Internet Users Have Been Defamed by the Anti-Defamation League

Originally posted by Sean48
reply to post by SkepticOverlord

 

The INTERNET is the tool that scares the Hell out of People in Power.

It enables us to uncover their Lies , and SPREAD our findings to other
people.

No longer are MSM Stories taken at Face Value, and People with a
conscience can act as Whistleblowers to a audience who won't belittle
them, but will listen, and research, and compare.

[edit on 26-4-2010 by Sean48]

good point ..


They can control the press and other media outlets but the net is mainly free too expose them by whoever has the dirt on them.
And every goverment wants absolute power over its population so it can manipulate them with propagander so they keep complete control and do as they see fit.(in the public best interest)

reply to post by ProfEmeritus


I'm curious, when people called for the death of GWB, called him a Nazi, and actually made a movie about assassinating him, where was the ADL? Does anyone know if they put those people on a list? (and no I'm not a big GWB fan, so don't go there)
This is just the start people, soon anyone that speaks out against the government will be put on some blacklist, not saying that's what this is, no, it's just the start.

in timewave zero our current year 2010 correlates to the times of the french revolution and shows a spike of novelty in the second half of this year. So I think we are indeed in for a wave of extreme revolution in the coming months. This is only an early sign of whats to come.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

I'm not trying to control free speech...I didn't see anywhere in their report that said ATS or any of the other forums should be shut down or censored. Just a report of what is going on...I still don't see why that is wrong. The only people I see trying to control free speech are you and others who think the ADL does not have the right to talk about ATS...ironic?

Did you consider the fact that the posts that they listed may not all BE from people that are trying to incite violence? Instead, it may VERY WELL BE a Red Flag operation, in an attempt to give those opposed to free speech, an EXCUSE to crack down on legitimate criticism of the government. I cite this paragraph in the Introduction to the report:

During the first few months of 2010, anti-government extremism has taken on a new level of intensity in the United States. The arrests of the Hutaree militia in Michigan illustrate this passion, which exists both within and outside the militia movement. Unfortunately, the Hutaree arrests may come to be seen not as the culmination, but rather as a first step in what may need to become a major national law enforcement operation.

This conclusion by the ADL report is a CLEAR request for US authorities to crack down on legitimate militias that are merely concerned about the trashing of the Constitution by Congress and the Presidents (both Obama and Bush).

The introduction concludes with this:

In response, these anti-government extremists are saying, in many different forums, that they believe that violence may be, or clearly is, both necessary and justified. The extent of these sentiments, combined with their sometimes shocking virulence, should serve as a warning sign that the violent rhetoric of today may be followed up with violent actions in the future. 2

When all else failed, when Americans tried to redress to the Crown for wrongs done, such as the Boston Massacre, they were answered with guns, killing 5 unarmed Americans who were peacefully protesting the Townshend Acts. When all else failed, they resorted to revolution. What American citizen today could blame them?

Are we there yet? Not quite, but our "Elected Congress" has ignored the will of the people, and passed a horrific Health Care bill, that will do nothing but raise costs, force control of who gets health care upon the government, and force those that don't want health care to buy it , or pay a "penalty". They did this by using closed door meetings, in which the opposition party, representing 47% of the voting public, were locked out (literally).
In addition, they continue their policies of ignoring the publics' strong opposition to increased deficit spending, etc. At what point do we need to be, in order to conclude that peaceful redress is useless? Do I advocate violence now? No, but at some point, gravity takes over, NOT BECAUSE PEOPLE are posting on the internet, but because the elected officials have failed to listen to the people that elected them to represent their concerns!

I would like to say that I am surprised, but what I learn day by day makes it hard to be. I am not saying that this does not trouble me, though. I see even a new level of lowness that certain people, organizations, and governments are willing to sink down to every day. Like every one else here I am appalled at these actions of the ADL, but will firmly bring forth my opinions no matter what anyone may bring my way. I have a free mind and always will. Great thread, and of course...S+F. Thanks.

That's it. No more mister nice guy. I've had it. I'm upset. I will donate to the cause.

If they don't watch out.....I...I.......I just might call my CONGRESSMAN!!!!1!

