, and urge them to remove the ban. Wherever you are working today, if you get a chance please take a moment to check if you still have access to conservative sites -- and if you don't, lodge a respectful but firm protest. Let us not take lying down being vilified and silenced, when we are telling the truth.
|
Score:
Robert Spencer | 07:59 AM |
(0)
On a side note...should people, using company resources, be viewing ANY of this stuff anyway while at work? Most of it probably violates a company policy. While I like JihadWatch and others, this seems an awful lot like trying to control things that shouldn't be.
That's my opinion, and would love to know yours. I have an open mind on this.
Posted by Ipwnallah
2007-07-05 08:39:12
Yesterday I was watching FOX and they had a report on Muslims in Minneapolis. If the report was accurate, there is a growing Muslims presence there that is attempting a culture change in that area.
The question I have is..........we worry about Libby, Hillary, the silky pony, Paris Hilton and the schenanigans in DC but while we are distracted it seems to me that the jihadists are getting ever closer to threatening our way of life and ultimately, the WH.
Posted by herewegoagain
2007-07-05 08:42:31
Posted by Ipwnallah
2007-07-05 08:43:11
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-07-05 08:45:04
Of course they do. No one ever said private companies have any legal obligation to allow these websites. The point is that they shouldn't be blocking them. The fact that they are shows that they have a political bias.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-07-05 08:51:29
I know you all might think this is for the children however the staff has it's own log on and that is blocked. Regularly we get emails about how many staff are on shopping sites. No kidding, you'd think they's have better things to do, but you can browse at Old Navy but you can't use yahoo or comcast.
Posted by herewegoagain
2007-07-05 08:53:43
Robert, if you read this, stay strong and keep up your good work.
Posted by Dick_Nixon
2007-07-05 08:55:06
Posted by simulacre
2007-07-05 09:00:11
That's the problem I ran in to a few weeks back when the firm that I work for installed a new internet filter. It blocked almost every political blog I could think to try, both leftist and right-wing. Oddly enough though, Town Hall wasn't effected.
Posted by Good_Ol_Boy
2007-07-05 09:00:35
Even still, many sited are blocked and not just for nudity but for key words as well. If I google Naked Fish to get a menu, it won't go but if I google nakedfish it will.
My advice to anyone who's blocked is to live with it but if you can't do that, then use "Hijack This" to remove the filters or put a browser on a thumb drive, and surf straight from that, which is what I do when I have to travel to other locations.
Posted by Glibertarian
2007-07-05 09:07:43
I just tried to go to Jihad Watch and this is what I got:
Forbidden: You do not have permission to access this page.
CLIENT_IP: @@.@@@.@@@.@@@ DATE: Thu, 05 Jul 2007 13:12:35 GMT CATEGORY: Hate and Discrimination
ERROR: Access denied by WebWasher DynaBLocator content category. The requested URL belongs to the following category: Hate and Discrimination.
URL: http://jihadwatch.org/
Posted by Glibertarian
2007-07-05 09:17:20
As to private companies, yes, they can privately take action. And those employees and outsiders can privately take action as well which is what is being advocated here. Spencer and everyone else is not advocating government legislation here.
Posted by seschub
2007-07-05 09:23:39
Posted by seschub
2007-07-05 09:25:50
I really hate that key word blocking software, it causes so many more problems than it solves. I remember when my sister was in high school she was trying to do a report on breast cancer. She had to get special permission from the administration to use an unblocked computer because the software kept blocking the word "breast".
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-07-05 09:26:13
Well that certainly changes things. Categorizing JW as "hate speech" is disingenuous and underhanded.
Thanks for posting that, Glib.
Posted by Good_Ol_Boy
2007-07-05 09:36:59
July 5, 2007 9:23 AM |
I agree, and thank you for making the points.
Posted by Ipwnallah
2007-07-05 09:37:42
does it say the same thing for MEMRI?
Posted by simulacre
2007-07-05 09:39:19
Posted by Bone
2007-07-05 09:43:36
At a company I used to work for, many sites I visited during lunch were blocked, when they contained no content I would consider inappropriate. So I listed out several issues across the political spectrum and found websites supporting each side. When I tried to access those sites at work, the right-wing sites were blocked, while the left-wing sites were available.
Two of the most glaring...
1) NRA's web site was blocked as an "advocacy group", yet Handgun Control and the Brady websites were available.
2) All Pro-Life sites were blocked, while Pro-Choice sites were not.
