UK Columnist: Because Salman Rushdie Got Stabbed, We Should Regulate Online Speech, Get Rid Of Anonymity, And Hold Social Media Responsible

from the say-what-now? dept

Earlier this year, we had a podcast with Jacob Mchangama about his excellent book, Free Speech: A History from Socrates to Social Media, and I pointed out one theme that is seen throughout the book. Over and over again, vocal supporters of free speech eventually seem to change their position when they realize people say things they don’t want to hear. It often leads to some seriously shifted rationales. The latest in this theme is Simon Jenkins, longtime UK journalist and currently a columnist for The Guardian in the UK, who has penned a truly bizarre column basically embracing ditching free speech online because Salman Rushdie got stabbed.

Yes, you read that right. A journalist (the kind who normally supports free speech) wants to throw away free speech online because an author, who published a physical book before the internet was really around, and faced a fatwa from Iran for decades, got stabbed. And this is supposed to make sense.

But, of course, he frames this taking away of free speech… as a defense of free speech. Because of course he does.

The title kinda gives it away: Do you want free speech to thrive? Then it has to be regulated, now more than ever. Um, ok.

The piece begins by talking about Salman Rushdie, who you likely have heard was stabbed recently, almost certainly in response to the decades-old fatwa issued against him over the (excellent and worth reading, by the way) “Satanic Verses” book. Now, there are all sorts of reasons to talk about Rushdie’s situation in the context of free speech, given that he’s an example of what happens when government forces try to crack down on speech they dislike. But, it’s unclear what this has to do with regulating online speech — given that Rushdie wrote a book (which was published back before most people were on the internet) and was stabbed in person.

The internet seems wholly disconnected from this issue. Except to Jenkins.

Jenkins, weakly, tries to tie the issues together by leading us down a mythical garden path. In short, here is my paraphrase of the steps Jenkins drags us along: John Stuart Mill supported free speech… except in cases of “harm” to others… and using that logic, many countries banned Rushdie’s book… because they didn’t want people to take offense… and so now governments are criminalizing taking offense… including in the UK’s Online Safety Bill.

That… all seems fairly tenuous as I could easily challenge many of the leaps of logic down that garden path. Either way, in just a few easy steps we get from Rushdie getting stabbed to the UK’s attempt to regulate speech.

And, at least, on this point, Jenkins makes a bit of sense. He rightly seems to dislike the UK’s Online Safety Bill. And that’s the right position to take if you support free speech, because, as we’ve noted in multiple articles, it would be a disaster for free speech. Jenkins recognizes that:

The latest venture by the state into this morass is the Johnson government’s online safety bill, with its bizarre concept of “legal but harmful”. However well-intentioned, it seeks to monitor an astonishing range of evils and indisciplines, from online stalking to incitement to riot, from phoney medicine to fake Russian news. How it will work has yet to be stated. It is a censor’s charter – or nightmare.

Ok. We agree. The Online Safety Bill is bad and will be used for vast amounts of dangerous censorship. But… then Jenkins seems to embrace it? And… seems to think we need to pass it because of Rushdie. What’s that got to do with Rushdie? Apparently… it’s because people were mad at Rushdie on the internet?

Regulating the internet has become a major political challenge. Europe faced a similar crisis with the advent of printing, and evolved licensing and copyright laws to handle it. The key then lay in identifying the author and the publisher. There had to be some accountability for the words. In contrast, the internet has led to an anarchy of dissemination. While Rushdie has authored a book and is accountable for it, many of his critics are part of that familiar social media feature: an anonymous mob howling after its victim across the ether.

Um, what? Plenty of his critics, including the guy who issued the fatwa against Rushdie, the Ayatollah Khomeini, did so under their names. And it wasn’t because of the internet. I’m sure there were some critics of him online who were anonymous, but… what’s that got to do with the fact that he was stabbed, in person, by a guy with a name?

You can see where this is heading of course. Even as Jenkins rightly fears the impact of the UK’s Online Safety Bill he’s… gone to what Jillian York has rightly called “the white man’s gambit” and decided the real problem is… only anonymity. For the attack on Salman Rushdie. Who has been living under death threats since a time when the internet barely existed, and which had nothing to do with the internet in any way, shape or form.

But Jenkins is somehow sure it’s to blame.

He throws in a weird paragraph saying “sure, sure, maybe anonymity might be important sometimes, but it can’t be that important.”

 Some claim anonymity helps whistleblowers and others – but such benefits are massively outweighed by the harm done by the unruly and unknown mob.

“Some claim”? How about naming who is claiming that — like actual experts on this topic, like the aforementioned Jillian York, along with tons of human rights experts who know that anonymity is essential to protecting all sorts of people (blithely summarized by Jenkins as “whistleblowers and others”). It protects way more than “whistleblowers” — who actually are quite important. It protects marginalized people. It protects people in abusive relationships. It protects kids with different viewpoints from their parents. It protects critics of the rich and powerful. It protects everyone at some point or another.

Going back a decade, we posted a powerful list that another expert had put together, asking people why they didn’t want to post under their own names, and it’s worth reposting here, since Jenkins thinks all these people don’t deserve basic privacy.

  • I am a high school teacher, privacy is of the utmost importance.
  • I publish under my nom de plume, it’s printed on my business cards, and all of the thousands of people I know through my social networks know me by my online name.
  • I have used this name/account in a work context, my entire family know this name and my friends know this name. It enables me to participate online without being subject to harassment that at one point in time lead to my employer having to change their number so that calls could get through.
  • I do not feel safe using my real name online as I have had people track me down from my online presence and had coworkers invade my private life.
  • I’ve been stalked. I’m a rape survivor.
  • I work for a private club. I have to carry a card around which states I will not share any element of the club with any sort of media. So, If I want to talk about work (and I do) on the net, I have to use an alias.
  • I’ve been using this name for over 10 years in the “hacking” community. There are a nontrivial amount of people who know me *only* by that name.
  • As a former victim of stalking that impacted my family I’ve used [my nickname] online for about 7 years.
  • Under [this name] I am active in a number of areas of sexual difference for which it would not be wise for me to use my flesh legal name.
  • My actual real name is utterly non-identifying, as 1) it is the name of a character in a movie, and that overwhelms google search results 2) it’s not unique at ALL.
  • [this name] is a pseudonym I use to protect myself. My web site can be rather controversial and it has been used against me once.
  • I started using [this name] to have at least a little layer of anonymity between me and people who act inappropriately/criminally. I think the “real names” policy hurts women in particular.
  • I use the pseudonym to maintain my online anonymity because I am polyamorous and have no desire for professional acquaintances to discover this.
  • I enjoy being part of a global and open conversation, but I don’t wish for my opinions to offend conservative and religious people I know or am related to. Also I don’t want my husband’s Govt career impacted by his opinionated wife, or for his staff to feel in any way uncomfortable because of my views.
  • I have privacy concerns for being stalked in the past. I’m not going to change my name for [social media]. The price I might pay isn’t worth it.
  • We get death threats at the blog, so while I’m not all that concerned with, you know, sane people finding me. I just don’t overly share information and use a pen name.
  • This identity was used to protect my real identity as I am gay and my family live in a small village where if it were openly known that their son was gay they would have problems.
  • I go by pseudonym for safety reasons. Being female, I am wary of internet harassment.

Jenkins seems to think that all those people don’t really matter.

Hell, there was even a period of time in which Rushdie himself went into hiding to protect himself. I guess Jenkins thinks that Rushdie should out himself to governments and social media, because his anonymity isn’t that important… because some other anonymous people might criticize him.

And, at the same time, beyond the weird attempt to connect the Rushdie stabbing with anonymous online mobs, the actual evidence has shown that anonymous people online are no worse than people posting under their real names. As we’ve detailed, and which a basic Google search would have revealed, studies have shown over and over again that people act just as badly (and sometimes worse) under their real names.

Basically, the idea that anonymous online mobs are the problem is not actually supported by the data. And, the biggest hint that this is the case is that Jenkins is left using… the physical stabbing attack of a book author that had nothing to do with either the internet or anonymity, as his example of why we should do away with anonymity.

And, of course, from there is gets worse. Rather than just attacking online anonymity, Jenkins goes on to pull out the line that only the most ignorant people pull out: that social media must be “a publisher, not a platform.”

The very fact that social media companies enjoy global accessibility should impose an added obligation on corporations to accept they are “publishers not just platforms”. Great as the technical problems may be, they must be held to account for the harm they can cause to others.

Funny how that’s in quotes there, but he doesn’t say who he’s quoting. Because it’s idiotic and nonsensical. Nothing in any of this has to do with whether or not a website is a “publisher” or a “platform” which is a meaningless distinction made up by bad faith politicians, not anyone who understands anything, either about the law or technology.

And, separately, why is he blaming social media companies for the stabbing of Rushdie? Social media had nothing to do with it. Anonymity had nothing to do with it. It’s not about social media. It’s not about publishers v. platforms (which is not even a thing).

I honestly don’t understand the thought process behind this column. Salman Rushdie got stabbed, because of foolish people overreacting to a book he wrote… and therefore, it is incumbent on us to blame anonymity and social media platforms… even though they had nothing to do with any of this.

How does shit like this get published in the Guardian?

Filed Under: , , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “UK Columnist: Because Salman Rushdie Got Stabbed, We Should Regulate Online Speech, Get Rid Of Anonymity, And Hold Social Media Responsible”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
347 Comments
Samuel Abram (profile) says:

Some claim anonymity helps whistleblowers and others – but such benefits are massively outweighed by the harm done by the unruly and unknown mob.

I guess he doesn’t know any sex workers…or people who live in authoritarian regimes (such as Singapore, which an anonymous user here claims they’re from). BTW, I realize Mike had a list of reasons for anonymity, but those two reasons per se stuck out at me the most.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Hi, that’s me.

The RSF are largely right about the facts of how utterly fucked Singapore is wrt to freedom of expression, to the point where protests are something that can be charged in courts if it’s not done by the ruling party cadres and their spawn.

It’s also the same fucking country where someone got sued over a “private” Facebook post. Over criticism of the judiciary. Which is a crime here.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Samuel Abram (profile) says:

One more thing…

And, at the same time, beyond the weird attempt to connect the Rushdie stabbing with anonymous online mobs, the actual evidence has shown that anonymous people online are no worse than people posting under their real names.

As the comments section in this web site often proves. I mean, some of the funniest and most insightful commenters are anonymous cowards themselves.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
PaulT (profile) says:

“many of his critics are part of that familiar social media feature: an anonymous mob”

If someone wants to be taken seriously on this issue, it’s probably not a good idea to cite a case that started before social media was invented to support what you wish to do about social media. Especially if you want to fearmonger, since it took decades after the fatwa was issued for something to happen, and Rushdie has had a long and fruitful career based largely off of his notoriety after writing that book.

A more relevant example in the modern age comes to mind – a leader, with an internationally known name, who is worshipped and reviled in equal measures, rails against something that offends him, claiming that it’s the duty of the mob below him to take violent retribution against those who have written things that offended him…

Please, people, if we’re going to cite reasons why the internet should be feared and controlled, let’s at least come up with examples that don’t predate the web and which don’t invite direct comparisons with recent attempts at fascism. If that’s at all possible. If not, consider why that might be.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
radix (profile) says:

Re:

After being published in 1989, Rushdie, his publisher, and sellers of the book got death threats, bounties, and even assassination attempts pretty much constantly for 15 years before “social media” was even a term.

Clearly this is Twitter’s fault.

This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Don’t you see that just proves how bad social media is, it was able to cause all that even before it existed.

Social media is so toxic and dangerous that time itself was warped to allow it to influence people before any of the relevant companies and platforms existed, and if that’s not proof of how terrible social media is I don’t know what is.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Person says:

Re: Re: Re: Your thought process (lol its horribly incoherent)

Seriously wtf is your thought process!? If it didn’t even exist back then it could not have done any of that, nor does it mean social media is terrible because something bad happened to somebody before it existed. You clearly don’t understand how the laws of the universe work either, time didn’t just warp because of something that was happening. You probably should review your thoughts before you spill them because they don’t make any sense, which means your obviously wrong.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4

I know you think psychology and psychiatry are complete nonsense, but if you want people to stop calling you ableist (or get others to buy your claims that you’re not), you could start by recognizing that “autism” and “mental retardation” are completely different. Or, really, recognize that no one who buys or pushes the stuff you call nonsensical has ever equated autism with literally any other mental disorder/illness/whatever since it was officially confirmed as a diagnosis. Even if, to you, they are both made-up terms, they are still completely different terms.

Also, try to avoid words that are clearly ableist slurs like “’tarded” in the future.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5

No–trust me, I am sure the whole world wants mental defectives and spergbots regulating our online speech, much like your types would do at a dinner table. What a nice, inclusive world!

Sally, get your fingertips out of the dip! Normal people eat with spoons and forks!

Johnny, it’s rude to dig in your anus, and then, grab the salad from the bowl with your bare hands!

Solomon! Do NOT put your shoes on the diner table!! It’s bad etiquette! And take the dead bird out of the soup! It doesn’t belong there!!

*YOU,spergbot. “Wow, [free tard simulation!](https://theautismsimulator.com/0

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

…let’s at least come up with examples that don’t predate the web and which don’t invite direct comparisons with recent attempts at fascism.

Sorry, but if we’re to use Trump as an example, then comparisons to fascism are unavoidable. The worst US President since Richard Nixon is a populist, protectionist, isolationist and nationalist, and guess who else was all of those things?

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re:

“Sorry, but if we’re to use Trump as an example, then comparisons to fascism are unavoidable”

Indeed, but stating any example from the late 80s, when the fatwa was issued – and Trump was best known as a self-promoting real estate mogul who was failing at most business ventures outside of self-promotion related to his inheritance – is still not valid.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

It’s pretty simple… The article commented on seems to be blaming the whole incident on social media. Which is nonsense because it didn’t exist when the fatwa was issued. However, there is a parallel to be drawn between the Ayotollah (a person with a fanatical following who will attack people they are instructed to without any other logical reasoning), and the defacto cult that Trump managed to gather.