Seriously, I love the thought of the ADL being sued for defamation. That they may be forced to dropt the "A" and pay taxes LOL.

It makes a little ray of sunshine in the fog. Thanks ATS guys!

I do not think that the point is freedom of speech. ADL posted this report under the title:

Violent Voices: Anti-Government Extremism Takes on New Intensity

and it is misleading. It is not new intensity, at least to me who was on this forum for few years. I do not see how it is extremism, though one of three posts from ATS is very problematic by itself.
So if ADL would write the same article with title - "anti-government voices" or something similarly balanced i would be puzzled why ATS responded so bad.
Taking into consideration current "Powerful Voices: Anti-Internet campaign Takes on New Intensity" trend and bombastic title i think ATS are correct.

Lets face it - All that we are doing historically amounts to the townspeople gathering in the church house debating the situation and considering a course of action.

That would be the same church house that the Brits barred the windows and doors on before burning it and its occupants to the ground!

These forums, this forum in particular serves as a sounding board and allows many people to share their viewpoints and concerns with the actions they perceive happening around them. I guess TPTB would rather we all sit home alone going mad with only our own perceptions to go on with no input from any other sources.

I keep praying for someone to provide a relief valve and still we get more pressure.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


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

Not quite sure who you're talking about here...

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

When you start talking about terrorists imposing their will on our nation,” explained “Doc Velocity” on the Above Top Secret forums on March 24, “you must realize that Congressional Democrats are the terrorists who in no way represent the MAJORITY of the American People.

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

Not quite sure who you're talking about here... You mean the MAJORITY of Americans who definitely oppose the bill, or the handful of politicians in Washington who FORCED this unconstitutional piece of legislation down the throats of the American people against their will?

When you start talking about terrorists imposing their will on our nation, you must realize that Congressional Democrats ARE the terrorists who in no way represent the MAJORITY of the American People.

America didn't ask for this sort of "change"... And it's highly unlikely that Obama would have even been elected if he had admitted, during his campaign, that "Change" included forcing every American to purchase health care under penalty of law. That, my liberal friend, is called UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

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

He is not placing that word in caps because he is being histrionic, he is making clear that if the federal government intends to enforce this legislation, it will be done so through FORCE. In this context, and further in the context of a site that by and large has serious problems in the way the word "terrorist" is being used so loosely by the government lately, it is not so hard to understand Doc's point, and recognize the irony he is employing.

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

I wonder, was the estate of Salinger ever sued or tried for the words he wrote purportedly 'causing' violence?

I don't know if Salinger was ever sued for his brilliant A Cathcer in the Rye, but I know that he stopped writing shortly afterward, as if committing suicide of the heart and soul, and while I was very fortunate to have read this book while in High School, and I don't believe it was banned from school, it certainly was never on any list of required reading, not in the library, and never spoke of while I was in school, by my teachers.

I say I was fortunate to have read it in high school, because Holden Caufield represented an iconic figure who had dared to suffer through that angst filled time of tumult known as adolescence in a way I wholly related to...well, not that I had a nervous break down or anything, but I had baby sisters of whom I reveled in their innocence, while I myself the oldest, struggled to deal with a broken family of alcoholic parents, in a world more confusing than I could ever hope to understand at that age, and for all of Holden's profanities and muttering threats to kill this person and that thing, he was a man child who lamented the loss of innocence while finding his adulthood.

My point is, that booked helped me get through some tough times, and yet, in many places, this great piece of literature has and does face banning and even book burning and now in this modern age where terms such as "hate speech" are bandied about as if the utterances of Holden, Doc, and Boondock are spoken of as if they are criminal, we are marching ever closer to thought crimes. What a travesty indeed, that the subtlety and nuance of language is expected by a militant PC crowd to be whitewashed and neutered to meet the expectations of ideologues who have more than a difficult time expressing what it is they actually believe in.

Call me crazy...but that sounds like a direct threat of violence towards "DC".

