reply to post by Crimson_King
Originally posted by Crimson_King
'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
The operative phrase there is "other than". 'Other than' bilking several people out of billions of dollars, Bernie Madoff 'did nothing wrong'.
An action is either legitimate or it is not. There is no 'other than'. See how that works?
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.
Nor does it necessarily mean that it's NOT true. That's why we have courts in place, to decide those issues. We aren't talking about an unthinking
rainfall here, we're talking about deliberate and decietful actions resulting in harm to others, to wit the besmirchment of their character. Rain
does not decide how or where it falls. The ADL does decide such things for itself.
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.
No, they are not 'fabricated', they are truncated and misrepresented. The ADL deliberately cherry picked and misrepresented comments to achieve
political ends. When such action harms the original authors through misrepresentation, it is actionable.
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.
That is incorrect. The are bound by fairly specific legal notices associated with each post to provide proper attribution and links to the material in
full. See the little button in the lower right corner of each post that says "copyright and usage"? It tells you what you need to know.
For EACH post.
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.
You are aware of the meaning of "context", right? In case you aren't I'll line it out: "context" refers to the material surrounding each word or
sentence that provides a fuller insight into the specific meaning of said utterance. "Context" is one of the reasons for the copyright and usage
notice, and is something the ADL blatantly and willfully ignored in cherry picking and misrepresenting the quotes in question. Yes, the quotes were
"out of context".
Furthermore, the ADL, throught the agency of those who wrote, formulated, and posted their misleading report, willfully hindered the readers of the
report in any possible pursuit of the context by failing to provide links to the full quote, as required.
Indeed they are written by the users and they bear the full responsibility of it.
Incorrect. The original authors are responsible for the content of their ORIGINAL material, not the truncated version presented by the ADL used to
misrepresent their intent. The ADL bears full responsibility for that willful and deliberate misrepresentation.
The people who read the report should decide themselves whether they are or not related to the subject of the report.
As I mentioned above, the readers of the report were willfully hindered in any such quest by the deliberate failure of the ADL to comply with the
legal notice supplied with EACH post, and failing to provide links to the material in full in their report. That is, in fact, the heart of this
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.
It apparently also differs from a willful action to mislead and misdirect that same public opinion. None of the posts were in fact threatening, or in
violation of ATS T+C.
Nor were they intended as misrepresented in the ADL report.
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 submit that the ADL may have been better served by using such quotes as you mention in full. If they could find them.
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.
In that event, the ADL should not have used the quotes if they could not comply with the legal requirements and remain true to their own rules. The
ADL may set their own rules, they may NOT set the rules for ATS.
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.
You must have missed the very first page of the report calling for mass roundups of dissidents by law enforcement based on the faulty and misleading
presentation of the ADL then. I would call that a definite attempt to restrict free speech.
"Bordering", NO. "Crossing the line", YES. "Crossing the line" is an illegal act (Communicating Threats) and is dealt with in the law. By your
logic of "borderline", anyone can make claim that anything is threatening, on the "borderline", and justify action, thus squelching free
expression. Hell of a world that would be!
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.
Incorrect. Talking about illegal things, directly or indirectly, is in no way 'wrong'. If it were, we would all be ignorant of illegal acts, since
none could tell us about their occurence. Legally, there has to be more to it. This ADL porpaganda piece is an attempt to insinuate that there WAS
more to these statements, and is therefore misleading and libelous.
That, sir, IS wrong. And illegal too!
This response has been truncated in the interest of brevity and to highlight the salient points, while also providing a link to your original post for
See how easy that was?
Edit: for pesky spelling errors, as usual, and I doubt I got them all!
[edit on 2010/4/26 by nenothtu]