So, in a political climate where you have people calling for the murder of FBI agents carrying out a legal court order to retrieve illegally held documents, maybe the problem is not the social media platform a few of them might have used to make that demand.

Naughty Autie says:

Regulating the internet has become a major political challenge. Europe faced a similar crisis with the advent of printing, and evolved licensing and copyright laws to handle it. The key then lay in identifying the author and the publisher. There had to be some accountability for the words.

Hey, Simon Jenkins. Can you say that you know nothing about copyright without saying you know nothing about copyright?

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Naughty Autie says:

Edited to add...

Nothing in any of this has to do with whether or not a website is a “publisher” or a “platform” which is a meaningless distinction made up by bad faith politicians…

To give an example, Techdirt is a publisher of its articles and a platform for discussion of the issues it raises, but if I say something defamatory about someone in one of my comments, then Section 230 means that Techdirt can’t be sued for it. If the defamatory statement is in the article itself, however, then Techdirt is absolutely the right target for the plaintiff. Laws like Section 230 of the CDA don’t make distinctions between ‘platform’ and ‘publisher’ on a broad basis, but only in relation to responsibility for content. Knowing this is part of Jenkins’ job, so how come he’s so much worse at it than me?

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

“Legislation includes complex language by its very nature, so I’m not always able to parse it no matter how short it is.”

Literally, all that the part of section 230 that’s usually discussed says is that if someone does something wrong, you have to go after the person who did it, not the people who owned the property they used. If Zuckerberg (or an authorised employee) does something illegal with Facebook or defames someone using his account, he’s liable. If someone else does it using Facebook, that guy is liable.

There’s little ambiguity – except in the minds of the small minded snowflakes who have decided that they somehow lose the ability to speak if FB removes their account.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re:

“Because the Internet is killing the old newspapers”

…and has been doing so for 2 decades, yet not only can I pick up a newspaper today, I can get a physical copy of several newspapers that are free of charge.

I can understand being bitter about such things, but when something’s happened for 2 decades and the best thing you have to complain about started before Thatcher was removed from office, you’d think a person might find a more current issue.

Rushdie might have only just faced actual violence, but the world in which his fate was ordered is so far removed from the modern world that he might as well be demanding papyrus and quills be used to save the industry.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

They are by British standards, but that’s mainly because most tabloids and the likes of the Express and Fail are mouthpieces of the corporate far right. Op eds are weird in that they may or may not reflect the actual reporting, and actual journalists (which, for all their flaws, the Guardian still appear to employ) will be vocal if they differ from what is normally the remit of the paper.

I’ll be careful nowadays about supposed journalism, but in my experience the Grauniad, as they used to be termed due to printing errors, can be as insightful as they were back when people mocked them for presentation rather than content

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:10

It’s not discrimination against species to note that current technologies and basic biology don’t allow humans to procreate with non-humans, and discrimination based on species is not something that our society recognizes as immoral or unethical and is not illegal or unlawful under any law in any jurisdiction.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8

Dude, I didn’t even mention that I have autism until you (accurately) called me autistic three years or so ago here at TD. The idea that I “adopted” the label for any illegitimate purpose is patently absurd.

I also don’t know why you keep spamming about that simulator, but a) I don’t own any VR device; and b) it doesn’t help your case.

I should also note that I’ve identified as autistic on sites other than TD years before I ever came here, and I was diagnosed with autism decades before then. I’ve also never bullied anyone, and literally anyone claiming to have autism online will necessarily be unable to prove such a claim.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Tarded Tardis Tarbaby says:

Re: Re: Re:8

Oh nooooes! Spergbot-in-chief Hull issues a warning!!! Oh, the power! The grandiosity! Wutchagonna do, spergbot? Flag is over there>>> Now work for me bitch—use that flag>>>>> Punk’d. You are now my flag-bitch-spergbot. DO IT!>>>>

Do it! PLEASE KILL YOURSELF, in case I wasn’t clear the first time, fakesperger.

But not before you take the free trip on the spergbot simulator, and study your stupid ass up on some schismogenesis

BLAM!!!!!DO IT SPERGBERGER BITCHPANTS>>>>>>>>>

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5

Say ableist again, and thn tell me you are not a drug company shill, lol.

Okay. You’re ableist, and I’m not a drug company shill.

Seriously, that you’re an ableist is apparent from the fact that you continually use ableist slurs like “’tard” and “sperg”, commonly use “autistic” and related terms as insults, repeatedly conflate entirely distinct and unrelated diagnoses, called someone “‘tarded” on the grounds that they are autistic, and so on. Both this comment thread and many others are full of clear examples of ableism on your part. You don’t need to have any sort of disability or be a shill to see that.

Also, I—and others here—have been deeply critical of many aspects of drug companies, from fraud, patent trolling, engaging in anticompetitive and/or anticonsumer activities, trying to patent the vaccines for the current pandemic, pushing drugs to be used excessively in some cases (such as with opioids), and so on. The modern pharmaceutical industry is full of genuine problems that should be addressed. You are not helping by making up ones that don’t exist and calling people who disagree with or criticize you or your ideas “shills”. If anything, you’re making it harder to get people to take the real issues seriously.

Tarded Tardis Tarbaby says:

Re: Re: Re:6

What you are actually saying is this: “gee, why doesn’t brainwashing work on ROGS?”

The answer is that I am well aware of what your types do online, having studied it intensively, practiced it at one point, and decided that facts outweigh feelz.

Every time. It was all described in the 1960’s–maybe read up on One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest for guidance. Some people simply will not be brainwashed, or adopt the language of the oppressor–you in this case.

SO, you keep shilling, shill, that’s on you. I keep telling, shill, that’s on me.

I have made a few warbuck$$ from pointing others silently to your exact work online, and especially schismogenetic Thing 1 and Thing 2. Feel free to point others to my exact work online–ever wonder what the nym’s are about? Yeah-never mind my little black book, lol.

You are listed as a passive aggressive troll and “spergbot,” and that will never change. I even have my Google settings matched to your nym for progress reports, no shit–keep it up. Every time you post, I hope that a Google bomb goes off in your name–but no one has yet paid me for that extra credit work. You simply do not matter that much.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7

What you are actually saying is this: “gee, why doesn’t brainwashing work on ROGS?”

Nope. I already know why: you don’t recognize psychology as “real science”, and so you refuse to even try to understand it. Why you don’t I neither know nor care, but I figured this much out from the first interactions we had. You are also an admitted troll.

The answer is that I am well aware of what your types do online, having studied it intensively, practiced it at one point, and decided that facts outweigh feelz.

Translation: “I have decided I know more about you, psychology, and sociology than you or the experts do, and any assertions to the contrary are just further evidence of the conspiracy. I have also decided that my [completely false and unsupported] beliefs about the facts mean that I don’t have to respect anyone’s feelings at all.”

Some people simply will not be brainwashed, or adopt the language of the oppressor–you in this case.

Translation: “Help! I’m being oppressed because this guy keeps calling me out for making claims without evidence!”

Dude, I’m not oppressing you. I’m saying that you are making false assertions based on your own refusal to understand the terms at issue.

I have made a few warbuck$$ from pointing others silently to your exact work online, and especially schismogenetic Thing 1 and Thing 2.

Good for you. I doubt that, but if true, congratulations on your success.

Feel free to point others to my exact work online

I neither know nor care about your work online outside of this space. Even if I did, you have shown that you have absolutely nothing of value to offer. At most, you have been a clear example of a troll, but you’re hardly exemplary in that field.

ever wonder what the nym’s are about?

Nope. Not really. At least not since I recognized you.

You are listed as a passive aggressive troll and [ableist slur redacted], and that will never change.

Think of me however you want. You’re still wrong, but I don’t care what you think of me in your book. I’ll call you out when I see you post it online as being unsupported nonsense, but that’s as far as I’ll go.

Wall of Gibberish says:

Re: Re: Re:8

You are an admitted schismogenetic agent of social change, So there’s that. AKA “a troll” by any other name. In your case, a “spergbot troll” who claims–without evidence–that you have some mental defect that causes you to be the internet bully that you are.

Listen–in meatspace, no one cares why you are a bully, but you will get your ass kicked for bullying. Reasons that people like you are bullies vary

bad childhood
uncontrollable urges
sadism for sadism’s sake
etc.

but you hiding that behind claims–without evidence–that you have a mental defect do not excuse your behavior. You are a bully, and everything you do here demonstrates that. I don’t care why you do it–not one bit.

But in meatspace, as you well know, you would meet a different response, which would surely cause you to re-calibrate your sense of entitlement to harass and stalk and bully others for whatever reason you do that.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9

You are an admitted schismogenetic agent of social change, […]

False.

AKA “a troll” by any other name.

Said the troll.

who claims–without evidence–that you have some mental defect that causes you to be the internet bully that you are.

Nope. I deny that being autistic is a mental defect, and I deny your unproven assertions that I am an internet bully. Therefore, I don’t claim that I have a mental defect that causes me to be an internet bully.

Listen–in meatspace, no one cares why you are a bully, but you will get your ass kicked for bullying.

And since I don’t bully people, I have nothing to worry about.

but you hiding that behind claims–without evidence–that you have a mental defect do not excuse your behavior.

I have never claimed to have a mental defect, I have never tried to hide or excuse my behavior with my autism in any of our interactions, and I don’t believe that my behavior is anything to be ashamed of.

Also, again, you called me autistic before I ever brought it up here.

You are a bully, and everything you do here demonstrates that.

Then prove it.

But in meatspace, as you well know, you would meet a different response, which would surely cause you to re-calibrate your sense of entitlement to harass and stalk and bully others for whatever reason you do that.

I don’t feel entitled at all, I don’t harass people, I don’t stalk people, and I don’t bully people.

Tarded Tardis Tarbaby says:

Re: Re: Re:10

You are not bully?

[CITATION NEEDED]

because your own work in this thread demonstrates that exactly.

I won’t even try to decipher that wall of gibberish that you painstakingly built above here, like a barbed wire fence in Gaza.

And while you occasionally surprise me with human-like sentiment, re:

Good for you. I doubt that, but if true, congratulations on your success.

overall, you merely feed the Zionazi narratives. I saw what you did with ThorsProvoni herein, and I note that you have done that with my posts as well, and any/every other BDS supporter here ever.

As for calling you autistic, it was merely diagnosing your internet persona, which may, or may not be your offline reality. But you follow the schismogenesis playbook to the hilt–and so there you are, slide number 17 in a Powerpoint about obvious schismogenetic trolls.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

You Brit-FVEY’s trolls realy have a problem with facts that argue against your narrative, don’t you?

Both alt-media outlets you mentioned at least are on top of the Ukrainia shelling of the nuclear power plant. Both media outlets covered Israeli financing of Ukrainian Nazi’s–those facts don’t lie.

So, your boy Simon up there is a real white knight isn’t he–selling wolf tickets for Red Robbing Hood there on the throne.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5

Apparently, you’ve never heard of figurative or hyperbolic language.

Grammar Nazis are not, in fact, Nazis. It is simply a term used to describe those who harp on about certain (perceived) grammar, punctuation, and/or spelling rules and/or definitions. It is hyperbolic in nature and not an actual accusation that one is a Nazi.

Tarded Tardis Tarbaby says:

Re: Re: Re:7

Thors, the flag button is over there>>>>>

Please use it, a lot! Pro-tip: two specific trolls here, who I cal Thing 1 and Thing 2 are unflaggable–they apparently work for Techdirt. No mater how hard you try, they canot be flagged off the forum, and Techdirt tacitly allows the types of shit they post, and the mayhem they create here–total derailers. Look up “schismogenesis” to understand what they are doing here.

And, FLAG THEM for glory, despite the fact that they are impossible to eradicate here–typical ADL type trolling.

Tarded Tardis Tarbaby says:

Re: Re: Re:4

Suuuure. One or two dissident Russian Oligarchs gagging on foam, lesser-not-equal-to all of those men some nasty Rothschild bank Jew forced to fight a stupid war based on British-Israel bio-weapons labs.

Seems legit, dumbass.

Legitimate US Jews cry out for sanity. You haven’t provided a link, shitbag.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

ThorsProvoni (profile) says:

Re: Zeran-Based Caselaw Is Unconstitutional

The plain text of Section 230 states that an ICS has neither publisher nor speaker liability for content the ICS distributes. The statute says nothing about distributor libel.

Caselaw, which makes an ICS immune to a libel lawsuit based in publisher, speaker, or distributor defamation, is obviously unconstitutional because the right to sue for libel is an historically-rooted implicit constitutional right unlike the right to abortion.

Once a social medium platform actively curates or actively moderates, the grounds to sue for distributor libel become much stronger as I point out in Martillo v. Twitter, which continues in Federal Appeals Court despite the effort of racist genocide supporters like Naughtie Autie, BDAC, Stephen T. Stone, Toom1275, bhull242, nitwit Tim Cushing, and Mike Masnick to claim that I have lost.

It is worth mentioning that a depraved evil racist genocide-supporter like BDAC supports censorship of speech that states the obvious truth about Zionism, the Zionist state, and the Zionist state.

It is hard to be more depraved and more evil than a Zionist anti-Jew.

Dude, have you ever stopped for just a moment and thought…

“Hey, maybe I am the fucking racist in this discussion”

I mean seriously, I can see exactly why Twitter gave you the boot, your just a typical low-grade racist fucking asshole!

Of genocide scholars, only a Zionist propagandist fake scholar like Omer Bartov or Israel Charny (see Top Genocide Scholars Battle Over How To Characterize Israel’s Actions) denies that Zionist colonial settler anti-Jews have committed long planned genocide starting in Dec 1947 and have never ceased this genocide.

When my wife, who is Palestinian, states the following on Twitter, she gets banned for offending community standards.

[Olivia recently provided a summary in the California Court of Appeal. See OLIVIA T——— an individual, Petitioner and Appellee, v. JOSEPHINE E——-
an individual, Respondent and Appellant
.]

