- Counter-Currents Publishing - https://www.counter-currents.com -

Censorware vs. the First Amendment

Hear No Evil, See No Evil [1]2,391 words

German translation here [2]

I recently had the experience of accessing the Internet at a public library and being blocked from reading Counter-Currents—and my own work—because it constituted “Intolerance and Hate.” This applied to all the computers in all of the libraries of a regional system, not just one. I emphasize “public” because government in the United States is forbidden from engaging in such censorship by the First Amendment. This is not a gray area.

Another reason I emphasize “public” is because Jews, the Left, and government claim that wholesale censorship of Right-wing and white speech is permissible whenever the censors are “private”—i.e., members of the small clique that monopolizes the means of cultural production (the mass media), or constitute the handful of tax-exempt, often religious (though never Christian)/ethnic (though never Aryan) organizations that strong-arm private companies into blocking whatever content they dictate.

To use the library’s computer I had to log on. This required entering my library card number and the last four digits of my telephone number, both of which the library has on file. If you have not used the computers for a while, you will be unable to log on even with the proper identifiers. You can check out books, but you can’t access the Internet. This is what happened to me.

In order to reactivate the log-on numbers, which the library had disabled, I had to go to the front desk, identify myself, and re-verify my personal information, including my home address.

The unexpected censorware (euphemistically called “content-control” or “content filtering” software), combined with the library’s obsession with knowing who was using each computer terminal and attempting to access prohibited websites, surprised me. The last time I accessed the Internet from public libraries was in the 1998-2002 period, and nothing like this existed. Nowhere was it the practice to censor online content or carefully monitor and record the names, home addresses, and specific surfing habits of individual patrons. Ten years ago you could surf the Internet with complete freedom and anonymity, other than somebody possibly peering over your shoulder. That window has been slammed shut.

When I finally typed the Counter-Currents URL into the browser I received a white screen with the following message:

The link you are accessing has been blocked by the Web Filter because it contains content belonging to the category of: Intolerance and Hate.

If you would like to suggest that it be added to the safe browsing list [sic], please speak with a library staff member.

NO OVERRIDE ALLOWED

“Public Web Filter”

The “Public Web Filter” was not identified by name. Those behind it prefer that people forced to pay for the denial of their intellectual freedom remain ignorant of that and everything else that matters.

Rare is the patron—by nature a supplicant—who will approach a librarian to ask to be allowed to view “Intolerance and Hate,” argue over what constitutes “Intolerance and Hate” or whether a specific site or group of websites legitimately belongs in that category, or, more importantly, that the category itself is illegitimate.

These are arguments the patron cannot win. Censorship is institutionalized as formal policy, handed down from on high, and staffers are conditioned to believe in it themselves. They behave like priggish, self-righteous gatekeepers.

In fact, the issue has already been put to a test. In Washington State patrons filed suit after a large regional library refused to unblock websites containing legal (non-pornographic) information about tobacco use, art galleries, and general interest blogs (i.e., refused to override the installed censorware when requested to). Federal District Court Judge Edward Shea of Spokane, Washington, a Clinton appointee, ruled in Bradburn v. North Central Regional Library District (2012) that the library was free to censor even if the blocked websites contained constitutionally protected speech.

Nobody in America seriously questions the legitimacy of violating the First Amendment or suppressing freedom of speech anymore. Universities and governments simply assume censorship’s legitimacy. It is universally practiced in the mass media and politics, by publishers and distributors of books, magazines, and newspapers, on campuses, and in libraries. Soon it will be expressly formalized in law, just as it has been everywhere else that used to be free.

Left-wing “civil libertarian” objections to censorware are narrowly restricted to safeguarding the dynamic underpinnings of the permanent revolution. Thus, Leftists complain that Establishment censorware sometimes inadvertently blocks homosexual propaganda websites from schoolchildren and others. Or, hypocritically, they obsessively criticize censorware in China. The strategic objective there is to replicate what has been done to the white West. This necessitates control of the mass media. Until alien control is absolute, Chinese censorware serves as a hindrance.

