Internet Users Have Been Defamed by the Anti-Defamation League

Originally posted by Daughter2
There seems to be a PR push to make people who are critical of the government seem dangerous. Look at the recent comments on CNN. They seem to want to make the average person scared or distrustful of sites like ATS. They know sites like these can not be banned but the next best thing is to destroy credibility.

There is a difference between being anti-government and being
anti-corrupt government. Though there might be a few posters who fall into the anti-government category, most seem just to want a good government.

Also, predicting violence or expressing anger does not necessarily make someone dangerous. You really do have to look at vague statements in the entire context before you call them dangerous.

Expect more of these "reports" - the internet was becoming a little too powerful.

That hits the nail on the head right there... The corrupt in government know their gravy train won't last forever, so they label any speaking out against them and their actions as "anti-government" when they are only just anti-corruption...
And it seems there are a lot of gullable folks that get hooked by this "scam" and then propagate the anti-government themes, when they are really , yet again, anti-corruption themes, or were originally before folks like ADL perverted them, or attempted to.

reply to post by belial259


Braggadacio? I watched two FBI agents with two members of the Mt Supreme Court Board on practice engage in one of a series of scams and deliberately allow to young children to bleed to death. Using my real name to avert this did nothing to stop it or change it. Nor has the Internet, but at least there's a place I can say it. That's one among many things I've witnessed the government do, and not the worst. It is not even close to defamation to state the truth, that the government is a lying, predatory, chicken piece of #.

Is this some kind of call to arms, that we see on other sites, when they are defamed?

Is it implied that we take action against the ADL here? It seems like it to me.

I wonder how long before their website is Replaced with racial cartoon images of jews, and Isreal.

I notice that a certain website was not mentioned, which is renown for racism, "extremists", and recently took down an terrorist muslim website..

I wonder why they didnt mention them? fear of reprisal.

Wow, nice find!

Having read the report and the actual posts here on ATS, I can only agree that they were taken completely out of context. What right do these people have to twist our words in this way?

I know of 2 of the posters on the thread in question and although they are passionate in their posts and I may not always agree with their sentiment, I do respect them and know that they would never condone illegal or violent action. The way that their benign statements have been used in such an inflamatory way is astounding!

I hope SO manages to get somewhere with this and will be keeping an eye out for the results of his fine efforts.

[edit for spellnig]

[edit on 27-4-2010 by nik1halo]

This is just a consideration in regard to this thread, an abstract, and food for thought.

Could there be another annexure agenda to why a report such as this has come into existence?

My point: The Anti-Defamation League may not have the power to restrict nor have censored any site they deem to be extremist in America – there are laws and the 1st Amendment which at the moment, like a battered shield, protects the right to free speech.

What the laws and the 1st Ammendment cannot protect Free Speech from is the internet censorship restrictions which are now taking hold and applied in other countries.

What if ATS is not locked out from the inside, but filtered from the outside due to reports such as these which name and quote material from specific websites?
What if any similar report (similar to the ADL’s) content, recommendations and selective targeting and naming of websites, are taken as considerations when overseas Governments are deciding to filter websites with ‘inappropriate content’?
What if a series of reports were commissioned (with intent) to target and name exclusively sites with content they deem’ inappropriate’ for their own agenda, or in a surrogate manner for the purpose of other individual organizations, and those sites were filtered without due scrutiny. And the definition of ‘inappropriate’ can be very broad, and manipulated to suit the agenda and the overall decision.

I understand that this would be up to internet censorship laws and projected implementations for censorship in other countries and at their discernment of the content, but I think what we are seeing here is the seeds of something which could escalate and become more problematic to the internet, censorship, free speech, and the restrictions imposed on the WWW in the future.

If the report from the ADL has a purpose, I think it has also a multi tiered agenda. I ask then, what that may be? Is this a ‘toe in the water’? What other consequences can be distinguished from this? What type of responses are they cornering you into?

This ADL report generates for me, a broad spectrum of potential impacts. I think it needs a seriously penned broad-based ‘response’ and not just an emotionally written ‘reaction’ –
If suddenly in the future our overseas visitors and members start disappearing, maybe ATS can assume it is on some filtered list because of a report like this (ADL).

Just my 2 cents worth.


[edit on 27/4/10 by Smiggle]

The ADL report may be an attempt to bring additional censorship controls to the internet; it may be "smoke and mirrors" intended to create a diversion while the main thrust is elsewhere ("Art of War" - create a diversion). The point is that there are already in place several devices by which the government can shut down web sites for various pretenses. How many posters here took note when the IRS closed down "familyguardian.tzo.com" on the pretense that the web site was giving "legal advice". The web site is operated by Chis Hansen (not the jerk on TV) who is a Conventionalist Christian and that view point is not popular with most ATS posters. Well the web site is back on line:

famguardian.org...