A Zionist troll and racist like E——- calls Olivia a catfish[1] because Zionism postulates

  1. that Palestinians are just Arabs that wandered into Palestine over the last 100 years of so,
  2. that the fairy tale or mythical national or historical rights of recently constructed pan-Judaic ethnonationality[2] are superior to the human and property rights of Palestinians, whose ancestors actually practiced Biblical Judaism in Palestine,[3] and
  3. that a Palestinian is a subhuman place-holder, who must yield his place and vanish when a superior Zionist true human shows up to claim the place.

Of course, the posturing of a genocide-supporting Zionist bigot causes incredible mental harm, which the Zionist movement has always intended to inflict on a Palestinian in order to carry out the Zionist program of replacement genocide.[4] Olivia learned years ago that curling up into a fetal position and shrinking from the struggle gives a victory to a pro-Israel bully. Olivia learned to become a counter-puncher, but counter-punching does not make the mental harm that Olivia suffers any less. Olivia turns her mental anguish into the strength to push back and to get her through a top law school so that she can wage warfare in federal and state courts against the US Zionist movement.

Notes

[1] Catfish has two meanings: (a) an online fake and (b) someone with “nigger-lips”. [Meaning (a)] In order to legitimize and to normalize genocide of Palestinians, a Zionist racist asserts that Palestinians constitute a fake people. [Meaning (b)] E——- focused on Olivia’s non-white non-European features.

[2] See Shlomo Sand, The Invention of the Jewish People (מתי ואיך הומצא העם היהודי), Brooklyn, New York, 2020.

[3] See David Ben-Gurion and Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, The Land of Israel in Past and Present (ארץ ישראל אין פאַרגאַנגענהייט און געגענװאַרט), New York, 1919.

[4] Raphaël Lemkin defined the crime of genocide and documented Nazi genocide in Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: Laws of Occupation, Analysis of Government, Proposals for Redress, The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd., Clark, NJ, 2008. Lemkin considered genocide often to include the infliction of mental harm on an intended victim. § 1091(a)(3) captures this aspect of genocide as does CPPCG Art. II (b).

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

ThorsProvoni (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Standard White Racist Zionist Screeching in the Face of Facts and Truth

When a depraved evil racist Zionist is confronted either by the truth or by the facts, he has no rational response and resorts to an accusation of mental defect.

Olivia and I state the consensus of non-Zionist genuine scholars of genocide.

Olivia cites

  1. Raphaël Lemkin, who was Jewish and crafted the definition of the crime of genocide, and
  2. Shlomo Sand, who is a Zionist colonial settler, as well as
  3. David Ben-Gurion and Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, who were white racial supremacist European Zionist colonial settler leaders of the Zionist genocide against Palestinians.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Well, an ” insaity ple” is really hard to prove out, because no law dictionary in my office defines such a thing.

So, insaity ple’s are an elusive concept in the civil–and criminal laws.

If you have such a definition, please provide it, so that the rest of humanity vcan look it up somewhere.

Naughty Autie says:

Re: Re:

The plain text of Section 230 states that an ICS has neither publisher nor speaker liability for content the ICS distributes. The statute says nothing about distributor libel.

Because ICS is two computers talking to each other online, not distribution.

Caselaw, which makes an ICS immune to a libel lawsuit based in publisher, speaker, or distributor defamation, is obviously unconstitutional because the right to sue for libel is an historically-rooted implicit constitutional right unlike the right to abortion.

Actually, it’s Section 230 that regulates defamation online, not caselaw, and it doesn’t immunise the publication of defamatory statements at all, it only makes it so you can’t sue Alphabet for a video someone uploaded to YouTube, for example. As for distributor defamation, that’s regulated by common law, so no immunity there either. As for the right to abortion, it’s implicit in the Fourth Amendment, as I’ve previously stated.

Once a social medium platform actively curates or actively moderates, the grounds to sue for distributor libel become much stronger as I point out in Martillo v. Twitter, which continues in Federal Appeals Court despite the effort of racist genocide supporters like Naughtie Autie, BDAC, Stephen T. Stone, Toom1275, bhull242, nitwit Tim Cushing, and Mike Masnick to claim that I have lost.

Section 230 provides immunity for moderation choices made in good faith, actually, which is about the only thing it does provide immunity for. Also, publishing and distribution are two different things, so active curation does not provide grounds to sue an online publisher for distributed defamation. Finally, you like to accuse me and others of racist genocide, but you’re the only one calling for Israeli Jews’ heads on a platter, Hoakim.

It is worth mentioning that a depraved evil racist genocide-supporter like me supports censorship of speech that states the obvious truth about my unreasonable hatred for Jews.

FTFY. YW.

It is hard to be more depraved and more evil than an anti-Jew.

I know. You’re even worse than Trump, and I thought he was hard to beat!

Of genocide scholars, only a Zionist propagandist fake scholar like Omer Bartov or Israel Charny (see Top Genocide Scholars Battle Over How To Characterize Israel’s Actions) denies that Zionist colonial settler anti-Jews have committed long planned genocide starting in Dec 1947 and have never ceased this genocide.

And here you open yourself up to a lawsuit for libel.

When my wife, who is Palestinian, states the following on Twitter, she gets banned for offending community standards. [Cut for length.]

Your wife clearly got banned for her unnecessary use of racist language. ‘Catfish’ doesn’t mean n####r-lips, and never did. IANAL, you are. How is it that I know all the above better than you?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

ThorsProvoni (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: The Original Meaning of Catfish

White racist Zionist-genocide supporter Naughty Autie seems to know nothing about either the English language or defamation law.

Section 230 says nothing about the editorial discretion of an ICS. Unfettered editorial discretion of an ICS comes from the unconstitutional Zeran-based caselaw. The Zeran panel used the logical fallacy of denial of the antecedent to come to its unconstitutional ruling. The panel Judges and all Judges, who have followed the Zeran precedent, should be compelled to take a remedial course in basic logic and in the propositional calculus before any case is docketed to them.

[It is worth mentioning that a 2022 social medium platform is not a 1996 ICS and that Section 230 caselaw whether good or bad does not apply to a 2022 social medium platform, which does not meet the statutory definition of a 1996 ICS.]

I don’t know the history of the racist meaning of catfish, but it was certainly a racist slur in the 50s.

When my sister (5 years old) and I (7 years old) were playing outside our house with my friend Johnnie Mae (also 7), who was black, Kenny Cooper (12 years old), who lived across the street, started to taunt Johnnie Mae

  1. by calling her catfish because of her lips and
  2. by yelling that she wasn’t really human.

Johnnie Mae started crying. I ran at Cooper, jumped on Cooper, and started pounding his face. My mother heard the fight, ran out of the house and separated us. I got one black eye, but I gave Cooper two black eyes.

I could not allow Cooper to get away with taunting Johnnie Mae. My mother, who is a N. African Berber Jew, is not quite white herself and like Johnnie Mae as well as like Olivia has black African facial features, which I consider to be attractive.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

White racist Zionist-genocide supporter Naughty Autie seems to know nothing about either the English language or defamation law.

Neither do you. Nothing you’ve alleged has been defamatory.

Section 230 says nothing about the editorial discretion of an ICS.

Yes, it does. Being a publisher necessarily involves editorial discretion.

Unfettered editorial discretion of an ICS comes from the unconstitutional Zeran-based caselaw. The Zeran panel used the logical fallacy of denial of the antecedent to come to its unconstitutional ruling. The panel Judges and all Judges, who have followed the Zeran precedent, should be compelled to take a remedial course in basic logic and in the propositional calculus before any case is docketed to them.

You can say that all you like, but that doesn’t make it any more true.

[It is worth mentioning that a 2022 social medium platform is not a 1996 ICS and that Section 230 caselaw whether good or bad does not apply to a 2022 social medium platform, which does not meet the statutory definition of a 1996 ICS.]

It’s worth mentioning that this is all completely false as the definition for an ICS given in §230 clearly includes social media platforms on a plain reading of the statute.

I don’t know the history of the racist meaning of catfish, but it was certainly a racist slur in the 50s.

Regardless, it hasn’t been racist at all for a very long time, so the point is moot. It’s mostly in reference to someone who tricks someone else online. (This is why I’m really confused about how you connected the term to Zionism since the term currently refers to someone lying about who they are or what they look like online or tricking people online and has nothing to do with not actually being a person.)

As for the rest, it’s an unfortunate tale but ultimately irrelevant to the current case. That said, while I understand you were only 7 at the time and I approve of your willingness to defend your friend, I don’t think it was right to resort to violence, either.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re:

The plain text of Section 230 states that an ICS has neither publisher nor speaker liability for content the ICS distributes. The statute says nothing about distributor libel.

Only if you’re hyper-literal, don’t recognize that distributor liability for content you distribute is a form of publisher liability, and don’t realize that distributor libel doesn’t exist in the US to begin with.

Caselaw, which makes an ICS immune to a libel lawsuit based in publisher, speaker, or distributor defamation, is obviously unconstitutional because the right to sue for libel is an historically-rooted implicit constitutional right unlike the right to abortion.

No, no it is not. Or rather, if you have been libeled, you can sue whoever you want (though that doesn’t include the right to get past dismissal), and the one who actually libeled you can be held liable for libel, but there is no right to hold just anyone who had anything to do with the libel—even if it was merely passing it on without reading it first—liable for libel. That is not and has never been the law.

Once a social medium platform actively curates or actively moderates, the grounds to sue for distributor libel become much stronger

Case law and the legislative history of §230 explicitly says otherwise.

as I point out in Martillo v. Twitter, which continues in Federal Appeals Court despite the effort of racist genocide supporters like Naughtie Autie, BDAC, Stephen T. Stone, Toom1275, bhull242, nitwit Tim Cushing, and Mike Masnick to claim that I have lost.

I mean, you still lost. Just because you’re appealing (again) doesn’t change the fact that you previously lost. Unless and until you prevail in court, this is still a loss in court for you. It also means that your pleadings are unpersuasive as evidence unless and until you actually prevail.

Also, you offer no evidence whatsoever for the accusation of anyone named being a racist or a genocide supporter, so under Hitchen’s Law, the claim is dismissed. Again, I criticized your pleadings long before I knew anything about you (outside of the fact that you filed it and your stated position on §230) or your wife. At no point was my opinion remotely based upon anyone’s race. I firmly support the right to an independent Palestinian state in the Middle East. I oppose any genocide of the Palestinian people. However, none of that is relevant to your case or my opinion of you.

It is worth mentioning that a depraved evil racist genocide-supporter like BDAC supports censorship of speech that states the obvious truth about Zionism, the Zionist state, and the Zionist state.

It is hard to be more depraved and more evil than a Zionist anti-Jew.

Dude, have you ever stopped for just a moment and thought…

“Hey, maybe I am the fucking racist in this discussion”

I mean seriously, I can see exactly why Twitter gave you the boot, your just a typical low-grade racist fucking asshole!

This is not evidence of support of censorship at all or opposition to speech that “states the obvious truth about Zionism, the Zionist state, and the Zionist state”, nor is it evidence of racism, support of genocide, or anything like that. They’re simply asserting that you appear to be racist based upon what you’ve said and done here, which includes calling people racist when race never even came up at all (like here).

Of genocide scholars, only a Zionist propagandist fake scholar like Omer Bartov or Israel Charny (see Top Genocide Scholars Battle Over How To Characterize Israel’s Actions) denies that Zionist colonial settler anti-Jews have committed long planned genocide starting in Dec 1947 and have never ceased this genocide.

I take no position on this matter other than to say that the link you gave doesn’t support your position, that you have a history of seeing racism where none exists, and that the situation is complicated.

When my wife, who is Palestinian, states the following on Twitter, she gets banned for offending community standards.

Moderation at scale is impossible. None of this demonstrates anything.

Also, you are completely incorrect about European Jews having no connection to Palestine genetically. Unlike Christians, converts to Judaism are rare.

A Zionist troll and racist like E——- calls Olivia a catfish[1] because Zionism postulates

  1. that Palestinians are just Arabs that wandered into Palestine over the last 100 years of so,
  2. that the fairy tale or mythical national or historical rights of recently constructed pan-Judaic ethnonationality[2] are superior to the human and property rights of Palestinians, whose ancestors actually practiced Biblical Judaism in Palestine,[3] and
  3. that a Palestinian is a subhuman place-holder, who must yield his place and vanish when a superior Zionist true human shows up to claim the place.

Well, all of that is certainly reprehensible, but you don’t appear to even allege that E said any of those things other than that your wife is a catfish; instead, you state that they are postulated by Zionism (which I’ll just accept as true for now and move on) and allege that E is a Zionist, which would imply that E believes those things but not that he stated them.

Steelman-ing your argument, though, if E did, in fact, say all that to your wife, that is also bad. None of this makes Twitter liable, though.

[1] Catfish has two meanings: (a) an online fake and (b) someone with “nigger-lips”. [Meaning (a)] In order to legitimize and to normalize genocide of Palestinians, a Zionist racist asserts that Palestinians constitute a fake people. [Meaning (b)] E——- focused on Olivia’s non-white non-European features.

I find this theory doubtful, but this might be because the only statement you actually attribute to E (rather than to Zionism) is that they called your wife a “catfish”, so I have zero context to work from. Simply calling them a racist or Zionist is not enough context. Still, this is all still irrelevant.

Of course, the posturing of a genocide-supporting Zionist bigot causes incredible mental harm, which the Zionist movement has always intended to inflict on a Palestinian in order to carry out the Zionist program of replacement genocide. […]

All this is just saying that your non-white Palestinian wife has been harassed by one or more Zionists online for (allegedly) genocidal reasons. This is bad, and the people who did this could be liable.

However, this still doesn’t say anything about Twitter.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Only if you’re hyper-literal, don’t recognize that distributor liability for content you distribute is a form of publisher liability, and don’t realize that distributor libel doesn’t exist in the US to begin with.

This is wholly incorrect. Distributor libel does in fact exist in the US, but also, because booksellers are often independent of publishers, they can be sued as distributors of libel if it’s proved they knew that statements in the books they sell are defamatory. However, distributor libel is very limited, esecially online, because there’s little opportunity for a bookseller, newsagent or online platform to know about any defamation contained in the products they offer.

nerdrage (profile) says:

another reason

Employers routinely google your name as part of the job application process. There’s no such thing as a private life on the internet. So if you use your real name, I hope you’re independently wealthy and don’t care about financial repercussions for anything you post. And if you have your own business, your clients can be as much of a threat as an employer.

