Internet Users Have Been Defamed by the Anti-Defamation League

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Originally posted by sos37
Anti-Defamation League ...

I picture an office full of greasy-haired, fashion-obtuse people, furiously tapping away at their keyboards humming "I will survive". All asthetically-challenged (Ugos) who were particularly hurt at some time in their lives by bullies - maybe in high school or middle school. Now they have a government job trying to protect the world from bullying and name-calling.

Their rallying cry: "I didn't like it in high school, and I DON'T LIKE IT NOW!!!"

Are they really to be feared? I picture a minivan full of stick-thin guys piling out, wearing high-waters, big thick-rimmed glasses, plaid shirts, with sticks coming your way to administer a fully-deserved beat down. Hmmm. Somehow I just am not afraid of these guys.

PLUS...how is ATS going to complain about "defamation" when childish post like this is pretty much the norm lately.

We aren't really standing on any moral high ground to pretend like we are the victims.

If people here want to speak out and say what they want...fine...call for violence all you want...but don't run and cry when someone else calls you out on it.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me how my toungue-in-cheek visualization of the ADL is tantamount to inciting violence.

Maybe it would help if you pulled the stick out of your... awww forget it.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Internet users, you have been defamed by the Anti-Defamation League.

I guess this means we have the Largest Class Action Lawsuit in History Right?

Originally posted by sickofitall2012
reply to post by ProfEmeritus

 

I'm curious, when people called for the death of GWB, called him a Nazi, and actually made a movie about assassinating him, where was the ADL? Does anyone know if they put those people on a list? (and no I'm not a big GWB fan, so don't go there)
This is just the start people, soon anyone that speaks out against the government will be put on some blacklist, not saying that's what this is, no, it's just the start.

This is an excellent point and I'm glad you brought it up. You don't have to be a "GWB lover" to make this point, either.

The posts on ATS alone about GWB during his last year in office were some of the most violent, hate-filled spew I've seen and yet we didn't hear a peep from organizations like the ADL. It's funny (not ha-ha funny) but you have to wonder why that is - it would be interesting to find a list of the ADLs top contributors. It's a non-profit, right? So shouldn't contributions be made publicly available?

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
PLUS...how is ATS going to complain about "defamation" when childish post like this is pretty much the norm lately.

Lets get real...anyone can sign up and post something silly.

There is a major difference between an irresponsible statement from a relatively anonymous member of the general public on a forum open to everyone, and an irresponsible statement that amounts to defamation from a major international non-governmental organization that is respected enough to apparently be allowed to train agencies of United States Department of Justice.

You don't see the difference there?

- Lee





[edit on 26-4-2010 by lee anoma]

Quoted wrong post, tried to fix then double posted.

- Lee

[edit on 26-4-2010 by lee anoma]

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


'In my opinion' other than not citing and providing links to the concerned posts and forum ADL has not done anything wrong. They are not bound to provide a history of every subject or in what context the posts were made. The words written in the posts were same as was posted on discussion forum boards.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
In a recent report authored by the Anti-Defamation League, Internet users everywhere who express opinions that are highly critical of "government" have been viciously defamed as "extremists," "terrorists," and worse.
That is your opinion which you are right to put in words but it doesn't necessarily means it is true. The rain which a person would find pleasing may be cause of flood in a different area.

The report ignores reality, context, and history in an effort to fabricate new levels of fear and public apprehension about public discourse that falls well within the hard-fought confines of free speech.

The report submitted was about a specific subject not of the history of any case and cited various "written" snippets from different forum boards. They certainly don't look fabricated or edited - they are word to word copy.

Context: Misrepresentation of Online Commentary
The report includes brief, out-of-context, snippets from three members of ATS. A casual look at the actual postings and opinions of those members provides a significantly different opinion than the expressions characterized by the report. A brief sampling of several other comment snippets used in the report provides a similar result: nearly every comment used in the report is out of context and expresses opinions not compatible with the "findings" of the ADL report. In fact, some of the commentary snippets used in the report are simply people placing current events in historical context, and not advocating violence in any way.
Context: The Internet
The report completely ignores the evolution of the online culture, that of a new-found bravado associated with posting opinions anonymously. Huge segments of the population are participating in online discussions in a manner in which they may not behave during live person to person exchanges. Several academic studies from credentialed universities and sources have concluded that the higher-degree of intensity of online commentary is nothing more than braggadocio for the purpose of personal entertainment. And more importantly, those blustering opinions should not be given the same credibility or importance as published opinions that utilize one's actual name.

ADL was running a report on a particular subject and they are not bound to provide history or context of each posts or that of online culture. Are the snippets written by the original intended users or not? If they are word to word written by the authors they cannot say it is out of context or fabricated in any way. Indeed they are written by the users and they bear the full responsibility of it. The people who read the report should decide themselves whether they are or not related to the subject of the report. Since the posts were neither modified or deleted means they were acceptable to The Above Network terms and conditions What is and not acceptable to The Above Network conditions may/ will differ to the public opinion.

