Tag Archive: Censorship


It’s all about which side is doing the censorship.

Twitter’s Sometimes Shadowban

Scott Adams shows screenshots of it happening to him.

As feminists there tried to get it shut down.

I’m looking forward to seeing it.

Geez. And that’s not the only thing youtube is censoring from Prager.

I guess “Don’t be evil” doesn’t apply anymore.

Here’s a pretty good list.

In the wake of Orlando, how did lefty organizations like Facebook and Twitter respond?

Twitter banned Milo Yiannopoulos for re-tweeting threats he was receiving from Muslims, claiming his re-tweeting was hate speech, reinstating him after Drudge pointed out their hypocrisy.

They also banned Mark Kern for suggesting that radical mosques should be surveilled, when the rest of us are getting spied on by the NSA anyway.

Facebook banned Pamela Geller and one of her Facebook groups for claiming that this post was Islamophobic:

The White House fails to mention Islam,  jihad or the call for slaughter of gays in Islam. Instead, Obama is importing these savages by the thousands.

I am sure we will get warnings of “islamophobia” and “backlashophobia.” Hamas-CAIR has called a press conference, and the leader of the Islamic Society of Central Florida is already at a press conference in Orlando. Islamic supremacist groups use these monstrous acts of carnage and murder to proselytize for Islam and condemn those of us who oppose jihad slaughter and sharia. It is gruesome how these Muslim groups exploit the bloodshed.

– See more at: http://pamelageller.com/2016/06/facebook-bans-pamela-geller-from-posting-in-wake-of-orlando-nightclub-jihad-massacre.html/#sthash.XtrBxC2T.dpuf

The left does not consider radical Islam an enemy, even when it slaughters the LGBQ community. Their only focus is on stopping conservatives.

He can’t even tolerate other world leaders mentioning the problem, so he has to censor them. You can’t confront a problem you can’t even talk about.

The Online Fascists

It’s not just Twitter that’s been policing conservatives (always in the name of “combating hate”). Buzzfeed does the same, and Facebook even teamed up with governments while it was doing so.

In a way, it’s funny that the left constantly worries about fascism while constantly embracing textbook definitions of it. I can’t figure out if they don’t know what the term actually means, or if they know they’re doing so but don’t actually mind the term, and just see it as a useful attack tool.

They started by un-verifying, shadowbanning, and outright banning various conservatives, and now they’ve moved on to doing the same to Hillary critics, even those on the left. Actual criminals get none of this treatment.

They’re also deleting tweets on behalf of Bank of America. They’ve fully embraced the SJW agenda, even to the point of causing white board members to quit, but of course they’re still trying to claim that they’re for free speech – but the people they’ve put in charge of all of this are some the most outspoken feminists.

All of this is backfiring, and their stock price is tanking. Conservatives are leaving Twitter in droves, and there’s a corresponding loss in share price.

“With Open Gates – the forced collective suicide of Europe”

Apparently the truth is offensive to a lot of people.

Someone over there has blacklisted Mark Steyn’s website. Can’t let anyone accidentally get exposed to conservative thought.

Actually, it’s more likely that United Airlines routes their filtering through a third party filter provider. In which case other companies probably are blacklisting Mark Steyn as well. But if enough bad publicity makes it back to the customers of the filter provider, it’ll work it’s way up to the filter provider as well.

Geert Wilders event in Florida cancelled due to potential safety concerns.

If Americans still valued freedom of speech, hearing this sort of headline would anger them into hosting Geert Wilders somewhere else, regardless of their opinion on the man.

Well, to the left, questioning the Obamessiah is “Suspicious Activity”. That’s why they keep on listing tea party groups as terrorists. Meanwhile, plotting the downfall of America, ala #Occupy is perfectly fine.

Just two weeks after the attack, Facebook has begun censoring images of Mohammed.

There’s obviously a lot to say about what’s going on in France, but there are several particular reactions that I see in places that I find absolutely insane:

Reaction #1:

The problem isn’t Muslim fundamentalism, the problem is religious fundamentalism of all types. Christian fundamentalism is almost/just as much a problem as Muslim fundamentalism.