You make this remark about Boondock's quote in its entirety, which is:

DC is still not listening

I think I remember an old adage from long ago,
can't remember where I heard it or who said it,
maybe somebody here can help with the source
but it went something like this:

If a man won't change his ideals with words
then you change his mind with a bullet

maybe dialogue from a movie
"go tell the spartans" comes to mind but can't be sure

Outkast, if I thought you were crazy, I wouldn't even bother to post this and appeal to your sanity, but that interpretation is crazy. That post, taken only in that context, could just as easily be interpreted as a lament that DC is willing to change minds with bullets rather than through discourse, and given the federal governments willingness to fight wars in perpetuity, given our most recent Presidents endorsement of assassinating political opponents, and given Go Tell the Spartans is a book and film about he Vietnam war and the American soldiers who were first sent there, I would be inclined to make the interpretation I just offered.

But, I couldn't be sure, only reading that post alone and out of context, however, you felt compelled to post yet another "damning" post of Boondocks which was:

there are also some who post here that would just love
to throw a brick thru a window, or show up in DC and protest
but do not have the physical capabilities to do so. Some even sit
in wheelchairs or use crutches to get around and/or totally
disabled. Those folks rely solely on somebody else to do their
bidding for them. Sitting behind a screen and stating their
minds is the ONLY recourse those folks have. But they would
be in the fringe if they could. How else is their voice gonna
be heard??? Their mind still works even if their bodies do not.
So tread very lightly when even considering calling those type
folks cowards. For some, it was valor in war that put them in those
chairs.

Your response to this is:

That clearly says to me that he would like to go throw some bricks through a window in DC.

This is nothing more than reactionary histrionics on your part based upon Boondocks much more subtle grumblings. Given it is prose is it so hard to imagine his use of the phrase "throw a brick thru a window" is metaphorical outrage? Are metaphor's and similes no longer allowed in this day and age of "anti defamation" and punishment for hate speech?

If Boondock were an author, (and of course, being in this site posting regularly, he is indeed one), and I were a teacher and you were my student writing a report of Boondock's writing as literary exercise, your summation would compel me to ask you to go back and read that post again. There is a very real and quantifiable character that has been described in that post, and if you need it explained to you now, that the character in that post is disabled, and likely so, due to injury from war fought in the name of country, who is lamenting his disability and attempting to reconcile it with his actions as a poster, then of course, if I were your teacher, there would be much work to be done on my part, to somehow teach you how effective subtlety and nuance can be when speaking to the human condition.

I have read many posts by Boondock, but that post in particular I had never read until you quoted it, (and thank for doing so), and it is, quite frankly, a very poignant and wistful piece of prose worthy of admiration. To reduce it down to a threat to throw bricks in D.C.'s windows, is to miss the entire point of that post, and my experience with you is that you are much, much, much, more intelligent than that, my friend.

reply to post by sickofitall2012

This is just the start people, soon anyone that speaks out against the government will be put on some blacklist, not saying that's what this is, no, it's just the start.

I'm absolutely positive that I'm already on a list, so for me, it's not a new issue. By the way, in case there is any doubt, I STRONGLY support free militias, as guaranteed by the Constitution.
Post that- ADL- after all you are a FOREIGN power trying to influence the government of the United States.
Let me post the security guidelines of the US regarding foreign influence, and let's see WHO is the REAL enemy of the US:

www.clearancejobs.com...

The “Foreign Influence” criterion under the “Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information” affects many security clearance applicants, particularly those who are naturalized U.S. citizens or whose parents immigrated to the U.S. Others who marry (or reside with) a foreign national, who have foreign financial/business interests, or who maintain close and continuing contact with foreigners are also affected. There are two other related criteria—Foreign Preference and Outside Activities—that sometimes affect these same applicants.*

SECURITY CONCERN

Foreign Influence has been a significant concern when considering people for security clearances. This has been due in part to changes in motivation of those who have chosen to spy against the U.S. A government study issued in March 2008 reported that since 1990 offenders who are naturalized citizens rose to 35%, those with relatives or close friends overseas increased to 58%, and those with foreign business or professional connections increased to 50%.

The Adjudicative Guidelines specify that “foreign contacts and interests may be a security concern if the individual has divided loyalties or foreign financial interests; may be manipulated or induced to help a foreign person, group, organization, or government in a way that is not in U.S. interests; or is vulnerable to pressure or coercion by any foreign interest.” The Adjudicative Guidelines further specify that “Adjudication . . . should consider the identity of the foreign country in which the foreign contact or financial interest is located, including but not limited to, such considerations as whether the foreign country is known to target United States citizens to obtain protected information and/or is associated with a risk of terrorism.” However the location of a person’s contacts or interest is not by itself a disqualifying condition.