On the contrary people are more willing to act on what they speak and form association with a particular mindset through online discussions. It displays their mindset and willingness to do things and under heat of the moment anyone can do anything. There is no proof people will not act on what they say on internet. How many times we have witnessed teenagers posting angrily on boards which often resulted in school massacre? Or even the recent plane crash in Austin Texas the alleged person left a angry note on the internet. It is increasingly becoming a phenomenon that many people post angry messages or indirectly call for violence and often act on it.

Vacuum: No Citation or Bibliography
The omission of source citations in any report that attempts to analyze published opinion is not just rare, it's unprecedented. This exclusion of any means whereby the reader may confirm the findings of the report is not only suspect, it renders it little more than a work of sensationalist fiction.
Of course, given current events, we can conclude that the negligence is not the accidental act of an inexperienced researcher, it's the decisive act of someone with an agenda. That agenda is broad-based libel focused on people who take to the Internet to express their disaffection with the government.

This I agree with, links to the several message boards posts should have been provided...keeping in mind the type of report was prepared perhaps they have their own rules and conditions not to link anything which is threatening/ offensive in nature.

The conclusions are not just wrong, they're an assault on the fabric of free expression and the right of people to assemble and discuss government grievances. No person who expresses their political opinion online should accept the findings in this report. The report is much more dangerous to the founding principals of this nation than any of the inflammatory commentary the authors selected.

I did not see any mention of banning or restricting free speech in the report. People have right to talk but when it starts bordering and crossing threats they should be monitored and acceptable action should be taken as per the law.

Internet users, you have been defamed by the Anti-Defamation League.

I wouldn't say so and certainly don't agree with this statement. Talking about illegal things directly or indirectly is wrong.

Originally posted by Springer
I would love to know if there is any evidence of a deep relationship between Cass Sunstein and the ADL. Reading this report certainly brings Mr. Sunstein's ideas to mind.

Springer...

Hate to say it, but why don't you ask Glenn Beck. He has been finding all kinds of connections again lately. He is even promoting that a "One World Order", is taking hold with the new reforms.
Of course we know it's true and have for a long time, but it is nice to see someone on TV starting that language with everyday folks.

reply to post by Crimson_King


So you did not read the thread, just the OP.

Others have posted the entire comments and they were not word for word in every instance.

Like Doc Velocity's comment, they cherry picked components of the comment.

I could cherry pick parts of your comment and make it look like you wanted to overthrow the world.

I would just have to rearrange them in whatever way I wanted, just as they did.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


As too you Mr. Overlord, rail them! Rail against them Hard!
Throw what ever you got against them now, because later won't matter.

I do believe, that now we are starting to hit critical mass. They wore everyone out for over a year with BS crap, and now they are bringing in the big hammers and nobody is fighting.

What I would like to know is, what would these people have said back during the Bush admin? I was being labeled a left wing terrorist sympathizer. Today I'm being called a right wing extremist...

What these people need to realize is that Obama's election didn't change my mind about the corruption and the steady path toward tyranny, I took a wait and see approach and almost right away he turned from the smooth talking, smart young man, to George Bush with a tan and a better smile.

I am NOT impressed. People were begging to be brought back to the Constitution during Bush, which is why Obama talked about it so much, it's the reason I donated to his campaign. Now where are we? Same road, further along. Coming up is a fork in the road, one continues the Bush path we are still on ending in a steep cliffside. The other is a road less travelled, taking us back to our founding principles and the laws that guide us and protect our rights.

If belief in the the Constitution and our founding principles makes me a terrorist, so be it. But ask yourself this ADL, what kind of pussified, whiny little people does it take to be like you? Afraid of ideas, afraid of Liberty. I hope that life is more peaceful and quiet in the cell you seem to prefer. I hope that this cell pleases you and helps keep you happy, cozy, warm at night.

I, on the other hand, prefer the party in the Land Of Liberty.

I'll leave you with this. A POEM I wrote, a work of art. I will post it while I am still free to do so:

We Are Not Afraid


You! The Senator, the Magistrate, The Constable! You! The President, The General, and the Soldier, Listen closely to the wind - within it is carried the screams of the Children of Liberty!  

You! The Student, The Parent, The Teacher. You! The Laborer, The Transient, and the Destitute, let the sound of your chains awaken you! Lock your rifles, stand your ground, with your presence you shall declare "With our blood or yours we have come to water the Tree of Liberty! We have come for our Freedom, and we are not afraid!!"