I did not have a list of pro-white or Holocaust revisionist websites with me (there aren’t many anymore) to test against the filter. However, I did try a few names.

Blocked: C-C, The Occidental Observer [3], DavidDuke.com [4], Vanguard News Network [5], The West’s Darkest Hour [6] (Chechar).

Not Blocked: VDare [7], AltRight, Taki’s Magazine [8], and Occidental Dissent [9]. (AltRight I can no longer access on my own computer. I receive a static screen for something called “Squarespace” instead.)

VDare is the only dissident website I have seen that makes a concerted effort to keep track of censorware. Its editor has asked readers [10] to “let us know when they find VDARE.COM is blocked and, if possible, what filtering software is being used. With reader help, we have already identified four commercial filters that blocked us; all have backed off after receiving a lawyer’s letter.”

“Protecting the Children”

It turns out that the legal pretext for this blatant violation of the First Amendment is the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) passed by a Republican-controlled Congress in 2000 and signed into law by President Bill Clinton (D.). It was introduced into the Senate by John McCain (R.-Ariz.). However, the bill was never voted upon by either house. Instead, it was unobtrusively attached as a rider to an omnibus budget bill, a massive piece of legislation containing several unrelated proposals at the end of the legislative session. It thus became law with little scrutiny or debate. Such is “democracy” these days.

CIPA requires that all public libraries and K-12 schools utilize censorware to block “unacceptable” websites. These programs are sold to schools and libraries by for-profit private corporations.

For example, CyberPatrol, a product developed in 1997 by the Jewish ADL and Mattel’s The Learning Company [11], has blocked political speech by whites, and even Amnesty International’s web page about Israel. According to the company’s website [12], which—surprise, surprise—lacks transparency, CyberPatrol is currently installed on home computers, business computers, in schools and libraries (including the Oregon Public Library, the El Paso Public Library, Great Falls Public Library, Franklin Ferguson Memorial Library, Lancaster Community Library, and Yuma County Library), and on government and military computers including those belonging to the US Air Force, the United States District Court, police departments, and municipalities such as the city of El Paso, Texas.

It is my belief that tax-exempt Jewish organizations like the ADL are directly or indirectly responsible for virtually all of the master lists of forbidden websites secretly embedded in censorware programs that violate the core First Amendment rights of conservative, white, right-wing, and Christian groups and individuals.

In 2003—more than a decade ago—the various Indexes of banned websites contained between 200,000 and 600,000 URLs.

The purported purpose of CIPA is to protect children from pornography and prevent adults from accessing child pornography. As I have demonstrated, in practice censorware is used to suppress core political speech protected by the First Amendment. Library patrons, indeed all users of computers containing censorware, are cut off from vast swaths of the World Wide Web, including unapproved conservative or right-wing political views expressed there. The Constitutional rights of site owners and writers are also violated. Democracy is debased.

As usual, censorship occurs in the dark, without publicity or information, out of public view. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a San Francisco-based Establishment digital rights group, notes [13]:

There’s no solid documentation of which libraries are filtering what specific websites. Part of this stems from libraries not being transparent about their decision to voluntarily block more content than required by law. [The law purportedly targets pornography, not free speech.] Additionally, most filtering technology companies closely guard their algorithms for blocking sites, claiming trade secrecy. [W]e don’t have a comprehensive list of what’s getting blocked.

Immediately after Congressional passage of CIPA, a US District Court in Pennsylvania ruled 3-0 that it violated the First Amendment.

However, that decision was overturned on appeal by the US Supreme Court, which declared the act “constitutional” by a vote of 6-3 in United States v. American Library Association, 539 U.S. 194 (2003). The pro-censorship majority consisted of William Rehnquist, Sandra Day O’Connor, Italian Catholic Antonin Scalia, Negro Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy, and Jew Stephen Breyer.

The three dissenters were Justice John Paul Stevens, David Souter, and Jew Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Indeed, so great is the enthusiasm for censorship that many states and municipalities have piled on with their own mini-CIPA laws, adding further layers of suppression and making First Amendment violations even harder to track.