EVALUATING FOREIGN INFLUENCE

The location, relationship, occupation, activities, and interests of the foreign person, as well as the recency, frequency and nature of the contact are all relevant. The security significance of these foreign contacts can be measure by the extent to which an applicant:

• Maintains contact with foreign friends, family members, or professional associates.
• Provides or receives material support to/from contacts outside the U.S.
• Returns to native country.
• Maintains property or financial interests (including inheritance rights) outside the U.S.
• Fails to report association with foreigners when required.

Foreign connections that “create a potential conflict of interest between the individual’s obligation to protect sensitive information and the individual’s desire to help a foreign person, group, government, or country by providing that information” are security concerns. Absent a potential for a conflict of interest, foreign connections must present a “heightened” risk of foreign influence to be a security concern. A heightened risk can be created either by the nature of the foreign contact and/or by the applicant’s perceived ability to resist foreign influence. In assessing an applicant’s ability to resist foreign influence adjudicators may consider the degree to which an applicant has assimilated American culture and displayed undivided loyalty to the United States by:

NOW, let us consider this:
The ADL is one of the largest lobbyists and contributors to Congressional members of the US. These elected officials preside over such committees as the foreign intelligence committee, national security issues committees, and defense planning issues committees. Many of these members have accepted contributions from the ADL and AIPAC:

Here is a list of AIPAC/ADL contributions to members of Congress:
www.aljazeerah.info...
The total is $34.6 million dollars.
Do we want members of Congress that get their financing from the ADL/AIPAC to make decisions regarding the security of the US, when they are bought and paid for, by such groups?

I , for one, do not.
That makes ME an enemy of the state. Gee, and I thought THEY were the enemy. I guess maybe they had better rewrite the security clearance guidelines, BECAUSE CONGRESS surely doesn't meet those guidelines.

I've never cared much for the ADL truth be told. And this new "report" only makes me mislike them even more.

Truth is, the internet is our last true bastion of free speech. It's where we can spread news through unbiased news outlets, get news from unbiased news outlets and really see what's going on in the world today.

That's what scares them so, we're not hypnotized by news outlets who are in the pocket of the government(s).

If people like the ATS founders/operators don't speak up against stuff like this, the ADL win with their BS of a "report".

Keep up the good fight guys.

i agree with the OP's dissection of the triviality of the report ... the lack of any sort of academic perspective.

however, the fact that the report was assembled and issued doesn't bother me. the content is real. they didn't make things up. and anyone that is honest with themselves knows their (the ADL's) observance of hostility and calls/support for violence on the internet are valid. we see it nearly every day.

i don't personally believe the ATSers in question did anything wrong.

but neither, i believe, did the ADL. they observed things with a bias, put it all together and issued a biased report. but that's not against the law.

so i understand anger at them. but i fail to see an illegality. any private citizen could do the same thing ... or any group for that matter. because the ADL is known and established, we care more, but we shouldn't give them more control than they need to have (i say this well-aware of the notion of ADL conspiracies, but i'm not considering that right now).

the report was very comparable to many, many posts on ATS: questionable conclusions reached from cherry-picked Internet detritus. but we love that stuff, don't we?

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


You know I've been wondering about this... if the ADL was combing our threads and taking quotes from actual users and injecting them into their reports, even citing them...........

Isn't it logical to assume the ADL has planted posters on the site to either follow certain people, reply to certain threads, monitor threads and so forth? .. It seem unlikely to me the ADL was searching for key words in Google and came up with ATS .. it appears, to me at least, to be targeted purposefully.. as if they are in fact here..

Do you believe as I do?

I'd regard it as a badge of honour to be named by these ADL punks !

Having said that, I've looked on the original thread and the ADL has clearly been Quote Mining. The general attitude of posters on that thread appeared to be ''If you poke a stick in a hornet's nest...'', which is not inciting anything, but rather giving a general commentary on the situation at the time.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


Great stuff, thanks for posting this information.