[edit on 26-4-2010 by projectvxn]

[edit on 26-4-2010 by projectvxn]

reply to post by endisnighe


Perhaps I should reply
"So you did not read my post in it's entirety and just noted the top lines I do not agree with the what is written by the author of this thread in opening post?"

Alas, my answer is yes I read the thread and formed my opinion on it which I put down in my last post. I dont support half measured theoretical stages under the guise of selective free speech. If we are going to play with free speech in any form which limits discussion of any topic and at the same time claim our free speech is being targeted then I am afraid I am not supportive of such selective freedom. Either it is completely free or it is not.

[edit on 26-4-2010 by Crimson_King]

Originally posted by projectvxn
What I would like to know is, what would these people have said back during the Bush admin? I was being labeled a left wing terrorist sympathizer. Today I'm being call a right wing extremist...

LOL - Ain't that the truth. Funny how that works like that. Shooting Star my friend!

Few commets I found from this report...

“Violence…I think we’re missing the point of violence, gentlemen. It’s to send a message, not to simply kill; you can kill any guy on the street, but when a congressman dies, things are bound to be understood and change. The problem as to why violence has not manifested yet is because there is not an obvious, near target; we have Obama and his ilk, but these figureheads are unreachable, and not attackable for obvious reasons. There’s no one else that we know of that is supporting this except the underlings such as Congress and Senate. Theoretically speaking, these would be the people to hit, or possibly those underneath them.” Post by “Sickle_and_Hammer” on Above Top Secret Forums, March 24, 2010.

“Domestic enemies in office,” wrote “Adino” on the Tree of Liberty Forums on March 25, “They should all be removed and imprisoned.” Who were the so-called “domestic enemies?” For many, they were Democratic representatives and senators. “When you start talking about terrorists imposing their will on our nation,” explained “Doc Velocity” on the Above Top Secret forums on March 24, “you must realize that Congressional Democrats are the terrorists who in no way represent the MAJORITY of the American People.”

• “I think I remember an old adage from long ago, can’t remember where I heard it or who said it…but it went something like this: If a man won’t change his ideals with words, then you change his mind with a bullet.” Post by “boondock-saint” on the Above Top Secret Forums, March 24, 2010.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

BTW, SO, are you aware that this is not the FIRST report dealing with the same subject that the ADL has published. They published the report, entitled "Rage Grows in America:Anti-Government Conspiracies" in 2009. Here is the entire text of that report:

www.adl.org...

Here is the table of contents of that report:

Introduction: A Year of Growing Animosity...................................................... 1
Part One: Anger in the Mainstream ......................................................................... 4
The Tea Parties ...................................................................................................................... 4
April 15 and July 4 Tea Parties ................................................................................................. 4
The Town Hall Meeting Disruptions .................................................................................... 6
Confronting Officeholders with Angry Rhetoric ...................................................................... 6
Nazi Comparisons .................................................................................................................... 7
A Building Anger ................................................................................................................... 9
September 12 Tea Party Events ................................................................................................ 9
The “How to Take Back America” Conference ...................................................................... 11
Press Conference in D.C. Against Health-Care Reform .......................................................... 12
The “Birther” Movement .................................................................................................... 13
The “Birther” Conspiracies .................................................................................................... 13
Major “Birthers” .................................................................................................................... 14
Philip Berg. ........................................................................................................................ 14
Orly Taitz. .......................................................................................................................... 15
World Net Daily ................................................................................................................. 16
The Influence of the Mainstream Media ............................................................................ 17
Part Two: Anger on the Fringes ............................................................................... 19
Alex Jones, the Conspiracy King ......................................................................................... 19
Jones and Obama................................................................................................................. 20
Conspiracy Theories Imagine Government Plots ............................................................... 21
Anti-Government Conspiracy Theories and Their Transmission ................................................... 21
Conspiracy Theories Prompting Action: Reaction to the Iowa National Guard .......................... 23
Nancy Genovese Incident ...................................................................................................... 24
Conspiracy Theories Prompting Action: Richard Poplawski ................................................... 24
ii
Resisting the Government ................................................................................................... 25
The Oath Keepers .................................................................................................................. 26
The Three Percenters ............................................................................................................. 27
The Resurgence of the Militia Movement ............................................................................... 28

It is a tirade against virtually every thread on ATS.
No conspiracy of a political nature is beyond attack by the ADL.

It is amazing how a small group of very rich people can influence everything that the US government does, or says. There are very few elected officials that don't bow to everything that the ADL/AIPAC demands.

Of course, there WAS one, who was subsequently vilified in the MSM.

"There are only two groups that are beating the drums for war in the Middle East - the Israeli Defense Ministry and its amen corner in the United States," Buchanan said.

www.infoplease.com...

reply to post by ProfEmeritus


"When you are over the target you get the Flak!"