You might want to browse around in it.

Taking statements out of context has been a standard ADL tactic for years. Indeed yours truly is probably on the "ADL watch list". My crime: I build model airplanes only of aircraft which bore RLM numbers (i. e., Luftwaffe). In a situation too long to explain here, the Jewish fiance of my deceased girl friend's sister would not come into my apartment because of them. (And I am sure he reported me.) That is the thinking of these people. If you are not 100% "politically correct", then you might be a terrorist. Harmless activities can be taken out of context to make you look like a public enemy.

All web sites such as ATS must band together to maintain the right of free speech on the internet. That means you got to defend the guys you don't like. If they can close down "familyguardian" on some pretense, then eventually they will find some excuse to close down any web site including ATS.

Also, how many of those statements in the ADL report are real people? Since the posting on most web sites has only the user name, it would be easy for 4 or 5 people to create multiple user names and then post inflammatory statements. Then they could go to the FBI or whoever and say "See this web site supports terrorism, you got to shut it down"

Well also the postings on ATS seem quite mild when compared on some of comments I seen on youtube. I didn't see youtube any where in the ADL report.

S&F of course.

The first question is: WHY did the ADL write this report?

...Off the top of my head,

1. The current wars the USA is running all purport to be "Anti-terrorist" actions, yet Americans are preaching violent revolution at home. Doesn't look good - and hurts the USA's negotiating position in international dealings. (As in, clean up your own backyard first.)

2. TPTB are scared - they haven't seen so much grassroots action since the anti-Vietnem war peace-love resistance movement. Took them more than a decade to get that one under control, the impacts were extreme, with huge social/cultural and economic effects - and this one's way worse. ...The Internet makes crowd control and population manipulation next to impossible.

3. And yeah - mainly it's another excuse to "control the Internet." ...Doesn't fly, really, and this admin supports "Net Neutrality," but hey, they're getting heat from every quarter. Bottom line: the world's mega-corporations want a global playing field governed exclusively by International Trade Law - and they're calling the shots.

...So, WHAT does the ADL hope to accomplish with this report?

Create a chip for International horse-trading? ...Justify an about-face on Net Neutrality to the American people because the global mega-corporations hold all the cards and national laws really cannot override international trade laws and agreements?

???


Off topic, from the ADL report, re: the Health Bill:

“Have you read the bill? It is a full police state bill. Your body is now owned by the state. Your children are owned by the state. Your blood, sperm, ovaries, all reproductive methods are owned by the state. Your organs are owned by the state. This is a Nazi Eugenics bill with full bailout financing to the federal reserve front companies (big insurance).” Post by “Sane” to the Prison Planet Forums, March 22, 2010.

Just so you know, under the current terms of International Trade Law, it's the mega-corporations who "own your body, your children (their DNA and debt), Your blood, sperm, ovaries, all reproductive methods, and Your organs." Not to mention all the fruits of your labor and your children's labor, and more.

And yes, the current terms of International Trade Law are best described as "Nazi Eugenics." ...I haven't really looked at the Health Bill, but based on this one post quoted above, it seems like the US government may be trying to take back ownership and control of people from the mega-corporations.

reply to post by projectvxn


I really like your poem.
I will always I will defend our Constitution and if that makes me a terrorist, so be it as well.

To ADL or anyone else out there drooling over my use of the word "defend", sorry to dissappoint you, but I only meant "defend"with my voice. I suppose you could still use it out of context though, oh well.

The ADL are so transparent it's sad. They work for the controlling powers, and will dance to any tune the CPs play. It's in the name as well - in the usual Orwellian 'newspeak' - using opposites to play a trick on the mind - the Anti-Defamation League are in the business of defamation - that's what they were set up to do, and they do their job!

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

You know it is interesting to me, my friend, that you actually believe the full text quoted of Doc's doesn't sound any better than what the ADL quoted out of context, and of course, that post of Doc's is clearly out of context when you read the first sentence of that post:

Obviously, to anyone who would read the entirety of that post, it is clear that it is a post in reply to another, and indicative of a conversation happening between he and another, but what the ADL quoted:

Has no context to it at all and appears as if he has an unexplained revulsion for Congressional Democrats. Yet his entire post:

While still out of context, explains exactly what his revulsion with Congressional Democrats is, and it is the FORCED health care legislation. I am not typing FORCED in all caps because Doc did as much as it is clear why Doc did so. Doc is no idiot by any stretch of the imagination, and his use of caps for the word FORCED is not so subtle, but a nuance that should not be ignored.