And the topper of them all, The DNC was available, while the RNC was blocked.
This may be a case of political censorship, or it may not be. Regardless of our feelings, or the opinion of the Department of Homeland Security, CAIR is a "legitimate" organization. Try some other websites on both sides of a political issue and see.
The bottom line is, this is well within the operating guidelines of liberals. Mr. Spencer is correct in that aspect. They cannot defeat the ideas with facts, so they silence and denegreat. Pitiful.
Posted by StanW
2007-07-05 09:44:04
Nope, it went through.
It took about a minute though for some reason.
Anyone else want me to try a site?
I work for a Fortune 60 company so if corporate America wants it blocked, it's probably blocked for me....until I find where I put "hijack this" anyway.
Posted by Glibertarian
2007-07-05 09:48:23
Posted by Jon_Sandor
2007-07-05 10:00:29
Companies are blocking more sites for two primary reasons:
1) Too many employees are web surfing during business hours for non-business reasons.
2) The business is liable if an employee is caught surfing "inappropriate sites." That can mean practically anything if another employee makes a big stink about it.
This is not surprising nor is there anything wrong with it.
Posted by Kingfisher
2007-07-05 10:09:34
Or is that just too far fetched?
Just coz you're paranoid, doesn't prove they aren't conspiring against you...
Posted by LaLaLaLaLaLa
2007-07-05 10:10:54
So CAIR's site is work-related while Jihad Watch's and MEMRI's are not?
Posted by CavalierX
2007-07-05 10:19:07
Isn't Lala a teletubbie? How's tinkie winkie?
Posted by soberannie
2007-07-05 10:27:43
And just because you are a leftist idiot does not mean that you have to keep coming on here and proving it.
Posted by StanW
2007-07-05 10:35:09
Posted by Ipwnallah
2007-07-05 10:40:52
They and others also have trouble getting buried on sites like Diggs.
Not surprised.
Posted by Rose
2007-07-05 11:18:54
July 5, 2007 8:42 AM |
**************************
You are several YEARS behind the CURVE on this news, Hon, Sorry.
They've chased down major conspiracies to raise illegal funds for terrorists in Michigan from the illegal sales of blackmarket CIGARETTES which took several years to investigate, last year.
Before 9/11, America had 2 or 3 hundred Mosques, by the timne wer attacked Iraq, we had TENS OF THOUSANDS, the majority - 90% range - were WAHABI, and the illegal alien trails from Mexico had more Middle-East-flavored trash than they did Mexican.
The Americans were already complaining of the blaring megaphones calling prayer in Western neighborhoods, 3 years ago, because the muslims usually prefer to build their mosques NOT IN muslim neighborhoods, but in other ethnic groups, beside Christian churches, where their blaring calls to prayers and their blaring chants can be strongly irritating or intimidating.
They have burned flags in their marches of illegal aliens that compete with Mexican demonstrations.
And about 2 years ago, they even started attacking liquor stores, forcing them to close in certain neighborhoods.
Posted by Rose
2007-07-05 11:34:46
Posted by Don_cos
2007-07-05 11:36:28
Posted by mightysamurai
July 5, 2007 8:51 AM |
*************************
The govt has NO EXCUSE for blocking them.
If informing the general public of actual events from enemies we are fighting in several fields of battle (not news from the battle site itself, per se,) the government has NO EXCUSE for labeling those sites as INFLAMMATORY, while allowing sites that paint ultra overly flattering propaganda for our enemies.
Sometimes, you can see that what they hate are ACTUAL REAL UNDOCTORED, UNPHOTOSHOPPED PICTURES of things like muslim signs and American flag and effigy burning at anti-American demonstrations - of muslims wearing Che caps and T-shirts! etc., while the MSM NEWS is discussing a new treaty with "OUR FRIENDS".
Posted by Rose
2007-07-05 11:43:51
July 5, 2007 9:48 AM |
**************
Try Michelle Malkin - http://michellemalkin.com/
Posted by Rose
2007-07-05 11:51:12
Posted by herewegoagain
2007-07-05 11:57:38
Isn't Lala a teletubbie? How's tinkie winkie?
Posted by soberannie
Then I did, too, I guess. Unless you have business to conduct on the internet, you have no, 'business,' net-surfing during work hours.
However, I do agree with the concept that if the employer is going to allow it, they shouldn't be selectively blocking sites in this manner...but they have the right to do so.