In the Rushdie case, it looks like the perp was mentally ill and was also radicalized by a trip to the Middle East. So let’s outlaw mental illness and travel to Muslim countries.

Rocky says:

Re:

Employers routinely google your name as part of the job application process. There’s no such thing as a private life on the internet.

Which is why I have gone to great lengths to avoid using my real name online since the infancy of the internet. Part of it was because I had an inkling of the privacy issues, but it is also related to what entities I’ve done contract work for the last 20+ years. Googling my name doesn’t yield anything that can be linked to me (ie my online persona) at all.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Banned at Techdirt says:

Re: Re:

Autism can be simulated with psychological operations over time. Most mass shooters have been the subject of such operations.

The evidence is in how the feds delete their SOCMINT after the fact, combined with known tactics of radicalization, such as the (failed) examples we often see here at Techdirt.

Or, schismogenesis via internet forums like 4chan, Kiwi Farms, et al.

The US Army War College is all over it, training fake Aspergers/othe MI claimants and weaponizing social justice.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Tarded Tardis Tarbaby says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Schismogenesis FTW!! Tarded Sperger’s everywhere!

I think Tard 1 and Tard 2 and their assbandit pal Tard-sperg Hull should study up on neuro-disorders as relates to schismogenesis, i.e. “an imbalance of the precision ascribed to sensory evidence relative to prior beliefs.” as regards autism.

Failing that, you Tards are just failing that.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5

Dude, it’s a common saying. It’s not racist. Maybe it used to be, but whatever racist connotations it might have had disappeared long before I was born.

Also, I only call you out for being ableist because you tried to claim that you weren’t ableist and that you were defending autistic people. If you hadn’t done that, I probably would’ve just flagged it and then ignored it.

Tarded Tardis Tarbaby says:

Re: Re: Re:6

Niggah Please! Is also a common saying. So, what’s your point exactly?

You are like those rules based world order people in the Ukraine “democracy” tying people to posts and sticking the Ukraine flag up their asses when they speak Russian.

Quibbling about words ends exactly that way–you are essentially calling my vernacular “looting”–the only problem is, there is zero value in your argument–no loot for anyone except the medical mafia that you work for as evidenced by your argument about ableism.

What validates that is that you often act in sync with the other well known AC trolls here to do it.

And truly–having worked in extended care facilities with elderly, and psychiatric patients at one point, I guarantee you two things:

One, handicap-able people do not give two shits about your word games, and two, you really, really do not want these folks to run the world, or our dialectic spaces, much less buttering your bread–especially the droolers and butt diggers amongst them.

So, which category are you in with your ableist exceptionlism–butt digger or drooler? Because to me, you are here demanding special care at all times. You are not getting it from me, though others may bow to your demands and harassment.

Tarded Tardis Tarbaby says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Yeah, autism can be simulated but schismogenetic AC trolls like you aren’t worth the link.

Real humans will look it up though.

Note to self: stop arguing with #fakeaspergers trolls, give them a free ride on the Autism simulator. Then, kill them, with “kindness” if you can hunt them down and meet them face to face.

Kindness. Metaphorical killing, or….

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

Well, thanks for the link. That’s not evidence of what you think it is, though. That is intended to promote empathy for autistic people among neurotypical people by letting them (supposedly) experience what it’s like to be autistic.

Personally, I’m skeptical of whether it works as intended/advertised, and I’m reserving judgment about how I feel about it, but regardless, that’s not simulating autism in a way that makes it even remotely less of a mental disorder (or more of one, for that matter).

Also, once again, only two or three users here have even claimed to have autism (myself included), and none of us are ACs or posting as such. There are no “fakespergers” here, and you have offered no evidence to support your assertions to the contrary.

Tarded Tardis Tarbaby says:

Re: Re: Re:4

It’s not my job to bow down to bullies disguised as tone trolls online–I work around them, and you.

I don’t give two shits about why you are what you actually are, because you haven’t convinced me that you are a standard commenter–quite the opposite in fact.

You are an active participant in the back-channel flag brigade here at TD, and you are an active member of an anonymous gang of internet bullies–that’s enough for me to use you as an example in my work.

So, I acknowledge the effectiveness of cry-bullying as a tactic of control, and how you wear it on your sleeve like a swastika, and use it to bully others here via the flag button here in the “rules based order” of that’s–according to some, TD’s “community values” based forum.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

*… and so now governments are criminalizing taking offense… *

If you interpreted that clause like I did, you’d be jumping for joy as high as I did. It really should be a crime to be so easily offended that one is ready to start a mini-WWIII without so much as a raised eyebrow. This comes from ignorance, make no mistake, and the sources of that ignorance are legion.

We’re in deep kimchee here, folks. For those that want to be in Power for the sake of power, there is no room for discussion. For them, it’s black or white – either they are in total control, or they are subject to someone else’s whim and fancy. They just can’t grasp that there might be room for something in between. That’s the real issue underlying our current state of affairs. The only remaining question is how do we address, and correct, that symptomatic mindset. ‘Cause if we don’t then that old saying will be proven oh-so-true:

The only way for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Techdirt trolls ONLY encourage binary thinking. Us v. Them, black v. white, (D) v. (R) etc.

Most of Techdirts commenters in the Anonymous Coward fold are Neo-Nazis or Zionazi’s, and some of them are Techdirt moderators (one specifically whose IP I have, and whose activity I have logged).

Though TD and Masnick tries hard to hide the fact that they do, in fact moderate their comments section, they also seem confused about the “distribution” aspect of section 230 exceptions.

In other words, a potential lawsuit exists, and can be brought forwards–and can TD can be sued for allowing the types of trolls that they allow–but also, sued for “moderating” under the distribution clause of various legislation. Publishing v. distributing is the same gambit the FBI uses for child pornography, BTW. These types are well organized indeed.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Ah, a bit late to engage with my criticism that you and Thing 2 are Zionazi’s. spreading binary discourses to schismogentically alter our dialectic spaces.

Stupid globohomo. Go fuck your rabbui, for all that he did to you when you were young–fuck him with your Satanic versed cutcock.

You will feel better, I promise you, after you slide it in to your mothers-face-surrogate.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

ThorsProvoni (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 There is no Jewish State

Depraved evil white racial supremacist European Zionist colonial settler anti-Jews committed genocide on Palestinians and stole Palestine in order to create the criminal genocidal Zionist state.

There is a binary choice, but it is not between the Zionist state and Palestinians.

Either one can choose to support the white racial supremacism and the replacement genocide, which both characterize Zionism, or one can support international law, the international anti-genocide legal regime, and an ethical future for the human race, in which the peremptory norm (jus cogens) bans slavery, racial discrimination, torture, and genocide.

Every Zionist anti-Jew and gentile supporter of the Zionist commits a heinous international crime as well as US federal crime. In both cases, the maximum penalty for this crime is a sentence of death. The 1946 Nuremberg Tribunal held that a felon, who was convicted of capital genocide, should not be killed in any way that could be considered more honorable than hanging.

Because the US federal government and other white racist states fail to enforce the ban on genocide against a Zionist anti-Jew, there is a categorical imperative upon the entire human race to put every Zionist anti-Jew and every gentile supporter of the Zionist state into the category of an outlaw and to give the genocidal outlaw the traditional legal treatment of an outlaw.

The crimes of Zionism continue until the Zionist state is abolished and until every Zionist anti-Jew throughout the world is arrested

  1. to be tried for genocide,
  2. to be swiftly convicted, and
  3. to be sentenced to a long prison term or to a short visit to the gallows.

All assets of every Zionist anti-Jew and of every Zionist organization must be seized to compensate the victims of Zionism.

Every Zionist anti-Jew including my depraved and evil hyperwealthy Zionist relatives must die penniless and impoverished.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

ThorsProvoni (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 The ADL Must Be Prosecuted Under RICO Law!

In the accurate definition of Zionism, the ADL spreads the following essentialist and primordialist propaganda in order to incite, to legitimize, and to normalize genocide that Zionist colonial settler anti-Jews commit against Palestinians.

Zionism is the movement for the self-determination and statehood for the Jewish people in their ancestral homeland, the land of Israel. The vast majority of Jews around the world feel a connection or kinship with Israel, whether or not they explicitly identify as Zionists, and regardless of their opinions on the policies of the Israeli government.

This nonsense hardly differs from Nazi propaganda about Atlantis and Aryans. The Nazi propaganda was also intended to incite, to legitimize, and to normalize genocide.

The mentality of a Zionist anti-Jew is congruent to the mentality of a Nazi.

Even if the ancestral homeland crap were true, Zionism would still be a criminal ideology of replacement genocide, and depraved evil white racial supremacist European Zionist anti-Jews would still have founded the vile disgusting criminal Zionist state by atrocious genocide after the international community absolutely banned genocide in Dec 1946 and rendered anti-genocide jus cogens (a peremptory norm).

Rabbinic Judaism crystallized in the 10th century CE. A Jew practices Rabbinic Judaism. There are no Jews before the 10th century CE. Rabbinic Judaism is a Mesopotamian religion that has less connection to Palestine than either Christianity or Islam.

Zionism is a disease of Jewish illiteracy in Rabbinic Jewish intellectual culture.

The Talmud explains.

Here is Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 39a-b.

אמר ליה ההוא מינא לרבי אבינא כתיב (שמואל ב ז, כג) מי כעמך כישראל גוי אחד בארץ מאי רבותייהו אתון נמי ערביתו בהדן דכתיב (ישעיהו מ, יז) כל הגוים כאין נגדו אמר ליה מדידכו אסהידו עלן דכתיב

A certain heretic said to Rabbi Avina: It is written: “And who is like Your people, Israel, one nation in the earth?” (II Samuel 7:23). The heretic asked: What is your greatness? You are also mixed together with us, as it is written: “All nations before Him are as nothing; they are counted by Him less than nothing and vanity” (Isaiah 40:17). Rabbi Avina said to him: One of yours, the gentile prophet Balaam, has already testified for us, as it is written:

במדבר כג, ט) ובגוים לא יתחשב)

“It is a community that shall dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned among the nations” (Numbers 23:9), teaching that where the verse mentions “the nations,” the community of Israel is not included.

Israel is mixed with us because of the massive proselytization and conversion that took place in the Greco-Roman period or before. Israel is not included among the nations because it is a religious spiritual community, whose only homeland is the Torah.

In response to the destruction of the Jerusalem and Leontopolis Temples, the Tannaim (1st and 2nd century CE scholars of Biblical Judaism) had to create a new religion, and the Talmud tells us that they began the process of the fabrication of a new religion that became Rabbinic Judaism in the 10th century.

The Tannaim of the 2nd century supported the false Messiah Bar Kochba, but the peasantry (90% of the population of Judea) rejected Bar Kochba.

Bar Kochba persecuted the peasantry, and the dipshit Tannaim supported him.

The Romans crushed Bar Kochba, and the Tannaim as well as their successors were discredited for practically all Judeans.

Judea and the rest of Palestine became Christian while Judaism became a religion of non-Judeans and eventually developed into Rabbinic Judaism, which is an alien Mesopotamian religion that has little and only superficial connection to Palestine.

The Roman Exile never happened and is a metaphor for the transformation of Judaism from the religion of Judea into a completely non-Judean religion.

The ADL is a depraved and evil organization that violates RICO law by aiding, abetting, inciting, conspiring, and committing genocide as well as by providing material support to terrorists (vicious bloodthirsty Zionist colonial settler anti-Jews), who perpetrate genocide.

When Eric Goldman and his ilk support unconstitutional Zeran- based caselaw in order to support public accommodation, civil rights, and common carriage discrimination, they are helping US Zionist perpetrators and conspirators in genocide

  1. to suppress open discussion of Zionist crimes and
  2. to get away with criminal violations that almost certainly merit the death penalty.
bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5

The ADL Must Be Prosecuted Under RICO Law!

In the immortal words of Popehat: “It’s never RICO, dammit!”

In the accurate definition of Zionism, the ADL spreads the following essentialist and primordialist propaganda in order to incite, to legitimize, and to normalize genocide that Zionist colonial settler anti-Jews commit against Palestinians.

Zionism is the movement for the self-determination and statehood for the Jewish people in their ancestral homeland, the land of Israel. The vast majority of Jews around the world feel a connection or kinship with Israel, whether or not they explicitly identify as Zionists, and regardless of their opinions on the policies of the Israeli government.

I fail to see how that “incite[s], [] legitimize[s], [or] normalize[s] genocide”; it may be propaganda, but it explicitly states that it is separate from the policies of the Israeli government, and it says nothing about the Palestinians already there at all, so even if you think that the Israeli government is committing genocide against Palestinians, this definition doesn’t have anything to do with that.

This nonsense hardly differs from Nazi propaganda about Atlantis and Aryans.

I’ll be honest; I don’t recall anything about Atlantis in Nazi propaganda.

More importantly, I fail to see any similarities at all between this and the Nazi propaganda about Aryans. At best, it may vaguely resemble the talk about merging Germany and Austria as the Aryan homeland, and even that is a stretch, but that’s it.

The Nazi propaganda was also intended to incite, to legitimize, and to normalize genocide.

It is true that Nazi propaganda was intended to do those things, among many others. I fail to see how the ADL’s definition of Zionism even tries to do any of those things.

The mentality of a Zionist anti-Jew is congruent to the mentality of a Nazi.

You have yet to demonstrate this claim. It appears contrary to the evidence you yourself have presented.

Even if the ancestral homeland crap were true, Zionism would still be a criminal ideology of replacement genocide, […]

Prove it.

[…] and depraved evil white racial supremacist European Zionist anti-Jews would still have founded the vile disgusting criminal Zionist state by atrocious genocide after the international community absolutely banned genocide in Dec 1946 and rendered anti-genocide jus cogens (a peremptory norm).

Perhaps, but that would still be a separate issue from what Zionism itself is. (Not that you have demonstrated that much, even.) It is also still irrelevant to anything here.

