So Much For Germany

IBA and any of us who post warnings about Islam wouldn't last long in Germany!

From Germany: Return of the Stasi Police (Gatestone Institute):

Germany's new censorship law, which has introduced state censorship on social media platforms, came into effect on October 1, 2017. The new law requires social media platforms, such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, to censor their users on behalf of the German state. Social media companies are obliged to delete or block any online "criminal offenses" such as libel, slander, defamation or incitement, within 24 hours of receipt of a user complaint -- regardless of whether the content is accurate or not. Social media companies are permitted seven days for more complicated cases. If they fail to do so, the German government can fine them up to 50 million euros for failing to comply with the law.

The new censorship law, however, was not fully enforced until January 1, 2018, in order to give the social media platforms time to prepare for their new role as the privatized thought police of the German state. Social media platforms now have the power to shape the form of current political and cultural discourse by deciding who will speak and what they will say.

On January 1, 2018, however, the law was immediately enforced. Twitter began by suspending the account of the deputy leader of the Alternative for Germany party (AfD), Beatrix von Storch, for 12 hours, after she tweeted the following in response to a New Year's greeting issued in Arabic by the Cologne Police:

"What the hell is happening in this country? Why is an official police site tweeting in Arabic? Do you think it is to appease the barbaric, gang-raping hordes of Muslim men?"

Furthermore:

Von Storch also had her Facebook account suspended for repeating her tweet there. Facebook told her that her post contravened German law, as it constituted "incitement to hatred".

It did not stop there. Cologne police filed charges against von Storch for "incitement to hatred", which is punishable under section 130 of the German Criminal Code.

Read the rest HERE.

As if truth-telling is the root of the problem with Muslims' criminal behavior!

Pamela Geller's Site Down

For almost 24 hours now.  See this.

No cached version available, either.

Note the timing: AFDI Texas protest against anti-free speech “Islamophobia” conference, Saturday, January 17, 2015, in Garland, Texas.

FCC Monitoring

From the Daily Caller (hat tip to Bunkerville):

FCC to police news media, question reporters in wide-ranging content survey

The Federal Communications Commission is planning a broad probe of political speech across media platforms, an unprecedented move that raises serious First Amendment concerns.

The FCC’s proposed “Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs,” which is set to begin a field test in a single market with an eye toward a comprehensive study in 2014, would collect a remarkably wide range of information on demographics, point of view, news topic selection, management style and other factors in news organizations both in and out of the FCC’s traditional purview.

The airwaves regulator would also subject news producers in all media to invasive questioning about their work and content.

[...]

Among the questions federal contractors will be asking of private media companies:

For media owners:

“What is the news philosophy of the station?”

For editors, producers and managers:

“Have you ever suggested coverage of what you consider a story with critical information for your customers (viewers, listeners, readers) that was rejected by management?” (Followup questions ask the reporter to speculate on why a particular story was spiked.)

[...]

“In this study, the FCC will delve into the editorial discretion of newspapers, web sites and radio and TV stations,” Hudson Institute Fellow Robert McDowell, who served as an FCC commissioner from 2009 to 2013, told The Daily Caller. “This starts sticking the government’s nose into what has traditionally been privileged and protected ground. Regardless of one’s political stripes, one should be concerned.”

Can scrutiny of the blogosphere be far behind?

Digital Censorship At Amazon

Surreal, but not totally unexpected (hat tip to Bloviating Zeppelin):

Amazon Secretly Removes “1984” From the Kindle

Thousands of people last week discovered that Amazon had quietly removed electronic copies of George Orwell's 1984 from their Kindle e-book readers. In the process, Amazon revealed how easy censorship will be in the Kindle age.

In this case, the mass e-book removals were motivated by copyright . A company called MobileReference, who did not own the copyrights to the books 1984 and Animal Farm, uploaded both books to the Kindle store and started selling them. When the rights owner heard about this, they contacted Amazon and asked that the e-books be removed. And Amazon decided to erase them not just from the store, but from all the Kindles where they'd been downloaded. Amazon operators used the Kindle wireless network, called WhisperNet, to quietly delete the books from people's devices and refund them the money they'd paid.

[...]

Regardless of whether you believe Amazon's promise to leave your Kindle alone, the company has tipped its hand and shown us the dark side of a culture where books are only available in electronic form. If the WhisperNet service from Kindle allows the company to delete books silently from your device, what other information might they have access to? Can the company monitor what you're reading and when - and then hand that over to law enforcement? Can it replace a book file with a different file whose content is changed?

Perhaps more than anything else, this mass deletion of 1984 has made it clear that collecting e-books is going to require some technical know-how. No e-book is truly yours unless you can get it off your Kindle and onto your computer - hopefully a computer that isn't connected to the internet

Forewarned is forearmed.

Nothing Changes on New Year's Day

Shalom, all.

The new year 2011 is already more than 24 hours old here in the fair Melayu Islamic Republic.  Events in 2011, unfortunately, seem decidedly 'old year' with an Islamic-inspired church bombing in Egypt.  The new year looks a lot like the old year, but what else could we expect?

On television here in Malaysia today there was a programme I saw with a brief scene involving a phone call between an American character and an Israeli one. The dialog certainly involved nothing objectionable--the characters were discussing their wishes for the future and expressing their hopes for a peaceful world. And the scene wasn't long--maybe two to three minutes at most.  But I discovered another thing that the Malaysian Guardians of Morality (i.e. the Muslim censors) do not want people to hear or see, besides the usual and profanity, violence, or nudity.

What horrible word did they remove from this conversation?  It was the word "shalom", repeatedly and consistently removed, in that brief scene on television. I could read the lips of the actors, and considering the context, there was no doubt that this was the 'offensive' word in question.