2nd Line

Not only should this site feel insulted and harmed but I as a user of these forums feel harmed by this. hmmm possible class action suit? just sayin Oh yeah if so, count me in

[edit on 26-4-2010 by Barkster]

Of course they're exagerrating, and it's been the goal to make US citizens the next terrorists since 9/11. The Patriot act, and everything else passed as a supposed reaction to that event, has very little to do with foreign terrorists, and everything to do with US citizens.

However, they can't call you threats if you keep cool heads, and you're doing just what they want when you repeat things people like Glenn Beck say online. I've been convinced for awhile he's a CIA plant, and the goal is now clear as day. They're making you say and do things which they can use against you.

[edit on 26-4-2010 by Risen]

reply to post by lee anoma


May have been an internal dime but an external deal is just as likely. The ADL is big into monitoring the internet and they make no claim otherwise.

www.adl.org...

Perhaps if it was an internal dime, it is more than it seems.

www.thejidf.org...

reply to post by Crimson_King

I dont support half measured theoretical stages under the guise of selective free speech. If we are going to play with free speech in any form which limits discussion of any topic and at the same time claim our free speech is being targeted then I am afraid I am not supportive of such selective freedom. Either it is completely free or it is not.

Really? Consider your own words then:

On the contrary people are more willing to act on what they speak and form association with a particular mindset through online discussions. It displays their mindset and willingness to do things and under heat of the moment anyone can do anything. There is no proof people will not act on what they say on internet. How many times we have witnessed teenagers posting angrily on boards which often resulted in school massacre? Or even the recent plane crash in Austin Texas the alleged person left a angry note on the internet. It is increasingly becoming a phenomenon that many people post angry messages or indirectly call for violence and often act on it.

I am having a hard time buying that the above is a considered opinion, let alone a thoughtful and detailed study that shows; "people are more willing to act on what they speak and form association with a particular mindset through online discussions. It displays their mindset and willingness to do things and under heat of the moment anyone can do anything."

Such a remark strikes me as a half measured hypothesis no where near worthy of being called theoretical, that comes off as being very much under the guise of selective free speech. But, you don't stop there, you continue with:

If we are going to play with free speech in any form which limits discussion of any topic and at the same time claim our free speech is being targeted then I am afraid I am not supportive of such selective freedom. Either it is completely free or it is not.

Yet another half measure not even close to being theoretical, blatantly ignoring the libel laws in place. Free speech does not include harming another person, which, in my understanding of it, is precisely why the ADL exists to begin with. The ADL is not the only organization in existence today who is using their organization to defame individuals and groups, but that the ADL has chosen to do so is the height of hypocrisy.

Most assuredly the freedom of speech and of the press are most crucial and vital to a free society, but if you honestly believe that the clear and undeniable defamation of several websites and some of the users who frequent those sites is a part of that, then perhaps we should abandon the rule of law and let's all just bash the hell of each other verbally, and see if your hypothesis that it is "increasingly becoming a phenomenon hat many people post angry messages or indirectly call for violence and often act on it", is testable. At least then you could move beyond half measures and weak hypothesis and into the realm of actual theory.

Why not we all simply defame each other in anyway we can and let the best thug win? Or, why not we hold people accountable? This means, if anyone here should be held accountable, then they should be held as such, and in fact, I have seen many here held accountable, by a diligent and visible staff. I have not this luxury concerning this organization ADL, and know not who holds them accountable, but increasingly they have insinuated their name and influence upon my realm, and not at all in a welcome way.

I enjoyed reading your original post, although I disagreed with all of it, I did enjoy reading it, but your reply to end suddenly put your original post into a new light. As is often the case, those who advocate monitoring the words and speech of others deemed, (by whom other than the ADL you did not speak to), potential threats, will too quickly turn around and pay empty homage to unbridled free speech. Where those who have recognized this growing movement of potential tyrants who would monitor others to "protect society", have used their right to speak freely to that, there are the potential tyrants who then seize upon this and begin compiling their lists, and publishing them openly, encouraging and fostering yet even more decent and fostering fear without even the slightest bit of irony in their words, and finally end with empty words declaring they are for free speech for all. Hmmmmmm......

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I know what I have said perhaps you did not get the gist of it or I was not able to explain more aptly in either case I do not want to expand further in this line of discussion. I have been lurking around this website from last 3 - 3 and a half years and only joined recently but I have witnessed enough.

Saying that I dont support ADL one bit and I know how they work and try to defame people. It is a mere co-incidence I just mentioned ADL on a different thread yesterday and I'm very critical of them and how they are en-roaching not only the government, politicians, institutions but also general people's lives through neighborhood watch schemes and other such ways, but I dont support ATS on this issue for the reasons stated in my previous post.

Thank you for your courteous reply..I will bow out from this thread now.

[edit on 26-4-2010 by Crimson_King]