| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Muzzling Jihad Watch |
| 2007-07-06 |
| By Robert Spencer 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:ryuge |
| #16 I think I would feel extra secure knowing that a Marine was handling my security. I hope your corporation appreciates what they've got, djh_usmc. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-07-06 19:46 |
| #15 This sounds like maybe the proxy filtering provider may be a managed service provider. LGF ran into this not that long ago. The url filtering providers have periodic updates to the filters. We ran into this where I work, one day a business supply site and FoxNews was blocked. The provider we used just changed the whitelist. True, in a corporate enterprise, (I work in IT security) internet access is a privelage. If it is the corporate IT depts doing this it is one thing but if it it is the url filter provider it is something else entirely. |
| Posted by: djh_usmc 2007-07-06 19:27 |
| #14 Karen Hughes attacked Robert Spencer by name, 2 weeks ago. She would have the leverage. She also owns a Muslim veil, which she wears with dhimmi pride. |
| Posted by: McZoid 2007-07-06 18:04 |
| #13 It points out a glaring problem with democracy and capitalism. In reality democracy is only effective (enabled) after work and on weekends. For the rest of the time you are in the baron's or syndic's keep. Said keep by its nature being a MidEvil and undemocratic setting. |
| Posted by: 3dc 2007-07-06 16:55 |
| #12 so CAIR should be. By rights, CAIR shouldn't even exist on American soil. I think it's safe to say that the same applies to all of their members. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-07-06 16:46 |
| #11 Spencer points out that if JW is blocked, so CAIR should be. But it's not. |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2007-07-06 16:33 |
| #10 All good points, but Pappy has an excellent point as well. You can subscribe to a service, but what ultimately gets blocked, or not, is up to the SysAdmin. And a lot of those folks are Barking Mad Lefties. |
| Posted by: Natural Law 2007-07-06 15:44 |
| #9 It's not censorship. In the workplace example, it is not. Agreed. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-07-06 14:42 |
| #8 Despicable as censorship is, especially selective censorship, employers are under no obligation whatsoever to provide non-work related Internet content to their employees. It's not censorship. Censorship is what governments do. When an employer limits access to the web for its employees during work hours, that's just a work rule. Employers are under no obligation to provide the entire web to employees on their intranets. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2007-07-06 14:22 |
| #7 Glenmore is on the money here. Despicable as censorship is, especially selective censorship, employers are under no obligation whatsoever to provide non-work related Internet content to their employees. We all can be grateful that Freedom of Speech permits us to view whatever we want during off hours. However, to tar all such initiatives as “hatred” is a tried and true tactic of the Left. Spencer left out "Muslims", but he works up to it. Intellectually bankrupt as it is, it silences its critics rather than dealing with them on the level of ideas. That's because the Left gave up on original thought a long time ago. It's dangerous, ya know. People might get ideas instead of toeing the party line. They can’t answer us, so they try to shut us up and discredit us. Simultaneously discrediting themselves in the eyes of all free-thinking people. 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. Any ability to "make people of good will turn away" is often dramatically offset by the next terrorist atrocity which usually follows soon enough. And the politicized nature of this Internet censorship will come as a surprise to no one. Surprisingly, least of all to the liberal Left amidst their strident cries of "Free Speech". Curious, that. I seem to recall them having rallies, demonstrations and riots over "Free Speech" several decades ago? What changed? Committed Leftist ideologues have for many decades waged a war to gain control of the portals of communication. And they succeded. They just weren't counting on the Internet showing up. 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. Despite whatever environmental damage technology has wrought upon our planet, just the Internet alone absolves it of that wrongdoing. Electronic text transmission and display has saved entire Amazonian rainforests from the pulp mills. No combustion engines need pollute the skies to deliver content to our doors and workplace productivity is enhanced immesurably. 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. When Islam is finally defeated—and it will be defeated—Robert Spencer should receive a medal of honor for his erudite and unflagging deconstruction of Islam's treacherous façade as the Religion of Peace [spit]. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-07-06 13:43 |
| #6 I blocked Move-on.org at my work. No one noticed. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2007-07-06 11:29 |
| #5 Generally big corporations subscribe to a web filtering company, and select categories to have blocked. They tend to be pretty broad categories, and they tend to be rather inconsistently populated (as would be expected given the massive number of sites to be categorized.) I find that if I have a work reason to go to a blocked site I can contact my sys-admin and get access. But the truth is, there is almost never a work-related site that is blocked. I figure that any non-blocked, un-work-related site I get access to on the company system (even during lunch) is a 'free' bonus to me. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2007-07-06 10:23 |
| #4 It depends on who the sys-admin is. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2007-07-06 10:13 |
| #3 Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. |
| Posted by: Jonathan 2007-07-06 10:05 |
| #2 CAIR was not blocked--astounding! |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2007-07-06 08:23 |
| #1 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. I guess the employees will just have to wait until the buildings fall to get a sense that something is going on. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2007-07-06 08:22 |