The rest is just a repeat of the same unsupported, irrelevant assertions you’ve made multiple times before and is not worth addressing.

Anti Defamation League Sponsored Post says:

Re: Re: Re:4

And look who writes all of these definitions–the race supremacist ADL, et al– same crowd that seeks to censor speech online.

Wouldn’t it be nice if everyone wanted the ADL’s hand up there ass, moving their mouths like puppets, saying whatever those sociopaths wanted them to say?

Thing 1 and Thing 2 are not so subtly showing their stripes here.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Person says:

Your thought process (lol its horribly incoherent)

Seriously wtf is your thought process!? If it didn’t even exist back then it could not have done any of that, nor does it mean social media is terrible because something bad happened to somebody before it existed. You clearly don’t understand how the laws of the universe work either, time didn’t just warp because of something that was happening. You probably should review your thoughts before you spill them because they don’t make any sense, which means your obviously wrong.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

That TAC truism where humans will spend more time trying to make sure the blame is correctly assigned rather than deal with the situation.

Some asshat stabbed another person.
This was not done in self defense.
This was not done after brain washing.
Asshat decided he was going to do a thing & he did it.

Can we just blame the asshat for being an asshat, put him in prison & skip the whole this wouldn’t have happened if more mothers breast fed longer! part of the hysteria?

Anonymous Coward says:

Cut off one's nose to spite one's face

“We Should Regulate Online Speech, Get Rid Of Anonymity, And Hold Social Media Responsible” and no one will ever get stabbed again!

Knife producers revolt claiming it’s impinging on people’s 2nd Amendment and 1st Amendment rights, plus will hurt their potential sales.

Coyne Tibbets (profile) says:

Regulating at the wrong level

It seems to me that Simon Jenkins is focusing on the wrong target. He should be arguing that there should be regulation on people who write or publish offensive works.

Such as, for example, Salman Rushdie’s book.

After all, if free speech is to thrive, we can’t have people like Salman Rushdie disturbing the status quo.

…Or maybe, just maybe, Jenkins should reconsider his whole line of reasoning.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

ThorsProvoni (profile) says:

Mobilized Supporters of Zionism Group-Libel Opponents of Zionism

Here is a typical example from the depraved evil racist genocide-supporter Naughty Autie.

By definition, Zionists support the establishment and (nowadays) maintenance of a Jewish nation so Jews always have a place to flee should another individual like Hitler come into power anywhere. So by being anti-Zionist, you’re also anti-Jew. Going to sue Techdirt as a ‘common carrier’ because I posted that ‘racist’ truth?

A depraved evil racist genocide supporter like Naughty Autie defecates

  1. on the memory of my father’s family murdered in the Holocaust in the Ukraine and
  2. on the memory of all other Jews murdered in the Holocaust

by using their deaths to normalize and to justify genocide committed against Palestinians.

The racist genocide supporter goes further and libels me with an accusation that alleges that I and all my haredi relatives are anti-Jew because we consider Zionism for all intents and purposes to have murdered Judaism by transforming Judaism into a program of genocide.

I alert the relevant social medium platform to the obvious hate speech that the screeching of the depraved evil genocide supporter represents.

In response the social medium platform removes me and other pro-Palestine users as well as our content while a horde of screeching Zionist genocide supporters amplify the accusation, which alleges that we are anti-Jew.

Because we are removed, we can’t respond to the obvious group libel which the social medium platform amplified by distribution and by removing our content that refuted the accusation.

My wife, I, other Palestinians, and other anti-Zionism Jews should be able to sue the social medium platform massively for distributor group libel.

My wife obviously is not antisemitic. She married me. She hates a Zionist because the Zionist movement has committed genocide against her family and ethnic/national group without stopping since Dec 1947.

Zionism is a depraved hate-filled obviously antisemitic ideology.

From Martillo v. Twitter Original Complaint.

[41] Zionism postulates:
• that the national group descended from ethnic Ashkenazim/Yiddish-speaking Slavo-Turks1 is defective,
• that the Palestinian national group is illegitimate and may be subjected to genocide by Zionists, and
• that members of the ethnic Ashkenazi national group can cure their defects only:
◦ by participating in the genocide of the Palestinian national group and
◦ by stealing the homeland of the Palestinian national group.
[42] Zionist ideology considers the Jewish diaspora to be a waste and something to be negated.2 Zionists have especially scorned those Diaspora Jews
• that can participate in the intellectual heritage of Rabbinic Judaism and
• that consider Zionism to result from increasing Jewish illiteracy in Rabbinic Jewish scholarship.
[43] Such illiteracy has created a political movement based on misunderstood fairy tales derived from confused misinterpretation of the Hebrew Bible, which is only the backstory to the main Rabbinic Jewish scripture, which is the Talmud.3 Zionist attitudes toward a Diaspora Jew, who rejects Zionist ideology, consist of pure bigotry and hate. Such Zionist attitudes constitute antisemitism under the IHRA working definition of antisemitism. Zionists undertake coordinated efforts to make sure a social medium discriminates against such a Diaspora Jew and excludes him from the social medium’s place of exhibition or of entertainment.

In Massachusetts the AG can indict a corporation or individual for criminal libel. See M.G.L.A. 272 § 98C. Since 1881 Zionist libel against Palestinians has been an ongoing project, which is intended to incite, to normalize, and to legitimize genocide of Palestinians.

In general, criminal libel is a libel punishable criminally. It consists of a defamation of an individual (or group) made public by a printing or writing. The defamation must tend to excite a breach of the peace or damage the individual (or group) in reference to his character, reputation, or credit.

Genocide breaches the peace or damages an individual Palestinian or the Palestinian ethnic group.

There is no discretion in the enforcement of criminal law. The Massachusetts AG must indict every social medium platform that distributes Zionist libel against Palestinians.

I must reiterate the following.

I am a Jew. A Zionist is a depraved and evil anti-Jew, who is liable to execution of a death sentence under Jewish law for inexcusable and outrageous blasphemy.

I am Jewish because my parents are Jewish, and I was raised religious. Even though my parents disdained Zionism, Zionists, and the Zionist state, I tried to be a liberal Zionist because my father’s extended family was so important in the Zionist movement.

The idea of a Jewish ethnonationality (a Jewish nation) is BS meant to legitimize and to normalize Zionist genocide of Palestinians.

Both my father and also my mother came from scholarly and intellectual Rabbinic Jewish families. Yet my father, who is Ukrainian Ashkenazi Jewish, and my mother, who is a N. African Jewish Berber, have nothing in common ethnically but the religion, and that commonality is questionable.

Rabbinic Judaism in Volhynia was for the most part effectively a sect of Roman Catholicism while Berber Judaism differed little from Berber Islam.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Well join the club, lol. Who HASN’T been slandered by Zionists and hasbara rats online? Zionism is just how Jewish-christianity rolls, and perpetuates itself since Flavian times.

Again–the AC that is currently stalking you here is likely a moderator. I will peek in every now and again to watch it.

I have proof that Techdirt has moderators, and the AC’s are the main derailers amongst them. Your argument about Zeran is valid here, as the comment forum is not only actively moderated (I have proof) but also, classically trolled, with attempts to radicalize commenters.

How can I contact you–I have IP’s and logs.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re:

“I have proof”

Generally speaking, people who have proof of something present it.

“that Techdirt has moderators”

Unlikely, but let’s say that’s true – so what?

“How can I contact you–I have IP’s and logs.”

Interesting… typically, IPs are not available to people who view a page like this, they’re only available at the server level. Are you admitting to illegally accessing servers relating to this site, or are you just hallucinating as usual?

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Gee, that’s terrible and all…

But have you actually tried going to a relevant news agency for this? I’m sure Haaretz would be all over this if you could prove that all of that is indeed happening and all.

This is hardly the right place to be discussing Israel’s stance on the Palestinian issue.

And the fact you’re basically throwing out insults on people who are decidedly neutral on the issue might be, yanno, making them dislike you? As is spamming every article on free speech with this.

Again, if your story is true, go to Haaretz, they actually care about the Palestinians.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

ThorsProvoni (profile) says:

Re: Re: The Israel Lobby is the Most Active Suppressor of Free Speech

The active suppression of an online pro-Palestine user and his online content is only one project of the Zionist program to undermine the First Amendment.

If Trump is a threat to the US Constitutional system, Trump is a mouse by comparison with the Israel Lobby, which is like the Deinosuchus, which was an ancient reptile large enough to prey on a T. Rex.

See In Congress, a Threat to Americans’ First Amendment Right to Boycott.

Zionism and the US Zionist movement represent the greatest domestic threat to the US Constitutional system.

Memorandum in Support of Motion for Reconsideration of Final Order of Dismissal and the associated Exhibits demonstrate that it is another project of the Zionist movement to prevent an open honest online discussion of the genocide, apartheid, and persecution that the Zionist state commits against Palestinians. See See Ishmael N. Daro, “How An App Funded By Sheldon Adelson Is Covertly Influencing The Online Conversation About Israel,” Buzzfeed.News, Sep 20, 2018. It is worthwhile to google social media discrimination against palestinians.

The Zionist war on free speech dovetails with the start of the genocide that depraved and evil white racial supremacist European Zionist colonial settler anti-Jews started against Palestinians in Dec 1947 and that has never ceased.

One of my professors was among the first victims during the 50s. He was a Jewish historian, who researched the origin of WW2. He had been a Zionist until he began to research archival information in the UK. The Zionist movement drove him out of Columbia University because he had concluded that not only a Palestinian but a Jew and the entire human race have a score to settle with the Zionist movement.

Why Zionism Is Proximate Cause of the Shoah and of Approximately 80 million deaths during WW2

Preface

US law identifies Immediate Cause that creates liability for an action. US law also identifies Proximate Cause. But for the Proximate Cause, the action that creates immediate liability might never have taken place. The Proximate Cause also bears liability. The Holocaust provides an example in which Proximate Cause must be addressed.

Introduction

But for Zionism the Holocaust or Shoah would not have happened, and millions would have lived that perished.

Most white European Americans and other white Europeans believe a false propaganda history of WW2. White racial supremacist European Zionist colonial-settler invaders in Stolen Palestine both cultivate such white European ignorance and also batten on it. This white European ignorance often expresses itself in psychotic and delusional anti-antisemitism, which should be included among mental disorders in the DSM 5.

Blowback

The Shoah was mostly blowback from the wildly disproportionate and prominent role that Jewish Soviet leaders played in atrocities and genocide during the Communist Revolution as well as during the consolidation of the USSR. The role of Jewish Bolsheviks in atrocities and genocide hardly means Soviet communists did not victimize Jews. Jews involved in commerce and finance were considered class enemies. While Jewish Bolsheviks brutally targeted such Jewish class enemies in the effort to transform Jews into the quintessential Soviet class, non-Jews in Europe and the USSR were almost completely unaware of such brutal Jew-on-Jew oppression.

The Stupidity of WW2

WW2 was a stupid war and mostly a continuation of WW1 with a change of ruling elite in Germany. Hitler did not even run as an antisemite in 1932, but his core supporters were mostly Ostdeutsch (Eastern European and Russian German) refugees angry or afraid of Jews because of the wildly disproportionate and prominent role Jewish Soviet leaders played in the persecution of Germans in the Soviet Union.

Großdeutschland

Hitler’s primary policy goal was the creation of Großdeutschland (Greater Germany). With the division of Poland between Germany and the USSR in 1939, he had achieved this goal. He wanted to conclude the war with a peace treaty with the UK because he and the German military leadership were certain that the USSR would eventually renounce the Soviet-German pact and invade if there were no peace treaty with the UK.

The progressive press in the UK – especially those Jewish journalists sympathetic to the USSR – favored a peace treaty to end the Phoney War or Sitzkrieg or Drôle de Guerre. Opposition to a peace treaty came mostly from the right because the traditional British foreign policy toward Europe included prevention of European unity first under the Spanish Habsburgs, then under Napoleonic France, and now under Germany. Yet, the British right was generally sympathetic to Hitler’s internal policies and might have been willing to come to a treaty arrangement with Germany even if the British right was unwilling to tolerate continental Europe united under Germany.

In contrast, Zionist members of the Cousinhood of Wealthiest British Jews poured money into a campaign against peace and for transformation of the Phoney War into real total war because the Zionists were angry that even with all the actions Hitler had taken against Jews, European Jews desperately tried either to stay in Europe or to emigrate from Europe to the Americas.[1]

The Perfidiousness of the Zionist Anti-Jews Among the Jewish Cousinhood

The Zionists of the Cousinhood and the Zionist leadership in Palestine wanted intense hot war in Europe in order to force Jews in E. Europe to flee to Palestine when all other possible destinations were closed off. Zionists also worked hard to close off all other possible destinations for fleeing Jews.[2]

Zionist leaders got the full scale war they desired. Fearful of later waging a defensive war on two fronts, Hitler intending quick victory invaded the USSR first on June 22, 1941, but Jews could not get out. Both Eastern European non-Jews and also liberated Soviet nationalities

  • angry at the Soviet Union or
  • fearful of the Soviet Union

unleashed murderous violence wherever and whenever possible on Jews, who had become so closely associated in the popular mind with Soviet murders, atrocities, and genocides. We sometimes find reports from Wehrmacht officers that were astounded and sometimes horrified by the anti-Jewish violence.

Murdering Jews en Masse

The Shoah, which started in Yugoslavia, was born as Germany followed the lead of the local people, who started to murder Jews en masse.

Because Germany was a follower in the Shoah and not the director, it is difficult to find German government documents to show that the Shoah/Final Solution was official German government policy, and Shoah historians hang their hat on documents from the Wannsee conference, which took place on January 20, 1942. The Wannsee Conference took place after mass murders considered part of the Shoah had already taken place for several months.

The rest is history.

Suppose the UK had negotiated a peace treaty before the invasion of the Soviet Union and thus before the start of the Holocaust. The treaty could even have covered removal of Jews from the territory of Großdeutschland, and Jews in territories under Soviet control would have escaped threat of the Holocaust while German satellite states might never have been forced to hand Jews over to German forces for murder.