Posted by JannyMae
2007-07-05 12:22:24
I agree with you on the work thing.
Posted by soberannie
2007-07-05 12:29:12
Posted by lumberjack7393
2007-07-05 13:09:27
The issue here isn't about employees surfing the net while they're on the clock. The person who wrote the email clearly states that he/she only looks at JihadWatch during lunch (it also clearly states that JihadWatch is blocked while left-wing sites are not, making my first post look rather silly in retrospect =P).
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-07-05 14:05:34
Ah, how I missed that razor-sharp wit. Oh, my sides...
Posted by LaLaLaLaLaLa
2007-07-05 14:58:44
Posted by LaLaLaLaLaLa
July 5, 2007 2:58 PM
...just because you are a leftist idiot does not mean that you have to keep coming on here and proving it.
Posted by StanW
Who said it was razor-sharp wit. I read it as a statement of fact
Posted by lumberjack7393
2007-07-05 15:16:09
I did.
If you can scroll up just a teeny bit you can see where it’s there in my comment box.
That means it was me.
D’you see?
Posted by LaLaLaLaLaLa
2007-07-05 15:20:22
July 5, 2007 3:20 PM |
Unless you have anything useful to contribute to this discussion, I suggest you go take a long walk off a short pier.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-07-05 15:39:46
July 5, 2007 3:20 PM
I repeat my last sentence. It was a statement of fact.
Posted by mightysamurai
July 5, 2007 3:39 PM
I doubt that he is capable of contributing useful to this discussion, or any other for that matter.
Posted by lumberjack7393
2007-07-05 15:44:49
About an employer, at taxpayer’s expense, wanting to keep employees employed earning their pay, and not trolling around political websites? Or about said employer’s inability to keep an up-to-date list of every address that said employees might be goofing off to. (oh, during their lunch breaks, of course)
OK: Some employers take a dim view of employees NOT leaving their desks at breaktimes, therby not gaining the performance benefit from their breaks.
Posted by LaLaLaLaLaLa
2007-07-05 15:58:45
Repetition is hardly a constructive contribution but, no. It was not a statement of fact. It was a conclusion drawn from a posit. Both pretty shaky, but that’s what they are.
Posted by LaLaLaLaLaLa
2007-07-05 16:01:45
July 5, 2007 4:01 PM
Then you also are drawing conclusions from what was written, in that you said it was razor sharp wit. Basically what you gave was an opinion.
Posted by lumberjack7393
2007-07-05 16:38:36
Very well observed.
…and your point is?
Posted by LaLaLaLaLaLa
2007-07-05 16:43:59
Once again, the email reprinted in the article above says very clearly that the person in question only went on the internet during his or her lunch break.
And if that were the case, the proper thing to do would be to block all political websites. But that is not what happened here. The majority of the websites being blocked are those with a conservative viewpoint, while liberal websites are still accessible.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-07-05 16:57:46
July 5, 2007 4:43 PM
And your point in acting superior to everyone here is....
Posted by lumberjack7393
2007-07-05 17:10:46
Though the employer in question is the Gov't. Same applies though. I know of no right of employee access to the internet, and I doubt I’d support one.
Posted by LaLaLaLaLaLa
2007-07-05 17:18:57
Posted by HankHill
2007-07-05 18:39:14
*sigh*
For the umpteenth time, the person who wrote the original email only surfs the internet during his/her lunch break.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-07-05 19:45:06
Posted by herewegoagain
July 5, 2007 11:57 AM |
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
True - but nevertheless, the cigarettes and calls to prayers are also bigger issues than I seem to have implied, and were covered extensively some time back, but if you were unfamiliar with those news stories, then the cigarettes and blaring 5 AM loudspeakers to the neighborhoods do seem very minor.
For instance, the cigarettes was a huge operation through many communities which had huge muslim populations the couple was constantly moving their operation through, which made the investigation for the subsequent prosecution very difficult. And it was very huge.
The story about the muslim mosques included small tidbits like where Jewish synagogues in America had to quite having any external identifiers on their buildings, too - in America - for safety reasons.
And 5AM loudspeakers for an illegal alien Wahabi mosque, next door to your home???
Posted by Rose
2007-07-06 05:51:38
Why?
There is no work-related reason for them to provide any access at all, if they do then it's the employees good fortune. They want to block random portions of the web on alternate Tuesdays - it's their network and their computer. Employees want to make their own selections; take in a laptop and use your own connection.
and while I may not be bothered to dispute it, that doesn't mean I neccessarily believe it.