So the ADL went on line and found people who said they were upset with the way their government is being run. What a shocker! Nothing gets by these folks.

I am very impressed by the sheer volume of evidence they gathered. Over 300 million Americans who all use the internet everyday and they find a whole 20 pages worth of statements, taken completely out of context, which unequivocally demonstrate "Portents of Doom".

After reading the report, I still am not sure what anybody is supposed to do with this information. So Americans have opinions. So what? Is it a surprise some of those opinions may be more strident than others? If I am concerned about the degradation of our Democracy and say so, does that make me a militia member?

reply to post by Hadrian


I get the feeling that some posters don't know what all the ADL is involved in, like they're all innocuous and stuff. Here's a primer, Law enforcement training!:

Senior Law Enforcement Personnel Attend ADL Anti-Terrorism Course
Posted: December 9, 2009

The sixteenth session of ADL's Advanced Training School (ATS) course on Extremist and Terrorist Threats was held December 6-8, 2009, in Washington, DC. ATS provides law enforcement professionals with information, resources and contacts to increase their capabilities in combating threats.

The sixteenth session of the course was attended by 33 senior law enforcement professions from federal, state and local agencies from across the country. The class included participants from the Federal Bureau of Investigation; Central Intelligence Agency Security Protective Service; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives; Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department; Washington, DC Metropolitan Police Department; Denver Police Department; Atlanta Police Department; Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department; and Illinois State Police; among others.

Presentations were given by experts from the ADL, law enforcement, the military, academia, and the Israel Police.

Commander Jack DaLuz of the Aurora (CO) Police Department commented on the training saying: "This is overall the best, most intense, well organized specialized training I have ever attended…The information provided will be of great assistance in preparing our agency to deal with…hateful acts." And Lieutenant Bob Glover of the Washington, DC Metropolitan Police Department stated: "This is perhaps one of the most beneficial training programs that I've had the opportunity to participate in during my LE career…Truly amazing!!!"

Launched in January 2003, the Advanced Training School has trained over 580 senior level law enforcement personnel, representing more than 200 different agencies to date.

Source ADL Website: LEO training section

Shouldn't we be worried that the kind of BS they spew unabashedly on their internet publications, would wind up on some less public documents with "Law Enforcement Only" printed at the top? Does it make everyone feel safer that now when you are pulled over with a Ron Paul bumper sticker or "Investigate 911", your used-to-be friendly neighborhood officer may have been indoctrinated that you are a terrrisst??!!

See also (Same ADL LEO section cited above):

ADL Trains Over 2,000 Law Enforcement Officers in October
Posted: November 17, 2009

Experts with the Anti-Defamation League provided a series of trainings on extremism to over 2,000 law enforcement professionals nationwide during the month of October 2009. Experts presented information on hate crimes, right-wing extremism and the threat posed by those motivated by radical interpretations of Islam.

Law enforcement officers from Maryland, Virginia, Washington, D.C., Illinois, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, New York, Connecticut, Texas, California, and Missouri, and representing state, local, and federal agencies that included the FBI, ATF, U.S. Park Police, and numerous regional JTTFs, corrections officers, offices of Attorney Generals, and military personnel, attended.

In one unique presentation, the ADL was invited by the President of the Connecticut Conference of Independent Colleges to present to campus security professionals, university communications and student services administrators and local law enforcement agencies on the campus of Wesleyan University in Middletown, Connecticut.

Approximately 40 security and law enforcement personnel from Trinity College, Sacred Heart University, Quinnipiac University, University of Bridgeport, University of Hartford, University of New Haven, Connecticut College, Yale University, St. Vincent's College, Albertus Magnus College, Wesleyan University, Briarwood College, Eastern Connecticut State University, Southern Connecticut State University, Tunxis Community College, and Manchester Community College attended.

The first portion of this program included an examination of best practices in reaction to the tragic shooting last semester at Wesleyan, in which a Jewish student was shot and killed on campus. The ADL expert then discussed the resurgence of right-wing extremist activity nationally, as well as regional extremist groups and trends.

BTW how in the he!! did ADL get involved in training FBI, ATF, DHS etc!!!!