This alternate history would have rotted for Poland, but the actual history turned out worse for Poland and for the tens of millions, who died in WW2, which was a completely useless and stupid war.

In the alternate history, the Zionist goal of emptying Europe of its Jews would never have been achieved, and the Shoah would never have taken place. Before the invasion of the Soviet Union, Hitler was only interested in evacuating Jews from Germany and would probably have spent the next 15 years in finishing the consolidation of Großdeutschland.

Zionism is Proximate Cause of Shoah

The Zionists got their war, and they at least proximately caused the Shoah (and thus the murder of almost every member of my father’s family in the Ukraine) by thwarting a peace treaty between the UK and Germany.

Sympathizing with Zionists is like feeling sorry for a guy because he became an orphan after he murdered his parents.

In the real history, vicious bloodthirsty white racial supremacist European Zionist invaders founded the State of Israel (the Zionist state) in an atrocious act of genocide after Auschwitz and after the 1946 Nuremberg International Tribunal (NIT). The NIT marks the start of the international anti-genocide legal regime, and white European racists suffering from worthy victim syndrome are unwilling to address the genocide that white racial supremacist European Zios committed and continue to perpetrate on non-European natives of Palestine.

Not only is Zionism a proximate cause of the Shoah, but it remains the gift that keeps giving by vitiating the international anti-genocide legal regime and undermining international law.

Opposing abolition of the Zionist state today is at least as depraved as opposing abolition of US slavery before the US Civil War.

Opposing abolition of the Zionist state today is probably more depraved than opposing abolition of US slavery before the Civil War,

  • because slavery was legal before the Civil War while the Zionist state is unique among states with genocide in their history,
  • because its founding genocide took place after the 1946 Nuremberg Tribunal, and
  • because it continues post-Nuremberg genocide of the natives before the eyes of the world.

There is no statute of limitations for genocide in either international or US law.

Supporting the continued existence of the Zionist state is genocidal racism in effect if not in intent.

Because Zionism has transformed Judaism, Jewishness, Jewish identity, Yidishkeyt into a program for genocide, the continued existence of the Zionist state and of Zionism as an effective political force guarantees that eventually Zionist anti-Jews (and unfortunately my anti-Zionist haredi Jewish relatives) will constitute the most hated group on the planet.

When any Zionist anti-Jew or any pro-Israel gentile supports Zionism, he supports a movement

  • that made the murder of the the vast majority of Jews of Europe a certainty and
  • that was proximate cause of the deaths of tens of millions of gentiles.

WWII Books Worth Reading

The Phoney Victory: The World War II Illusion by Peter Hitchens (Bloomsbury Publishing, Sep 6, 2018) – Hitchens is a conservative author, who goes out of his way to grovel before Zionists.

Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War”: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World by Patrick J. Buchanan (Crown, May 27, 2008) – Buchanan does not grovel before Zionists.

Notes

[1] Zionism is a depraved delusional ideology. Jesus and his disciples were all Palestinians. Yet European Christians, who all descend from local European converts, have no interest in relocating to Palestine.

Likewise, the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament recounts stories of ancient Palestine/Canaan. Yet European Jews, who all descend from local European converts, had practically no interest in relocating to Palestine until after WW2.

The point can be made in another way.

Just as only a moron, an ignoramus, or a liar claims modern Roman Catholics descend from ancient Romans, likewise only a moron, an ignoramus, or a liar claims modern Jews descend from Greco-Roman Judeans, whose descendants gradually converted to Christianity and thence to Islam. In truth, a small fraction of modern Roman Catholics descend from ancient Romans. In contrast, no Greco-Roman Judeans left or were removed from Palestine en masse. All modern Jews descend from non-Judean converts to Judaism. The Roman Exile is a metaphor for the transformation of Judaism from the religion of Judea into a religion that only descendants of non-Judean converts to Judaism practice. In contrast, Palestinians are the true descendants of Greco-Roman Judeans.

It is important to recognize that Rabbinic Judaism,

  • which is not a Palestinian but a Mesopotamian religion and
  • which does not crystallize until the 10th century CE,

has less connection to Biblical Judaism than either Orthodox Christianity or Islam does.

[2] The behavior of the Zionist leadership with respect to Jewish refugees trying to flee from German controlled territory before WW2 was despicable. Ben-Gurion really wasn’t interested in helping Jews that could not actively participate in committing genocide and in stealing Palestine. I may be overstating, but in Ben-Gurion’s calculation and that of the Zionist leadership, the murders of Zionism-useless Jews could serve to distract from Zionist crimes against the natives of Palestine.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

ThorsProvoni (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Naughty Autie Made the Holocaust an Issue

This depraved and evil propagandist for Zionist genocide opened the door to discussion of Zionism in the context of defending the First Amendment by making the following Zionist propaganda claim.

By definition, Zionists support the establishment and (nowadays) maintenance of a Jewish nation so Jews always have a place to flee should another individual like Hitler come into power anywhere. So by being anti-Zionist, you’re also anti-Jew. Going to sue Techdirt as a ‘common carrier’ because I posted that ‘racist’ truth?

A supporter like me of free speech must challenge Zionist lies and Zionist scum like white racial supremacist Naughty Autie.

In Memorandum in Support of Motion for Reconsideration of Final Order of Dismissal along with the associated exhibits, I make the following point pertinent to Section 230.

[52] Each Defendant may be violating the requirement of good faith in another way. European Zionist invaders founded the Zionist state by acts of genocide after the start of the international anti-genocide legal regime in the caselaw of the 1946 Nuremberg Tribunal. The Alien Tort Statute and possibly the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act enable international anti-genocide law and the international law of expropriation in the US federal civil code. Ongoing genocide of Palestinians has never stopped. An act of genocide became criminal in the US criminal code in 1987 when the USA enabled the international anti-genocide convention in the US federal criminal code. (See Footnote 21.) Determination of involvement in genocide is a legal not a political question according to Al-Tamimi v. Adelson, No. 17-5207 (D.C. Cir. 2019).The US federal criminal code defines genocide to be a form of terrorism in 18 U.S. Code § 2339A – Providing material support to terrorists. Because the Zionist movement tries to guarantee that US genocide and material support law is never enforced against a US Zionist, an app like Act.Il directs a member of the Zionist movement to pressure an ICS. An ICS under such pressure may aid genocide and give material support to terrorism. At present the DOJ seems to confer a “pass” on the Zionist movement to commit with impunity federal crimes of genocide or of material support to terrorists. If so, the US government may selectively prosecute an alleged perpetrator of a federal terrorism crime. Such selective prosecution ruins US legal system. The situation should be discussed openly. Yet, every Defendant participates in suppressing discussion. Involvement of a Defendant in this ongoing suppression is evidence of bad faith linked to unlawful maybe criminal activity.

The international community banned genocide in Dec 1946 and made anti-genocide jus cogens. The Zionist leadership realized that the window to commit genocide and to steal Palestine from Palestinians was closing. The Jewish National Fund (JNF) and the Jewish Agency (JA) immediately started to the genocide, which vicious bloodthirsty Zionist colonial settler rape and murder gangs (Zionist militias) began in Dec 1947. One of my father’s depraved evil Zionist anti-Jew cousins was a lawyer at the JNF and was a team leader for the planning of the logistics of genocide against Palestinians.)

The code of purity of arms (Hebrew: טוהר הנשק, Tohar HaNeshek) is one of the values stated in the Israel Defense Forces’ official doctrine of ethics, The Spirit of the IDF. It states that:

The soldier shall make use of his weaponry and power only for the fulfillment of the mission and solely to the extent required; he will maintain his humanity even in combat. The soldier shall not employ his weaponry and power in order to harm non-combatants or prisoners of war, and shall do all he can to avoid harming their lives, body, honor and property.

— IDF Spirit

IDF purity of arms is a complete lie, and the IDF is properly called the Waffen-IDF by analogy with the Waffen-SS.

The mere existence of the Zionist state vitiates the international anti-genocide legal regime and undermines international law.

The US DOJ has no discretion in the enforcement of US federal criminal law. The FBI must be dispatched to arrest the entire US Zionist movement so that it can be

  1. tried for genocide,
  2. almost certainly convicted, and
  3. sentenced to a long prison term or to a short visit to the gallows.

All assets of every Zionist individual and Zionist organization must be seized so that every Zionist can die penniless and impoverished.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

ThorsProvoni (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 [Typo Correction] No Good Faith in Moderation by a Social Medium Platform

Nitwit white racial supremacist genocide-supporter Naughty Autie does not understand how the Anglo-American common law system works.

A lower court interprets a statute according to text in conjunction with guidance from the caselaw of a higher court, which is a relevant appellate court.

Section 230 says nothing about moderation. The moderation nonsense comes from unconstitutional Zeran-based caselaw. The Congressional framers of Section 230 envisioned neither active moderation nor active curation. Section 230 — if it even applies to a 2022 social medium platform — only allows the good faith removal of the highly restricted category of content, which there is no First Amendment right to express.

Such removal is supposed to be comparable to the right of a common carrier to deny common carriage for hazardous material.

If arguendo we accept that Section 230 applies, a publisher, which a 2022 social medium platform could not be according to Section 230, can be charged with publisher libel both civilly and also criminally.

Likewise a 2022 social medium platform can be charged with distributor libel even if arguendo we accept that a 2022 social medium platform is a 1996 ICS.

A careful reading of Section 230 tells us that Section 230 definitely does not apply to a 2022 social medium platform and only applies to a old-fashioned Internet on-ramp.

A 2022 social medium platform can be charged both with distributor libel and also with publisher libel.

Once Martillo v. Twitter reaches SCOTUS by way of right of appeal and not by petition to SCOTUS for certiorari, these matters of law will be clarified, and a major social medium platform within the defendant class will be toast as it should be.

Here is the typo.

The international community banned genocide in Dec 1946 and made anti-genocide jus cogens. The Zionist leadership realized that the window to commit genocide and to steal Palestine from Palestinians was closing. The Jewish National Fund (JNF) and the Jewish Agency (JA) immediately started to PLAN THE LOGISTICS OF THE genocide, which vicious bloodthirsty Zionist colonial settler rape and murder gangs (Zionist militias) began in Dec 1947. One of my father’s depraved evil Zionist anti-Jew cousins was a lawyer at the JNF and was a team leader for the planning of the logistics of genocide against Palestinians.)

Naughty Autie says:

Re: Re: Re:4

Section 230 says nothing about the editorial discretion of an ICS.

If by “ICS” you mean online platform, that’s because it doesn’t have to. It’s about stopping you suing Twitter for what one of its users tweeted when you should be going after whoever posted the alleged defamation. Editorial discretion applies to companies like Hachette, not Facebook et al. [Rest of the ‘comment’ ignored as the fact-free wall of text that it is.]

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4

Section 230 says nothing about moderation. The moderation nonsense comes from unconstitutional Zeran-based caselaw.

ORLY? “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material seems a perfect description of moderation to me. Or are you arguing that a man isn’t a man if he’s instead described as an adult male human?

ThorsProvoni (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 “Section 230 says nothing about moderation”

Sure, moderation is allowed, but the normal defense to liability associated with distribution (in contrast with publication or authorship) is no knowledge of content.

Nothing in the statute limits an ICS to distributor liability. Current caselaw gives an ICS blanket immunity, but that liability is likely to bite the dust within the next year or so.

The current SCOTUS is not a fan of legal immunity without statutory basis.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Okay so.

  1. Do you believe in the Jewish right to a homeland, regardless it be in the form of Palestine, somewhere in Africa, or the USA?
  2. Do you believe in the Jewish right to self-determination, whether it be in Palestine, Africa or the United States?
  3. Do you realize that your anti-Zionism will come to bite you in the ass?
  4. Why do you have a disused blog, have appeared on an Iranian news network, which calls you a Holocaust Denier?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

ThorsProvoni (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Brain-Dead Anonymous Clown (BD AC) Shows His White European Zionist Anti-Jew Racial Supremacism!

(1) Do I believe in the Roman Catholic or Muslim right to a homeland? No

(2) Do I believe in the Jewish right to self-determination? Sure. I used to be haredi until Baruch Goldstein celebrated Purim by spree-murdering Palestinians and I was outside the Mosque of Abraham. My haredi relatives have their own schools, authorities and Jewish courts. They don’t want the depraved evil criminal genocidal Zionist state and agree with me

  • that the Zionist state must be abolished and
  • that Palestinians must return to their homes, villages, property, and homeland, which is not the homeland of depraved evil Zionist anti-Jews.

(3) As I have pointed out, completely righteous hate, scorn, and loathing for Zionism, the Zionist movement, the Zionist colonial settler conglomeration, and the Zionist regime has entered the exponential growth phase.

Antipathy toward Jews was evaporating in Europe until the Bolshevik Revolution.

But for Zionism the Holocaust or Shoah would not have happened, and millions would have lived that perished in WW2.

The Zionist anti-Jew members of the Cousinhood of Wealthiest British Jews manipulated the British government into turning the Phoney War into a hot total war.

The Zionists got their war (WW2), and they at least proximately caused the Shoah (and thus the murder of almost every member of my father’s family in the Ukraine) by thwarting a peace treaty between the UK and Germany.

Sympathizing with Zionists is like feeling sorry for a guy because he became an orphan after he murered his parents.

Blowback

The Shoah was mostly blowback from the wildly disproportionate and prominent role that Jewish Soviet leaders played in atrocities and genocide during the Communist Revolution as well as during the consolidation of the USSR. The role of Jewish Bolsheviks in atrocities and genocide hardly means Soviet communists did not victimize Jews. Jews involved in commerce and finance were considered class enemies. While Jewish Bolsheviks brutally targeted such Jewish class enemies in the effort to transform Jews into the quintessential Soviet class, non-Jews in Europe and the USSR were almost completely unaware of such brutal Jew-on-Jew oppression.

The Depraved Evil Brain-Dead Anonymous Clown (DE BD AC) defecates on the memory of my relatives and of all Jews murdered in the Holocaust by using the Holocaust to legitimize and to normalize genocide against Palestine.

It is hard to be more vile and disgusting than DE BD AC.