The ADL report actually has in comment in the section where they are talking about the anger due to the healthcare legislation...so it wasn't as out of context as you suggest it was.

We will have to agree to disagree...I read these statements and I see clear support for violence.

What I see going on now is backpeddling...people saying "oh...I didn't REALLY mean what I said". I would have more respect for them if they just said "Yeah...I said it and I meant it". They still didn't break any laws.

If it is okay for the government to expand their usage of the word "terrorist" then why should one of the holders of the inherent political power in this country be expected to refrain from the same thing? Not that Doc is in favor of expanding the definition of terrorism, and I don't know really, but my guess is that he is not, and is using irony to communicate his point.

That is fine...the ADL report is pointing out the anger...not saying it is illegal. Show me in the report where it says anything about these people not having the right to say what they said. It's not in there...it is simply a report saying "hey look...some people are really angry...even to call for or support violence against the government". Some will read it and think these people are wrong...and some will read it and think these people are right (like most here on ATS). But it does not say anything about if they SHOULD be saying it or not.


And my response to boondock's posts stands. I know where boondock stands on these issues...and you will never convince me that he was using this as a metaphore.

And you know what...boondock's post about throwing bricks through windows WAS a direct response from someone calling out all the internet tough guys...

The thing is Iv learned during my time on this forum is that people tend to talk alot. On a forum it seems to be that they are somehow granted the commander with the speaker and everybody else must actually do the bidding for them. I tell ya right now that sitting behind a computer screen insisting or predicting some rebellion day in and day out will not add to action.

So to say it was just metaphorical and not his actual feelings, in my opinion, is just trying to defend him after he made some really stupid comments.

All I see is people trying to backpeddle on statements they made. We all know that people like to talk tough here on ATS, we all know that calls for and support of violence is a common everyday thing here on ATS. And now we see them trying to retract and/or modify their statements.

You know what pisses me off...there are many members here on ATS that call these internet tough guys out on their tough talk. Many that speak out against the violence. But who are the "heroes" of ATS now??? It is the ones that would try to promote violence. It pisses me off that those that try to talk sense instead of violence get ignored...or worse get labeled as dis-info, gov. employee, or recently in these discussions..."socialist".


I still hold to the claim that the ADL report did nothing wrong...ATS does have some angry members that do promote violence regularly. I think ATS ownership is angry more so because it has given them bad PR that may cause people to stay away from the site then they are about the actual statments. Because I don't see how you can be angry about the statements...THEY WERE MADE...they didn't alter the quotes at all.


Bottom line...people need to take responsibility for their actions. And if you get called on it...man up and stand behind your statements...don't try to cry and complain that you are being "defamed".

reply to post by sos37

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.

Where did I say you are inciting violence???

I said your post was childish and does as much to "defame" the ADL as ATS is claiming the ADL is "defaming" them.

Your post does nothing for the image of ATS...except make us all look like a bunch of childish posters that resort to grade school insults when someone says something negative about us.

But if all you have is childish insults...then I guess that IS what part of ATS is.

I hope I don't get sued now for saying that ATS has childish members...because they do have childish member.

reply to post by nik1halo

I know of 2 of the posters on the thread in question and although they are passionate in their posts and I may not always agree with their sentiment, I do respect them and know that they would never condone illegal or violent action.

How can you make this statement??? do you really "know" these people???

How many times in the news do you hear of someone commiting a horrible crime and all their friends and family say something like "I never would of thought he was capable of doing this" or "I knew him for 10 years and he never seemed violent"???

You don't know what they would do or what they would condone...even if you know these people in real life...do you think you know everything about that person?

I'm so confused...people are just not making sense with this issue.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Thank you my friend, for your considered reply. First, let me state how uncomfortable I am with oxymoronic phrases such as; "agree to disagree", and I would much rather agree to agree.

Your argument that the ADL is merely pointing out anger, and not claiming it is illegal is fine, however defamation is illegal and I am wondering what an anti defamation league is doing by pointing to words not illegal? Defamation is wrong. Perhaps it could be argued that Doc defamed a Democratic Congress, but that would be a tough argument to make in a court of law and just a huge waste of resource. So, to what end does the ADL hope to get at by publishing this report? How has it become the responsibility of an anti-defamation league to go beyond defamation and into the realm of chatter?

It is very interesting to me, that in order to support your contention that Boondock's post was a call to violence you felt compelled to quote a different post, by a different member, of which you claim was an attempt to call out the internet tough guys:

The thing is Iv learned during my time on this forum is that people tend to talk alot. On a forum it seems to be that they are somehow granted the commander with the speaker and everybody else must actually do the bidding for them. I tell ya right now that sitting behind a computer screen insisting or predicting some rebellion day in and day out will not add to action.