Or occasionally this is directed at political conservatives rather than Christians. Or oftentimes Israel. Not only is this reaction ludicrous, but it’s quite bigoted, as well. Muslim fanatics are committing genocide throughout Africa and the Middle East, and atrocities in France, and yet somehow what’s important to anyone who’s making this sort of statement is to pull Christians into the conversation as being the same as these Muslim fanatics. Inevitably the incidence of abortion bombings is brought up as evidence supporting this claim. Not only is the comparison ludicrous to make (42 incidents of abortion violence worldwide in all of history listed on wikipedia at the time of this writing vs 24809 Islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11 listed on religion of peace), but the reactions between the two communities (Islam vs Christianity) is entirely different. The bulk of the Christian response to abortion violence is to condemn it and swiftly declare that violence is not a Christian behavior. The bulk of the public Muslim response to terrorist incidents is to worry about anti-Islamic backlash, find excuses for the terrorists, and blame the victim. You can say it’s only other extremists who do this – but it is rare to see any sort of Muslim “Not in our Name” rally or protest (though they do exist), or hear voices stand up and denounce even the victim blaming and terrorism excusing. Muslims will frequently march to support Palestine – and almost never condemn Palestinian terrorism – and yet remain astoundingly silent on Islamic terror.

Reaction #2:

The actions of a few fanatics have nothing to do with Islam

Sorry, Ben Affleck, sorry Howard Dean, sorry NPR and CNN, you’re dead wrong. 24809 incidents of Islamic terrorism since 9/11 say otherwise. Salmon Rushdie, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and the many, many women killed in honor killings each year also show otherwise. Not only are terrorist groups like ISIS at least 30,000 strong – and claiming to be Islamic, but statistically significant groups of Muslims consistently support and agree with the the perpetrators of all of these atrocities. Yes, many Muslims disagree, as well, but just because you can find millions of Muslims against the violence and doesn’t mean you can say it’s not Islamic, since millions of Muslims tacitly support the violence. And by saying it’s not Islamic, or by censoring out the Islamic connections, you’re sapping the Muslims who would reform this out of their religion. Cartoons are not the issue here. Oh, and while all this is going on Saudi Arabia – the center of Islam, is giving a man 1000 lashes for insulting Islam.

Reaction #3:

Violence is never justified, but we can’t offend Muslims, either.

Also, that woman who was raped shouldn’t have worn that short skirt, right? Or, in Obama’s words, “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam”. Well now it doesn’t, does it? There is nothing that can be said that doesn’t offend someone, somewhere, and the same people who are offended by those cartoons are offended by women driving, women wearing clothing that doesn’t hide their entire body, homosexuals, and beardless men. The falsely attributed Voltaire quote is a perfectly acceptable attitude, but saying that something shouldn’t be said, or should be censored, or even just self censored is not. What’s more, there’s either cowardice or bigotry at work in the media outlets that consistently refuse to show the cartoons in question, even when people have died over them, but will show images of the piss christ. Likely cowardice, but few will admit to that. Even if it’s bad satire, it must be defended – especially because, as we see from their own actions, what the Islamists fear above all else (even death) is being laughed at, as laughter reveals the insanity of their creed. And if we don’t defend satire here in the west, we’re making it even harder for those who live elsewhere. The images may offend Muslims of all stripes, but if they justify violence to keep the images from being published, violence is justified in defending the right to publish them. And all of the cartoonists and journalists who are doing so have more integrity than any of the media outlets that will not. The only reason Charlie was targeted was because all of the other cowards wouldn’t step up to support them. You weren’t Charlie when it mattered.

Forget the Interview, think about the Chinese market.

And they also almost never show the tyranny that was the USSR, but that’s because of where their sympathies are.

A Response To The Oatmeal:

Your precious net neutrality bill would still be putting the internet into the hands of the FCC, the government agency that censors stuff. Are you really so naive that you think they’ll enforce neutrality irregardless of content?

Just wow.

You may have noticed conservatives’ recent success in destroying the left’s memes on twitter…but the response of the left has not been to try to respond in kind. Instead, they’re up to their usual tricks: censorship.

Discussing the Fairness Doctrine and Net Neutrality – which is yet another policy Obama’s decided to implement simply by executive fiat.