Zionism and the Zionist state are destined to bite every Zionist anti-Jew in the ass as well as unfortunately my haredi Jewish relatives because depraved evil Zionist anti-Jews dishonestly claim to be Jews.

(4) I used to run an organization that I called Ethnic Ashkenazim Against Zionist Israel. I had a blog that was associated with the group. I will explain the absolute and utter evil of Zionism to anyone including Iranians.

MEMRI tries mendaciously to claim anyone is a Holocaust-denier that justly and ethically loathes Zionism, the Zionist movement, and the Zionist state.

From the standpoint of crazed and evil Zionist anti-Jews, I am far worse than a Holocaust-denier because I put in the hours of research to demonstrate that the Zionist movement is the proximate cause of the Holocaust and of approximately 80 million deaths during WW2.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Well join the club, lol. Who HASN’T been slandered by Zionists and hasbara rats online? Zionism is just how Jewish-christianity rolls, and perpetuates itself since Flavian times.

Again–the AC that is currently stalking you here is likely a moderator. I will peek in every now and again to watch it.

I have proof that Techdirt has moderators, and the AC’s are the main derailers amongst them. Your argument about Zeran is valid here, as the comment forum is not only actively moderated (I have proof) but also, classically trolled, with attempts to radicalize commenters.

How can I contact you–I have IP’s and logs.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re:

Here is a typical example from the depraved evil racist genocide-supporter Naughty Autie.

By definition, Zionists support the establishment and (nowadays) maintenance of a Jewish nation so Jews always have a place to flee should another individual like Hitler come into power anywhere. So by being anti-Zionist, you’re also anti-Jew. Going to sue Techdirt as a ‘common carrier’ because I posted that ‘racist’ truth?

Which does not support your accusations against Naughty Autie.

A depraved evil racist genocide supporter like Naughty Autie defecates

  1. on the memory of my father’s family murdered in the Holocaust in the Ukraine and
  2. on the memory of all other Jews murdered in the Holocaust

by using their deaths to normalize and to justify genocide committed against Palestinians.

Except he did neither. You are making assertions that are unsupported by the evidence.

In Massachusetts the AG can indict a corporation or individual for criminal libel. See M.G.L.A. 272 § 98C.

For which the bar is incredibly high, and prosecutions are incredibly few. Additionally, you have provided zero examples of actual libel.

In general, criminal libel is a libel punishable criminally. It consists of a defamation of an individual (or group) made public by a printing or writing. The defamation must tend to excite a breach of the peace or damage the individual (or group) in reference to his character, reputation, or credit.

It must also be a demonstrably false statement of fact made with—at a minimum—negligence. Additionally, it must be about a specific individual or corporation and made by a specific individual or person. In other words, only the speaker or publisher could possibly be liable, and statements about ethnic or religious groups are non-actionable.

There is no discretion in the enforcement of criminal law. The Massachusetts AG must indict every social medium platform that distributes Zionist libel against Palestinians.

False. Again, liability does not attach to mere distribution of the speech of a third party, and you cannot libel an ethnic group.

It is also false that the AG has no discretion.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

ThorsProvoni (profile) says:

Re: Brain Dead Anonymous Clown Did Not Read the First Paragraph of the Article

We are discussing free speech. A depraved evil racist Zionist gets to libel me and my wife on a social medium platform. We don’t get to respond.

Here is the first paragraph so that the Brain Dead Anonymous Clown can focus his remaining living brain cells on the text.

Earlier this year, we had a podcast with Jacob Mchangama about his excellent book, Free Speech: A History from Socrates to Social Media, and I pointed out one theme that is seen throughout the book. Over and over again, vocal supporters of free speech eventually seem to change their position when they realize people say things they don’t want to hear. It often leads to some seriously shifted rationales. The latest in this theme is Simon Jenkins, longtime UK journalist and currently a columnist for The Guardian in the UK, who has penned a truly bizarre column basically embracing ditching free speech online because Salman Rushdie got stabbed.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

ThorsProvoni (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: The Depraved Evil Zionist Definition of Free Speech

To a depraved evil white racial supremacist Zionist like Toom1275, speech is only free to be expressed if it suppresses a pro-Palestine user and his content.

Every racist supporter of Zionist genocide against Palestinians tries to restrict speech that addresses Zionist genocide, apartheid, and persecution, which is directed against Palestinians.

A vile and disgusting Zionist propagandist like Toom1275 tries to put criticism of Zionism into the same legally restricted speech category to which obscenity belongs.

To a despicable supporter of Zionism and of the Zionist regime, the facts and the truth about Zionism are antisemitic and obscene.

See U.S. v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460, 130 S. Ct. 1577, 176 L. Ed. 2d 435 (2010), for a discussion of the legally restricted categories of speech.

“From 1791 to the present,” however, the First Amendment has “permitted restrictions upon the content of speech in a few limited areas,” and has never “include[d] a freedom to disregard these traditional limitations.” Id., at 382–383, 112 S.Ct. 2538. These “historic and traditional categories long familiar to the bar,” Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of N.Y. State Crime Victims Bd.,502 U.S. 105, 127, 112 S.Ct. 501, 116 L.Ed.2d 476 (1991) (KENNEDY, J., concurring in judgment)—including obscenity, Roth v. United States,354 U.S. 476, 483, 77 S.Ct. 1304, 1 L.Ed.2d 1498 (1957), defamation, Beauharnais v. Illinois,343 U.S. 250, 254–255, 72 S.Ct. 725, 96 L.Ed. 919 (1952), fraud, Virginia Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc.,425 U.S. 748, 771, 96 S.Ct. 1817, 48 L.Ed.2d 346 (1976), incitement, Brandenburg v. Ohio,395 U.S. 444, 447–449, 89 S.Ct. 1827, 23 L.Ed.2d 430 (1969) (per curiam ), and speech integral to criminal conduct, Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co.,336 U.S. 490, 498, 69 S.Ct. 684, 93 L.Ed. 834 (1949)—are “well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem.” Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire,315 U.S. 568, 571–572, 62 S.Ct. 766, 86 L.Ed. 1031 (1942). The Government argues that “depictions of animal cruelty” should be added to the list. It contends that depictions of “illegal acts of animal cruelty” that are “made, sold, or possessed for commercial gain” necessarily “lack expressive value,” and may accordingly “be regulated as unprotected speech.” Brief for United States 10 (emphasis added). The claim is not just that Congress may regulate depictions of animal cruelty subject to the First Amendment, but that these depictions are outside the reach of that Amendment altogether—that they fall into a “ ‘First Amendment Free Zone.’ ” Board of Airport Comm’rs of Los Angeles v. Jews for Jesus, Inc.,482 U.S. 569, 574, 107 S.Ct. 2568, 96 L.Ed.2d 500 (1987). [U.S. v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460, 468-69 (2010)]

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

It’s very, very interesting to note that despite your pro-Palestine views, you’ve been thrown off at least one email list modded by a pro-Palestinian moderator/owner.

To quote the owner:

“Far from banning you for opposing Zionism, I banned you for off-topic and offensive postings which appeared to condone what amounts to terrorism by any definition of that term.”

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Let’s test your theorem: is Zeran possible or not possible? Because trolls like we see here need to have their asses handed to them.

I posted this earlier:

Interesting perspective–but be prepared for the in-house trolls here to flag everything you post, and call you anti-semitic, lol. It’s what they do here.

Techdirt’s comments section is currently controlled by professional neo-Nazis, one of the mods who post as an AC actively appears to have the ability to DDOS commenters, sometimes threatens to send the FBI at you, and/or turns you over to Fusion Centers or similar who do the dirty work for them.

And, this forum is also full of these types beow, too, who have zero sense of nuance:

So by being anti-Zionist, you’re also anti-Jew

These appear to be the regular UK, and US-FVEY’s battalions of troll farm Anonymous Cowards and who are also quite active in derailing the type of comments you are making here too. This board is anti-BDS, and pro-Zionist at every junction, and very pro-deep state trolling–some commenters being current and former police prosecutors, FBI and so on.

Their tactics are classic trolling, and this board is in fact moderated, though not obviously–I have proof of it and can refer you to evidence of it if you would care to look further into it, or search “Techdirt Thing 1 and Thing 2” for an interesting excursion into proving the forum is not only moderated, but weaponized.

First it’s the clasic troll slanders, mischaracterizations, and flagging by the exact parties you have named above (leave Cushing out of it!)

Next, they call you a Chinese/Russian/other trolls-du-jour, and begin slandering you across posts, with classic ADL-type defamation and derailing commentary straight out of the schismogenetic playbook.

Lastly, what I think you are struggling to say is that it is ritual defamation that you are dealing with, not necessarily slander/libel/defamation in the classic sense–the rendering of your thoughts and ideas as taboo, and then, un-naming practices. This is very active, and the US-FVEY’s is fully engaged in it wholesale.

Just a heads up.

And I think that the key issue here is “moderation” which takes on unique forms here at TD. And, these types of .mil/.US-FVEYs/.gov/.corporate NGO unspecified trolls should indeed be sued and silenced.

How can I contact you?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Let’s test your theorem: is Zeran possible or not possible? Because trolls like we see here need to have their asses handed to them.

I posted this earlier:

Interesting perspective–but be prepared for the in-house trolls here to flag everything you post, and call you anti-semitic, lol. It’s what they do here.

Techdirt’s comments section is currently controlled by professional neo-Nazis, one of the mods who post as an AC actively appears to have the ability to DDOS commenters, sometimes threatens to send the FBI at you, and/or turns you over to Fusion Centers or similar who do the dirty work for them.

And, this forum is also full of these types beow, too, who have zero sense of nuance:

So by being anti-Zionist, you’re also anti-Jew 

These appear to be the regular UK, and US-FVEY’s battalions of troll farm Anonymous Cowards and who are also quite active in derailing the type of comments you are making here too. This board is anti-BDS, and pro-Zionist at every junction, and very pro-deep state trolling–some commenters being current and former police prosecutors, FBI and so on.

Their tactics are classic trolling, and this board is in fact moderated, though not obviously–I have proof of it and can refer you to evidence of it if you would care to look further into it, or search “Techdirt Thing 1 and Thing 2” for an interesting excursion into proving the forum is not only moderated, but weaponized.

First it’s the clasic troll slanders, mischaracterizations, and flagging by the exact parties you have named above (leave Cushing out of it!)

Next, they call you a Chinese/Russian/other trolls-du-jour, and begin slandering you across posts, with classic ADL-type defamation and derailing commentary straight out of the schismogenetic playbook.

Lastly, what I think you are struggling to say is that it is ritual defamation that you are dealing with, not necessarily slander/libel/defamation in the classic sense–the rendering of your thoughts and ideas as taboo, and then, un-naming practices. This is very active, and the US-FVEY’s is fully engaged in it wholesale.

Just a heads up.

And I think that the key issue here is “moderation” which takes on unique forms here at TD. And, these types of .mil/.US-FVEYs/.gov/.corporate NGO unspecified trolls should indeed be sued and silenced.

How can I contact you?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Banned at Techdirt says:

Interesting perspective–but be prepared for the in-house trolls here to flag everything you post, and call you anti-semitic, lol. It’s what they do here.

Techdirt’s comments section is currently controlled by professional neo-Nazis, one of the mods who post as an AC actively appears to have the ability to DDOS commenters, sometimes threatens to send the FBI at you, and/or turns you over to Fusion Centers or similar who do the dirty work for them.

And, this forum is also full of these types beow, too, who have zero sense of nuance:

So by being anti-Zionist, you’re also anti-Jew

These appear to be the regular UK, and US-FVEY’s battalions of troll farm Anonymous Cowards and who are also quite active in derailing the type of comments you are making here too. This board is anti-BDS, and pro-Zionist at every junction, and very pro-deep state trolling–some commenters being current and former police prosecutors, FBI and so on.

Their tactics are classic trolling, and this board is in fact moderated, though not obviously–I have proof of it and can refer you to evidence of it if you would care to look further into it, or search “Techdirt Thing 1 and Thing 2” for an interesting excursion into proving the forum is not only moderated, but weaponized.

First it’s the clasic troll slanders, mischaracterizations, and flagging by the exact parties you have named above (leave Cushing out of it!)

Next, they call you a Chinese/Russian/other trolls-du-jour, and begin slandering you across posts, with classic ADL-type defamation and derailing commentary straight out of the schismogenetic playbook.

Lastly, what I think you are struggling to say is that it is ritual defamation that you are dealing with, not necessarily slander/libel/defamation in the classic sense–the rendering of your thoughts and ideas as taboo, and then, un-naming practices. This is very active, and the US-FVEY’s is fully engaged in it wholesale.

Just a heads up.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

ThorsProvoni (profile) says:

No Supporter of Unconstitutional Zeran-Based Caselaw Supports Free Speech

Free-speech means:

  1. Zeran-based caselaw is overruled so that 47 U.S. Code § 230 is interpreted correctly by the courts.
  2. Every social medium platform is put in the category of message common carrier of digital personal literary property.
  3. Every social medium platform provides a place of public accommodation for entertainment and for exhibition.
  4. Every social medium platform is a state actor according to Burton v. Wilmington Pkg. Auth, 365 U.S. 715, 81 S. Ct. 856 (1961).
  5. United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460, 468, 130 S.Ct. 1577, 176 L.Ed.2d 435 (2010) provides guidance that explains which content can be legally removed.
  6. Like any common carrier a social medium platform must obey civil rights law but may establish multiple tiers of service.

Partisans like Mike Masnick and Eric Goldman of Zeran-based caselaw are just as much anti-free speech as any right-wing would-be regulator of a social medium platform.

Once Zeran-based caselaw is overturned, all the necessary statutes and caselaw is already in place. Establishing the correct framework for a social medium platform (or ICS) is the whole goal of Martillo v Twitter.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

ThorsProvoni (profile) says:

No Supporter of Unconstitutional Zeran-Based Caselaw Supports Free Speech

Free-speech means:

  1. Zeran-based caselaw is overruled so that 47 U.S. Code § 230 is interpreted correctly by the courts.
  2. Every social medium platform is put in the category of message common carrier of digital personal literary property.
  3. Every social medium platform provides a place of public accommodation for entertainment and for exhibition.
  4. Every social medium platform is a state actor according to Burton v. Wilmington Pkg. Auth, 365 U.S. 715, 81 S. Ct. 856 (1961).
  5. United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460, 468, 130 S.Ct. 1577, 176 L.Ed.2d 435 (2010) provides guidance that explains which content can be legally removed.
  6. Like any common carrier a social medium platform must obey civil rights law but may establish multiple tiers of service.