This language, quoted above, is what I would call inciting violence. Clearly this poster places no value on talk, so by action, what are we to assume that poster means? This member speaks directly to rebellion, and insists that prediction of it or even discussing it will not add to action. What is meant by action? What action other than rebellion could this poster possibly mean?

Contrast that with Boondock's post, and I must respectfully disagree, (though I would much rather we find some way to work towards agreement), and between the two, the only one who has come close to inciting violence is the very poster you claim is calling the tough guys out. But in calling the internet tough guys out, it certainly appears as if this member wants to distinguish between internet tough guys and real tough guys.

So to say it was just metaphorical and not his actual feelings, in my opinion, is just trying to defend him after he made some really stupid comments.

Literary lesson number one: Metaphorical use of language does not disguise intent, nor does it disguise emotion, and instead what a metaphor does is take a figure of speech to imply comparison of two things, usually unlike things, that have something in common. The metaphor of "throwing a brick thru a window" is unlike Boondock's post in that his words alone will not break any glass, unless of course he is some sort of Diva who can shatter glass with just his voice, and what this metaphor does is link his outrage to that of throwing bricks through windows. By using such a metaphor we can surmise that Boondock is really angry.

All I see is people trying to backpeddle on statements they made. We all know that people like to talk tough here on ATS, we all know that calls for and support of violence is a common everyday thing here on ATS. And now we see them trying to retract and/or modify their statements.

Yes, I have seen plenty of calls for violence in this site. Indeed, this is what is so consternating about the ADL report as they chose to use posts fairly innocuous in an attempt to illustrate this, when in fact there have been plenty of posts that are far less innocuous in that call. Conversely, I have also seen plenty of posters, (yourself excluded), that have goaded and baited these people, in what seems to be a clear intent to encourage them to actually follow through with such calls, and they do so in some disingenuous call for peace. You are not one of those goaders and baiters, and I believe your call for peace is a genuine one, however there are many in this site who pretend they are with you but not nearly as genuine as you.

You know what pisses me off...there are many members here on ATS that call these internet tough guys out on their tough talk. Many that speak out against the violence. But who are the "heroes" of ATS now??? It is the ones that would try to promote violence. It pisses me off that those that try to talk sense instead of violence get ignored...or worse get labeled as dis-info, gov. employee, or recently in these discussions..."socialist".

Anger is a common emotion for us all, and Jesus upon confronting the money changers was clearly pissed off. Even so, that was a man who called for peace, and his single most important lesson was compassion. Hero's are not defined by who worships them, they are defined by their actions. The hero not only accepts responsibility for him/herself, but goes beyond this and accepts responsibility for others, and the actions taken in that regard are what defines him/her as a hero.

I have been called a disinfo agent myself OutKast, and it is not pleasant, but you know what? In each instance it struck me that those who were hurling such accusations were merely accusing me of their own crimes, which is a fairly common phenomenon with the guilty.

I still hold to the claim that the ADL report did nothing wrong...ATS does have some angry members that do promote violence regularly. I think ATS ownership is angry more so because it has given them bad PR that may cause people to stay away from the site then they are about the actual statments. Because I don't see how you can be angry about the statements...THEY WERE MADE...they didn't alter the quotes at all.

I am not clear what you mean by; "I think ATS ownership is angry more so because it has given them bad PR that may cause people to stay away from the site then they are about the actual statments.", but if you mean by "statements" those of the ADL then yes I would agree with you that this is part of the reason the owners of this site are so angry. I do think it goes well beyond a PR issue, and as far as publicity goes, there's an old adage:

"There ain't no such thing as bad publicity"

I suspect both S.O. and Springer know this and that their rage is far more genuine than a concern for the bottom line. However, if this site begins to loose advertising revenue due to an ambiguous report published by an organization, then that report has caused damage and that damage can be quantified by the loss of revenue. If this is the case, then the ADL has done something wrong, and it has used its own influence in order to hurt other people.

Bottom line...people need to take responsibility for their actions. And if you get called on it...man up and stand behind your statements...don't try to cry and complain that you are being "defamed".

Unless, of course, you have been defamed. If you have you should certainly "man up" and confront the defamer and demand they accept responsibility for their actions.

[edit on 27-4-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

It would appear to me that the author of this propaganda piece of half-truths and out of context quotes is doing nothing more than turning a new page in a very old ADL playbook.

