It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Is ATS going to ban linking to the Guardian.

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 05:51 AM
Recently the US army censored the Guardian.

The Guardian's website has classified documents about the NSA's program of monitoring phone records of Verizon customers, a project called Prism which gave the agency "direct access" to data held by Google, Facebook, Apple and others, and more.

In other words the paper has published illegally obtained material.

Recently ATS has decided to ban links to sights the obtain information illegally. The main victim of this sofar seems to be Wikileaks. The Guardian newspaper has in the past published Wikileaks information too and set up there own database. Linking to the information.

So a question to ATS. Will you in keeping to your own Terms and Conditions be banning links to the Guardian Newspaper..

Kind Regards...


posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 06:27 AM
Hmm Interesting - ATS's 'servers' decision sure opens a can of worms...

ETA: According to a user on another forum - ATS's server is nothing special and they could easily change it is they wanted. Although the seem to prefer to keep this server and "cop-out".
edit on 28-6-2013 by ObservingYou because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 07:04 AM
It has to be a question of priorities.

What is more important, that the Guardian published excerpts of information it received through alleged illegal means, or the agencies that were exposed for carrying out illegal data gathering and intercepts on innocent people.

Last time I checked, the laws were all quite clear on the illegal interception and the requirements for obtaining legal authority to do so. However, as we all know and, lets be honest, have known or suspected for decades, they have been doing this illegally anyway and scoffing at the laws and constitution that they swear to uphold.
That last bit always makes me chuckle when I see US politicians (and British too) calling Mr. Snowden a traitor, when they themselves have violated the very oaths they took to defend the constitution when taking up their political positions.

I guess it's just the Orwellian way of things, where pointing out the criminals makes one a criminal too!

posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 07:24 AM
Found the answer in another thread..

WikiLeaks ---> clearing house for all kinds of documents obtained through alternative channels, some illegal. No protections, relies on custom hosting strategies as it has no press protections but deep pockets thanks to donations. The Guardian ---> media organization with a journalistic history and the protections typically given to the press and deep pockets thanks to multiple revenue streams.


To add to what S.O. said, the sites you mention are protected by vast revenue streams, many high profile individuals who will gladly cough up for legal fees to help them fight and they will get lots of "big time" media attention if they get harassed. I'll give you one guess what will happen to ATS if we get harassed for something like this... If you guessed we'll disappear, you guessed right.


It appears the owners and staff on ATS for its presevetion. have no choice but for the time being ban links to sights that directly gather illegal material. It is not a viloation however to link to sites or blogs that are talking about the banned sites.

posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 08:26 AM
Yeah from what I understand the Guardian site wont be banned as its a legal valid news site.

It only if snowdon set up his own website or started emailing people with his documents those links would be censored.

The only way I could see the Guardian being banned is if the USA ban the Guardian outright and declare them illegal. In which case ATS should start deffinatly thinking about moveing!!
edit on 28-6-2013 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 08:57 AM
reply to post by purplemer

And further on, SO says:

Our policy remains the same, unfortunately. But back when this first became an issue, we urged members to find other sites, sources, blogs, etc. that covered the WikiLeaks material they wanted to include in their post -- then link to those sites, with an explanation of where to find the links once there. That remains the best course of action for now

So, closing for now...unless the Owners need to add to this.


new topics

top topics

log in