Partisans like Eric Goldman of unconstitutional Zeran-based caselaw are just as much anti-free speech as any right-wing would-be regulator of a social medium platform.

Once Zeran-based caselaw is overturned, all the necessary statutes and caselaw for free speech is already in place. Establishing the correct framework for a social medium platform (or ICS) is the whole goal of Martillo v Twitter.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Okay, Mr Martillo,

then explain why you’ve been noted on several listservs to have somewhat extreme views, bordering to the point of extremism, and, in at least one case, unashamed racism regarding Gandhi, and in another, cheering the deaths of civilians (Israeli and presumably Jewish, I might add) which eventually got you banned for being off-topic and abusive?

Or that you have a very, very long history of being a bigot, starting from at least 1978 in Harvard, no less?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

ThorsProvoni (profile) says:

Re: Re: I've Been Spoofed for a Long Time by Depraved Evil Zionist Anti-Jews

I have been consistently anti-Zionist since Baruch Goldstein celebrated Purim in 1994 by spree-murdering worshipers in the Mosque of Abraham.

I have no knowledge about the rest of the claims of Depraved Evil Brain-Dead Anonymous Clown (DE BD AC).

Normally I don’t respond to the effort of a depraved evil Zionist anti-Jew to doxx me, but I have been discussing Martillo v. Twitter and have outed my identity.

There is no innocent Israeli Jewish civilian. Every Zionist colonial settler anti-Jew is a probable perpetrator of the international capital crime of genocide and must be (a) tried, (b) almost certainly convicted, and (c) sentenced to a long prison term or to a short visit to the gallows.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Well then, Mr Provoni.

I apologize for harassing you, but your language and very obvious hate for whatever that passes your fancy (in this case, Israel and its people) was startlingly obvious and odious.

If I may, I’d like to just say two things before we part.

Firstly, be honest. Perhaps you have good reason to use a psuedonym, like, say, Mossad tracking your every move, and that is your perogative. However, if you really were honest about taking responsibility, I (and every other commentor on Techdirt, hopefully)) like to see a sampling of the tweets that got you wrongfully banned from Twitter. After all, we’re all aware of how Twitter’s systems do not always work and there’s every possibility that none of your tweets were inciting hatred or violence towards a people group.

Secondly, be kind. I do not appreciate being called brain dead, an anti-Jew (your words, not mine) or having ANY of my queries brushed aside. Dismissing anyone who dares question you and then attacking them with insults reflects badly on you, not me. I was forced to do what I did because you couldn’t give me an answer as to why you did not go to Haaretz, the only newspaper I know that takes the Palestine problem seriously and is trusted by a lot of pro-Palestine folk. If you can’t understand tit-for-tat, then don’t be surprised when someone approaches you in a less-than-friendly manner. Even Norman Finklestein isn’t as vicious as you are, and he’s got a nasty mouth at times.

On that final note, Mr Provoni, I bid you a good day, and please, don’t sully Phillip K Dick’s reputation.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Perhaps you have good reason to use a psuedonym, like, say, Mossad tracking your every move, and that is your perogative.

He doesn’t actually need a pseudonym at all. His full name’s on at least two websites, and once it’s online it’s there forever.

On that final note, Mr Provoni, I bid you a good day, and please, don’t sully Phillip K Dick’s reputation.

Actually, it’s ROGS aka DBA Phillip Cross causing that, not ThorsProvoni. The American TP is instead sullying Yul Brynner’s reputation by using a photo of the actor as an avatar. I’ve seen a photo of the man behind the pseudonym, and not only is he not nearly as handsome as he claims, he’s also very, very white for an ethnic Jew.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

There is no substantive difference between DBAC trolls like you and sockpuppets, as long as forums like TD allow you and in fact, inveigle and invite you to do what you do here. I.e. Techdirt is moderating, and using spergs like you to do it/

That’s a long way from “passive platform hosting,” would you agree?

Rules out the window. But you–revealing how Techdirts in-house trolls moderate is an eye opener for future litigants, wouldn’t you agree?

No section 230 protections for forums with shitbags like you moderating them, courtesy of the platform. That lil’ “publishing/distributing/moderating” conundrum, ay?

I have YOU on record, doing that.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Until Section 230 stops being law, and the 1st Amendment struck off from the Constitution, Techdirt is still a privately-owned public space on the Internet, and is allowed to moderate however it sees fit.

Considering your language, and presumably your views, you probably hate the 1st Amendment, and by extension, private property laws.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Tarded Tardis Tarbaby says:

Re: Re:

Right–note the types of comments that you hide via flagging? You are 100% British PSYOP, hiding inconvenient facts.

In case the reading public missed it, I said:

Simon Jenkins is actually a knight–an actual entry level Knight of the Crown. So, there’s that.

These are the exact types online pushing various agenda’s that fly in the face of rights and freedoms–always attempting to bend and stretch the laws to fit there purposes. Maybe add “white knight” to your vocabulary.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

ThorsProvoni (profile) says:

Brain Dead Anonymous Clown (BDAC) does not know how to read a statute!

The caption “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material has no discernible legal meaning. It is purely a declarative caption for the following two subclauses, each of which is also declaratively captioned.

(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

(2) Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).

Nothing in the above can be mapped

  1. to something that is recognizably moderation or
  2. to a federal license to moderate with immunity from a charge of distributor libel.

Once again BDAC shows himself to be a depraved and evil white racist Zionist apologist for the ongoing effort to suppress online discussion of Zionist genocide, apartheid, and persecution that the criminal Zionist colonial settler conglomeration commits against the native Palestinian population of stolen Palestine.

It is hard to be more disgusting and more despicable than the viciously racist BDAC.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

I’d really like to know, Mr Martillo, what do you make of your banning from the Forensics Linguistics Email List?

The presumable owner of that email list had this to say:

“Far from banning you for opposing Zionism, I banned you for off-topic and offensive postings which appeared to condone what amounts to terrorism by any definition of that term.”

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

You might wanna direct that question to Mr Martillo or Sir Simon Jenkins for that one.

Terrorism that hurts people is still awful, whether it be CIA-funded uprisings, British-funded military incursions into occupied territory, Israeli-directed aggression, Iranian- and Saudi-directed terrorism against Israel, Russian-backed “separatists”, Ukranian-led homegrown Nazi bullshit, Chinese-directed aggresion in Hong Kong or Chinese-approved violence against minorities in Myanmar. Even if you are that desperate.

Again, Mr Martillo was banned from a email list for that reason, and the list’s presumable owner is a UK-based professor known for being pro-Palestinian.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

ThorsProvoni (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Native Resistance during WWII — Native Resistance Today

During WW2 we Americans considered the native resistance to be heroic and admirable when it fought or killed racial supremacist genocidal Nazi invaders and colonial settlers in occupied Europe.

Today we Americans must consider the native resistance to be heroic and admirable when it fights or kills racial supremacist genocidal Zionist invaders and colonial settlers in stolen Palestine.

The Zionist mentality is completely congruent to the Nazi mentality, and the US Zionist movement commits heinous crimes according to the US federal code.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4

The resistance being a natural result of what is generally agreed to be an illegal occupation? Yes.

Said resistance being financed by Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan because Israel has an overwhelming military superiority? Technically terrorism, just the kind that the USA dislikes.

Heroic? Again, Terrorism that hurts people is still awful, whether it be CIA-funded uprisings, British-funded military incursions into occupied territory, Israeli-directed aggression, Iranian- and Saudi-directed terrorism against Israel, Russian-backed “separatists”, Ukranian-led homegrown Nazi bullshit, Chinese-directed aggresion in Hong Kong or Chinese-approved violence against minorities in Myanmar. Even if you are that desperate. If wholesale murder is considered heroic, then…

We are worse than even ants.

ThorsProvoni (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Vicious Bloodthirsty White Racial Supremacist European Zionist ColonIal Settler Anti-Jews Have Been Committing Genocide!

It’s not a hard historical case to understand.

Greco-Roman Judeans are not ancestors of Rabbinic Jews, whether Ashkenazi like my father or N. African Jewish Berber like my mother.

Every Zionist colonial settler anti-Jew in stolen Palestine is a depraved evil genocidal invader, interloper, thief, and impostor, who deserves hatred, scorn, and loathing from the entire human race with neither qualification nor reservation.

It makes no difference whether the Zionist colonial settler anti-Jew is a European or a non-European.

Even if the ancestral homeland crap were true (it isn’t), Zionism would still be a criminal ideology of replacement genocide, and depraved evil white racial supremacist European Zionist anti-Jews would still have founded the vile disgusting criminal Zionist state by atrocious genocide after the international community banned genocide in Dec 1946 and rendered anti-genocide jus cogens (a peremptory norm).

Rabbinic Judaism crystallized in the 10th century CE. A Jew practices Rabbinic Judaism. There are no Jews before the 10th century CE. Rabbinic Judaism is a Mesopotamian religion that has less connection to Palestine than either Christianity or Islam has to Palestine.

Zionism is a disease of Jewish illiteracy in Rabbinic Jewish intellectual culture.
The Talmud explains.

Here is Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 39a-b.

אמר ליה ההוא מינא לרבי אבינא כתיב (שמואל ב ז, כג) מי כעמך כישראל גוי אחד בארץ מאי רבותייהו אתון נמי ערביתו בהדן דכתיב (ישעיהו מ, יז) כל הגוים כאין נגדו אמר ליה מדידכו אסהידו עלן דכתיב

A certain heretic said to Rabbi Avina: It is written: “And who is like Your people, Israel, one nation in the earth?” (II Samuel 7:23). The heretic asked: What is your greatness? You are also mixed together with us, as it is written: “All nations before Him are as nothing; they are counted by Him less than nothing and vanity” (Isaiah 40:17). Rabbi Avina said to him: One of yours, the gentile prophet Balaam, has already testified for us, as it is written:

במדבר כג, ט) ובגוים לא יתחשב)

“It is a community that shall dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned among the nations” (Numbers 23:9), teaching that where the verse mentions “the nations,” the community of Israel is not included.

Israel is mixed with us because of the massive proselytization and conversion that took place in the Greco-Roman period or before. Israel is not included among the nations because it is a religious spiritual community, whose only homeland is the Torah.

In response to the destruction of the Jerusalem and Leontopolis Temples, the Tannaim (1st and 2nd century CE scholars of Biblical Judaism) had to create a new religion, and the Talmud tells us that they began the process of the fabrication of a new religion that became Rabbinic Judaism in the 10th century.

The Tannaim of the 2nd century supported the false Messiah Bar Kochba, but the peasantry (90% of the population of Judea) rejected Bar Kochba.
Bar Kochba persecuted the peasantry, and the dipshit Tannaim supported him.

The Romans crushed Bar Kochba, and the Tannaim as well as their successors were discredited for practically all Judeans.

Judea and the rest of Palestine became Christian while Judaism became a religion of non-Judeans and eventually developed into Rabbinic Judaism, which is an alien Mesopotamian religion that has little and only superficial connection to Palestine.

The Roman Exile never happened and is a metaphor for the transformation of Judaism from the religion of Judea into a completely non-Judean religion.

Anti-genocide is jus cogens. The international community should demand unconditional surrender of the criminal genocidal Zionist regime and start carpet-bombing the settlements of depraved evil Zionist colonial settler anti-Jews if there is no surrender.

Every Zionist anti-Jew throughout the world must be arrested

  1. to be tried,
  2. almost certainly to be convicted, and
  3. to be sentenced to a long prison term or to a short visit to the gallows.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5

Anti-genocide is jus cogens

As it should be.

The international community should demand unconditional surrender of the criminal genocidal Zionist regime and start carpet-bombing the settlements of depraved evil Zionist colonial settler anti-Jews if there is no surrender.

Every Zionist anti-Jew throughout the world must be arrested

to be tried,
almost certainly to be convicted, and
to be sentenced to a long prison term or to a short visit to the gallows.

That’s never going to happen except in your depraved antisemitic dreams. The prohibition of genocide is jus cogens as you’ve already said, so you can’t pick and choose which groups are to be protected against it and which to be subject to it.

ThorsProvoni (profile) says:

Re: Re: Learn How to Read a Statute

The definitions clause of a statute often helps distinguish declaratory elements of a statute from genuine legal elements.

Here is the legal definition of Good Samaritan. How does it relate to Section 230?

Good Samaritan Rule

Under the Good Samaritan Rule, if a Good Samaritan provides services for another, either gratuitously or for compensation, the Good Samaritan assumes a duty to use reasonable care. The Good Samaritan may be held liable if they are negligent in providing those services or if their negligence causes injury either to the person on whose behalf the Good Samaritan is performing services or to a foreseeable third party.

Tort Law

According to common law, a bystander is not under a moral obligation to help if they did not cause the person’s injury. In Hurley v. Eddingfield, the defendant was a family physician who, for no apparent reason, refused to travel to render medical assistance even when he was the only one who could help. The court found that the defendant was not liable, because the defendant did not assume a duty to help.

However, if a Good Samaritan (with no duty to do so) takes charge of a helpless person, the Good Samaritan has assumed a duty to exercise reasonable care while the person is in their charge. And, if the Good Samaritan has taken charge, they are subject to a duty of reasonable care to refrain from putting the person in a worse position than before the Good Samaritan took charge.

Criminal Law

In criminal law, no legal duty to act is created based upon a mere moral obligation. A legal duty to act requires more than being a Good Samaritan.

In People v. Beardsley, the defendant had an affair with a woman at his apartment. The woman died from taking morphine. Ultimately, the court held that the defendant had no duty to act because there was no special relationship between the defendant and the woman. In order to be held liable, there must be a duty imposed by law or by contract, and the omission to perform the duty must be the immediate and direct cause of death.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...