Posted by LaLaLaLaLaLa
2007-07-06 07:10:51
?? in employment? No. There's business, and there's law. That's it.
If morals, ethics or philosophy come into the business then fine, but they are optional at most.
Posted by LaLaLaLaLaLa
2007-07-06 07:21:47
Do you seriously not comprehend why a government office needs to be politically neutral?
Okay, clearly you are being obstinate simply for the sake of being obstinate. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID.
Honestly, what part of "private companies may legally do whatever they want" did you not understand?
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-07-06 10:36:47
I'm not sure what you're saying this, but there is no aspect of human life where these things are optional - they are an inevitable portion of being human.
Posted by Christopher_Taylor
2007-07-08 13:36:44
In the websites it tolerates employees goofing off to during breaks? It has, like any other employer, no answerable responsibility.
No employee rights, legal freedoms or employer's duties are involved, and it makes no difference who the employer is.
Honestly, there are plenty of issues over the ways that Govt department do or don not discharge their duties. I can't see how any choices about websites they do or don't allow employees to view could be less important. It's like arguing about bias in the colors the corridors are painted: quite possibly true, but massively irrelevant.
Posted by LaLaLaLaLaLa
2007-07-08 13:52:25
Actually I'm afraid it does. Largely due to people like you.
You just don't listen, do you?
When did I ever, EV. ER., say that any employer is legally obligated to allow all political websites? When did I say it? Go on, show me where I said it. I dare you.
...
What's that you say? You say I never said that employers have a legal obligation to allow these websites? You say I only said that they should allow them, not that they have to allow them? You say that I reserved my argument to a moral/ethical one, and not a legal one?
Well gosh, that makes you look kinda stupid, doesn't it? I mean, here you are, arguing that employers have no legal obligation to allow these websites when the question of whether it was legal or not was never under debate in the first place!
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-07-08 15:35:40
"Massively irrelevant", eh?
What would you say if this was a different government office? Like, say, a public school?
Suppose a public school allowed Christian students to put up pro-life posters but took down posters put up by pro-choice students? After all, it's their school, they should be able to allow whatever posters they want. Is it "massively irrelevant" then?
What if a public school led its students in a voluntary Christian prayer during the morning anouncements? Since none of the students were required to participate, and the PA system does belong to the school, so by your logic they should be able to do whatever they want. Is it "massively irrelevant" then?
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-07-08 15:41:52
Suppose a public library decided to ban all books from their library that:
a) support the theory of evolution,
b) discuss different methods of birth control such as condoms,
or c) depict "alternative lifestyles" such as homosexuality, bisexuality, etc. in a positive light?
Meanwhile, this same public library filled the shelves with:
a) books that advocate creationism and intelligent design,
b) books that only advocate abstinence as the proper form of birth control,
and c) books that depict homosexuality and bisexuality as sinful and wrong.
According to you, LaLa, this is perfectly all right since, in your view, government offices are under no obligation to remain politically neutral.
Is it "massively irrelevant" then?
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-07-08 16:40:17
No function of government is to provide internet access to its employees.
Posted by LaLaLaLaLaLa
2007-07-09 11:08:50
No function of government is to provide internet access to its employees.
Posted by LaLaLaLaLaLa
2007-07-09 11:11:34
Well, cool; go tell ’em. Mount a campaign.
Let’s see who looks stoopid.
Posted by LaLaLaLaLaLa
2007-07-09 11:18:03
You think it’s a trivial effort to set up an unbiased screening process.
I couldn’t care less what websites Govt (or any other) employees are or are not allowed to gawp at in their spare time.
So;
You pay for it, and I won’t mind.
deal?
Posted by LaLaLaLaLaLa
2007-07-09 11:42:41
But no one ever said they had to be politically neutral when they did it. According to you, it's all "massively irrelevant".
Ergo, there is absolutely nothing prohibiting a school from outlawing any non-conservative political expression, and nothing preventing a public library from removing all "liberal" books from their shelves.
Good job, LaLa! Jam those words in my mouth! Even if it takes a shoehorn to make them fit!
I specifically said that I would prefer they ban NO websites at all. You know that I said this. This leaves me to choose between one of two conclusions. Either you are deliberately lying because you are unwilling to admit that your argument is worthless, or you are unable to read.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-07-09 13:32:22