I highly doubt it, for the following reasons: The strategic goals of the US at present hinge on national security. The entire idea of NSA surveillance
to combat terrorism actually makes sense, although of course it is draconian to a certain degree. But the reason it makes sense is because it is
virtually impossible to protect the US homeland from terrorist attacks by using the military alone. There truly has never been a working method to
combat terrorist guerrilla groups, because there are so many lucrative targets they can strike in so many different locations, that it is impossible
to protect the people, industry, communications systems, etc., from attack. We should count ourselves lucky that thus far terrorists have not focused
on these lucrative targets, which could cause much more damage than the targets within the US they have chosen thus far, aside from 9/11 of course.
Although there have not really been any other large-scale attacks, aside from maybe Oklahoma City, Boston, and the 1st WTC bombing. Which tells us
that something is working as far as homeland security is concerned, or it might also tell us that these terrorists have yet to focus on operating
within the US.
Anyway, the point I am trying to make is that NSA surveillance is a novel method to combat terrorism, and given that national security against
terrorist attacks is a prime strategic goal at present, the main focus will be on those who might wish to attack the US. What this means is that
conspiracy theorists, even those who run a site as large as ATS, are not going to be high-up on the list of people to watch. Plus, ATS is a business.
There is nothing to say that the ideology of any website founder is represented by the content of their website, when that website is a business
venture. A personal blog or website is more apt to be representative of the founder's ideology.
It would probably come down to the internal workings of various intelligence agencies. IF your run-of-the-mill conspiracy theorist is viewed as
dangerous, which I highly doubt, then the likelihood of these people being monitored increases. I personally believe that IF such people are being
watched, it is only the most vocal of these people, as well as those who have the most exposure. But even more important than that is what such people
are stating. Would the government really care about what a conspiracy theorist is saying if what they're saying is not important? I doubt it. What if
a vocal member of this community, with a large audience, was informing the people on something the intelligence community wanted to keep under wraps?
Would this automatically make a target of the conspiracy theorist? I do not think so. Rather, such a person would be targeted for surveillance only if
that person had evidence to bolster their claims. Anyone can claim anything, therefore this is not important. Having evidence of some form, or being a
direct eyewitness to something that the intelligence community or government wishes to keep classified, is a different story. If these agencies are
not convinced that such a person would keep their mouth shut, then a plan of some form would be carried out to silence that person.
My main point is that being a conspiracy theorist does not mean you are going to be under government surveillance, and neither does owning a
conspiracy-related website. What will get you watched by the government is if you are critical of the establishment to the point of being dangerous,
such as a terrorist, or if you have evidence that can back up any claims you make, and those claims would expose something the government wished to
keep classified. It is really that simple, mainly because there are just too many conspiracy theorists in the US alone.
edit on 3/9/15 by
JiggyPotamus because: (no reason given)