[edit on 26-4-2010 by 1SawSomeThings]

Originally posted by ABNARTY
So the ADL went on line and found people who said they were upset with the way their government is being run. What a shocker! Nothing gets by these folks.

Or this site was actually reported by some members.

I recall a few members threatening to bring ATS down over perceived antisemitic remarks in posts from member threads, and also the ATS video about "Israeli Body-snatchers". The threats involved reporting ATS and or specific members to the ADL and they were repeated quite a few times.

Maybe they made good on those threats?

I applaud the efforts of the owners to defend its members.

I didn't expect this sort of reaction, but I am very pleased to know that you have our backs in situations like this.



- Lee

[edit on 26-4-2010 by lee anoma]

An excerpt from an article I am writing on the Art of War by Sun Tzu-

22. If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant.

Here Sun Tzu brings in a couple of parameters of control. First off he brings up emotional response to outside forces. Even if an opponent is not of an easy temper one could assume to irritate could be an effective weapon. I would say the continual lambasting of citizen groups by vilifying them in the media is a perfect example. Or by continually using LEO's and the courts to harass say members of the Tax Protest movement. It is ironic to say that a lot of ex IRS agents are members of this movement, for they know that the truth is stranger than what we perceive the Tax Code states.

He also brings into this component the part I have gone over earlier. Deception of your strength or weakness. I will just state that the government usually uses the feign of strength. For if the government was to allow the knowledge of such things as Jury Nullification be widely known, as sure as the coming sunset the citizens would realize they are the ones with the power, if they were to only use it.

The government is attempting to irritate their opponent. The citizens of the US of A. They attempt to incite the people to anger. They vilify perfectly good people and groups to cause problems in the ranks of the citizenry. They attempt to anger and irritate to cause exactly what they want, unthinking emotion.

Time to feign weakness on our parts and let the beast assume weakness. Time to lull them to sleep.

Listen to me government and ADL, we the people have studied you just as you have studied us. We are not the same people you have controlled over the years. The internet has strengthened both our knowledge and our resolve.

The endisnighe for tyrants.

Originally posted by 1SawSomeThings

BTW how in the he!! did ADL get involved in training FBI, ATF, DHS etc!!!!

From the looks of this - they have been at that all the way back to
1987.

October 1987 issue of the ADL Bulletin reported: "Some 200 law-enforcement officers ranging from FBI agents to chiefs of police, sheriffs, and attorneys general in the 13 Western states from California to Wyoming attended a special seminar on combatting terrorism, arranged by Betsy Rosenthal, ADL's Western Civil Rights area director, and Harvey B. Schechter, Western States area director.

The Los Angeles Police Academy was the scene of the all-day session. The keynote speakers were Arieh Ivtsan, Israel's Ambassador to Liberia and immediate past commissioner of the Israeli National Police Force, and Irwin Suall, director of ADL's Civil Rights Division Fact Finding Department.

Packets distributed to the attendees included ADL's reports on "Extremism Targets the Prisons" and "Propaganda of the Deed," the League's Security Handbook and a list of recent publications on extremism and extremist groups with an ADL-prepared synopsis. "By sponsoring such seminars the ADL has reinforced its image as a quasi-governmental agency, to which genuine law-enforcement agencies are justified in turning for advice and information. Perhaps most important, policemen and police agencies accustomed to thinking of their responsibility as combatting drug dealers, robbers, rapists, burglars, automobile thieves, murderers, and the like are informed that there is a new type of criminal about which they should be even more concerned: the "extremist."

The ADL, of course, defines the term for them and tells them who fits the definition.

/jewish/adl.html]stormfront


[edit on 26-4-2010 by burntheships]

reply to post by baddmove

What can government do about conspiracy theories? Among the things it can do, what should it do? We can readily imagine a series of possible responses.
(1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing.
(2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories.
(3) Government might itself engage in counterspeech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy theories.
(4) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in counterspeech.
(5) Government might engage in informal communication with such parties, encouraging them to help. Each instrument has a distinctive set of potential effects, or costs and benefits, and each will have a place under imaginable conditions.

Amazing, I didn't know it was that bad.

Thanks again ATS for defending our right to theorize conspiracies.