Technical Methodology

Jews and the Left use the following methods to silently “erase” vast swaths of Internet content.

Questions & Implications

Once society unthinkingly accepts the essentialist belief that “Intolerance and Hate,” divorced from objective meaning, is a category of permissibly proscribed speech, and habitually prohibits it in practice (de facto), changing the law de jure becomes a simple matter. Everyone has already been housebroken.

Censorship is a cancer that will spread and spread. It will not remain confined to conservatives, Christians, whites, and Holocaust revisionists because it confers almost unimaginable social, political, and economic power upon those who exercise it. Many, many Leftists currently applauding the suppression of white speech and politically incorrect historical and scientific studies will ultimately fall victim to their own intolerance. This is inevitable, but the ecstasy of silencing the Right is intoxicating. To a Leftist, nothing tastes as sweet!

The biggest danger for ambitious Establishment politicians, bureaucrats, academics, journalists, or “artists”—any pious hewer to the Party line—is that, thanks to the elimination of free speech, association, democracy, and legal protections, they will run afoul of forbidden thoughts themselves, and the blade will one day come whistling down on their own politically correct necks.

Many a goodthinker died under Communism or rotted in concentration camps thanks to the inevitability of this happening. The circle of permissible discourse shrinks continuously, and ideological transgressions, or alleged transgressions, become weapons in intra-elite power struggles.

Like the stopped clock that is correct twice a day, this is the only thing Leftism gets right. It mercilessly eats its own children, who richly deserve their fate.

No people can survive if Jews and government successfully keep its spokesmen trapped in a bell jar without air (money and the ability to communicate with the public). Keeping in mind that censorware nowhere suppresses the hate speech of elites or specially privileged groups, we must ask ourselves some questions.

How ubiquitous are computer filters that suppress speech?

How common are they on government computers—international, federal, state, local, judicial, military, and police?

In corporations? In educational institutions? In newsrooms?

How many antivirus firms like Symantec or software makers such as Microsoft surreptitiously bundle censorware that renders invisible vast swaths of the Internet without customers’ knowledge in their “child-safe” or “family friendly” filters?

Who, exactly, possesses the unparalleled power to classify selected speech as “Intolerance and Hate” even as Hate pours forth from television sets, movie screens, pop music, video games, books, magazines, and newspapers 24 hours a day?

Specific people and groups are responsible for this. It’s not the result of the invisible hand—at least not the invisible hand of Adam Smith. These people have names and faces, money and power. Who are they? Who holds them accountable? Who conferred such tyrannical power over America and the world on them in the first place?

These are not academic questions. They are vital to the survival of a people.

The enemy harbors a fierce hatred for our race. Other than hobbyists, every activist—even writers, bloggers, and organizers of tiny meetings and street protests—needs to be aware of the power, in all its forms, that too often renders futile the Herculean efforts of a lifetime. He must be concerned not merely with sounding off, but with the practicalities of power.

Is anyone even hearing what you say? If not, why not? There should be a meaningful, substantial positive reaction. If that natural response is absent, you must ask yourself why. It’s like trying to figure out what’s wrong with an automobile or appliance.

A basic diagnostic or troubleshooting principle is to check the simplest things first. The seemingly moronic question you’ve probably been asked, “Is it plugged in?”, is in accord with this principle.

Given what has happened with such blinding speed to our race, its total unnaturalness and highly dubious one-way nature, the obvious question to ask is, “Are we being heard?” To me, the clear answer is “No.” We’re not even plugged in. No charge is reaching the device.

Jews frequently operate outside our psychological frame of reference. They have a longer time horizon than whites, and single-mindedly pursue specific extremist objectives cross-generationally. Very often, as in the case of censorware, their incessant civilization-wrecking activity is not even seen or “felt” by their victims. Nevertheless, such silent, invisible forces are an omnipresent reality that must be reckoned with.

You must strive to see what you don’t see, and feel what you don’t feel.