Meet Roy Bullock, an ADL operative that fancied himself a modern day J. Edgar Hoover, except without the legal authority to do so. He would spy people, tap phones, gather information in admittedly illegal means. Roy Bullock would often copy license plates of cars that were attending meetings and hand them to his friend Thomas J. Gerard, a San Francisco police officer, who was a former undercover CIA agent from 1982 through 1985.

An older book The Ugly Truth About The ADL (1992), details these events as well as many others.

Everday I see people waking up around me, i see more and more people questioning these so called comforts. It's not to say that we and they are ungrateful; what's really happening is that people ARE grateful and now they/we/I are fighting for it. LONG LIVE THE INTERNET and LONG LIVE WISDOM!

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher


...I see clear support for violence.

... "Yeah...I said it and I meant it".

... these people not having the right to say what they said.

..."hey look...some people are really angry...even to call for or support violence against the government".

...some will read it and think these people are right...

... people like to talk tough here ... we all know that calls for and support of violence is a common everyday thing ...

You know what pisses me off... ... It pisses me off ...

... angry members that do promote violence regularly.

... you can be angry about the statements...THEY WERE MADE...

Careful with all that anger there, bro. You could get labelled as dangerous by the ADL with all that seething going on.

Maybe Big Brother can prescribe some anger management for you?



*** The above done to prove a point. Any words can be twisted to mean nearly anything. You wrote those words directly, and by the strange logic of some here, including yourself, they have not been 'taken out of context' by me, so you continue to bear full responsibility for authorship.***

Have a nice day!

@OP:

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.

Actually, while I doubt it's it's unprecedented, it does mean it's another "paper" that we can simply ignore.

thank you for posting SO's


Being monitored and close watch of anyone that is Anti Government
is a sure Sign of a Brave New World sliding in to an Orwellian Nation ..

it is happening all around us from city's Security Cam monitoring in the Streets Has anyone See Enemy of the State

Even a small town near my location (Potsdam ) has security cams flooding the High Shcool and this a is a Average Town with a extreme low crime rate ! and never had a problem ! before !

as the Customs at the Boarder Canadian side now Carry Fire Arms on their side as this was never a problem ,nor a issue , Spy Towers towards Canada,
Chip implant Encouragement from the Media ,

think we need to have the Book called 1984 in HS English Class or either Brave New World to start an awaking at a young age

look at the link !! Below of the above sentence and its not only happening in this town but the whole county! what is going on here a Fund Raiser! to make the state money! Fine Fine Fees ohh there even at least 2 State Troopers in the School they even have their own office don't forget this is a county that the crime majority in the police blog is DWI and small petty crimes!

A security camera outside Potsdam Central School keeps watch over a school parking lot. There are 12 cameras in operation at Potsdam Central. School board members have mixed feelings about whether to beef up security by adding more digital cameras inside and outside the campus buildings.

the Link !
PCS, You're On Candid Camera
www.mpcourier.com...

Big Brother in a A brave new World it is !

Originally posted by DrumsRfun
reply to post by SkepticOverlord

 

Didn't Rockerfeller say that the internet is a danger to the planet or something??
Seeing these lowball tactics comes as no surprize after what he said.

It is against the T&C to incite illegal activities and for me that should say it all.
Are we not allowed to question our governments actions without some kind of spin being put on us??

For me it is just another slimeball tactic to make internet users and anyone who questions what our governments are doing look bad.

You are exactly right...this is against what your forefathers had in mind and they would be rolling in thier graves if they were here today.

Indeed, wasn't it one of the ADL who went and pulled a Michael Ryan (including grenades no less!!) trick on a mosque full of praying muslims!
Say no more, pot calling the kettle black springs to mind on that bunch.

Myabe I just dont find the whole thing alarming enough because I have been reading waaaaay too much from sociologists lately. This (the ADL report) just sounds like the same poorly factually supported alarmist crap sociologists write to get funding for studying all sorts of things.

Perhaps someone should point out to the ADL that most of the people they quoted were not speaking any more violently than our government does. Its kind of hard for a government who goes on a several trillion dollar tear through the middle east which included attacking the wrong country in retaliation for the attack on the US, to throw stones at the people who are actually quoting the founding fathers in some cases.

I dont know. I have no reaction to the thought that ATS is being monitored. Of course it is. That should surprise no one. But a rebuttal of the ADL does seem to be in order. As long as it is well thought out, and makes clear how sloppy and poorly supported their methodology is. To me, that is the nice thing about sociologists, and groups who write papers like this one. They are sloppy and lazy, because most of the time those who read their papers are bleeding hearts sympathetic to their causes. They rarely have to deal with an intelligent and well supported rebuttal. It shouldnt be hard at all.