So, what is so terrible about the word "shalom" that the Malaysian authorities don't want us to hear it?  "Shalom" has multiple meanings, such as 'peace' and 'hello' and 'goodbye', and is used in the same way and meaning as the Arabic word "salaam".  What could be so terribly offensive about any of those meanings?  The only conceivable reason why the Right Honorable Islamic Censors would want to omit this word from a TV show is solely because it is a Hebrew word. Hebrew must be a language that the anti Semitic, Jew-hating Malaysian government wants to erase from our collective memories. There can be no other explanation.  This thought is almost as disturbing as the carnage freshly wrought by the Islamic bomber(s) in Egypt. I am against censorship in general, but this degree of censorship is particularly appalling. We cannot and must not let these people have their way.

So let us always remember the word 'shalom' and especially remember the meaning of this word, for our world so desperately needs it.  Let's all use the Hebrew words that the Malaysian government so desperately does not want the world to hear.

Shalom and Shana Tova -- peace to all and a happy new year.

Crossposted at Pedestrian Infidel

I Knew This Was Coming

Two anchors on CNN have called for muzzling bloggers:

Anchors Kyra Phillips and John Roberts discussed the "mixed blessing of the internet," and agreed that there should be a crackdown on anonymous bloggers who disparage others on the internet.

[...]

Phillips wanted to go even further, asking if "there's going to come a point where something's going to have to be done legally" about anonymous bloggers.

"There has to be some point where there's some accountability...."

[...]

CNN's two regulation-happy reporters, think the Sherrod situation can help bring attention to the "necessity" of blogging reform if she brings a defamation lawsuit against Andrew Breitbart.

According to Roberts, Sherrod has "the power now and she also has the profile to maybe bring this into a new light, so we'll see where this goes."

I'm willing to bet that most Americans who get their news from the mainstream media, particularly those Americans who have followed the Sherrod incident, are nodding their heads in agreement with what those two CNN anchors said because of the way the story has played in the media.

In my view, discrediting the blogosphere is the primary way that the left can hold onto its appeal and, more importantly, to its power.

Muslims Threaten Facebook, Give In To Our Anti-Freedom Demands, Or We'll Pick Up Our Toys and Run HomeTo Mommy"

From NBC:

Facebook has a new PR issue on its hands.

Apparently, its made as many as 2.5 million customers mad enough to threaten a boycott.

The group claims to represent Muslims who are mad about the removal of four Facebook pages.

These are the pages no longer available on the site:

• Facebook.com/Rassoul.Allaah
• Facebook.com/Logo.Ramadan
• LikesFacebook.com/I.Love.Mohammed
• Facebook.com/Quran.Lovers

The deadline is a week from today.  The group claims it has hundreds of thousands of users who are ready to jump ship to another site called madina.com, which is a Islamic social networking site.

For now, the group is trying to get its message out by posting the same comment over and over on Facebook blogs.

Facebook Admins, Moderators, Mark Zuckerberg, Dustin Moskovitz, Sheryl Sandberg, and Matt Cohler; Although you have attended the world's best communication skills courses you have been most successful in growing great hatred and hostility between you and Muslims around the world, but seriously this time you have caused an almost unrepairable damage.

They go on to list their demands:

1. Reactivating the four pages that have been disabled
2. Adding a Facebook Term that illegalizes disrespecting all Islamic religious symbols, including Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) and the Qur'an, as well as Prophet Moses (PBUH), Prophet Jesus (PBUH), and the original Bible
3. Disabling any Facebook Page, Group, or Event that shows direct or indirect disrespect towards Islamic religious symbols

We have a message into the Facebook press folks to see if they have a comment on the movement.    We also have no idea why the four sites were taken down in the first place.  Hopefully Facebook will answer our inquiry soon.

Check back for updates.

 Such Muslims are invited to go fuck themselves up the ass with a pork sausage.

Media Executives: “Allah is Now Off-Limits,” Current Scripts Being Changed to Weed out References to Islam

From Weasel Zippers:

(Fox News)- Don’t mess with Allah. That’s the new, unwritten code in Hollywood following the one-two punch of Islamic extremists’ threats against the creators of “South Park” and the failed bombing attempt outside the cartoon’s parent company, Viacom, in New York’s Times Square.

In the current, supercharged climate, it just isn’t worth endangering the safety of an entire production staff or network by pursuing a storyline that Muslim extremists might find offensive, media executives and writers tell Fox411.com.

Aasif Mandvi, a self-described “liberal Muslim” and the “senior Islamic correspondent” for Comedy Central’s The Daily Show, said on air after the “South Park” threats that it would upset him to see the Prophet Muhammad depicted in a cartoon. But, he added: “Here’s what’s more upsetting. Someone, in the name of a faith that I believe in, threatening another person for doing it.”

But after the failed Times Square terror attack, “The Daily Show” asked Mandvi not to comment further on the matter, according to his spokesman. In fact, reps for the networks and television shows reached for comment on this article, including Comedy Central, Cartoon Network, FOX, NBC, and CBS, either failed to respond or asked to speak on background for fear of retribution.

And it isn’t just comedians on fake newscasts who are being muzzled. One writer for a scripted drama fold Fox411.com that in one of his show’s final episodes, there had been a minor plot point involving a Muslim extremist. Last week it was removed and the script was rewritten, he said.

Random House canceled the 2008 publication of Sherry Jones’ “The Jewel of Medina” out of fear it would incite acts of violence, and last year Yale University decided remove all images of Muhammad from Jytte Klausen’s book, “The Cartoons that Shook the World,” a book commenting on the Danish cartoon controversy that sparked violence in the Muslim world.

The subject has gotten so sensitive, media pros are even chilling the conversation in forums where no one is watching.

“The writer’s room has always been a safe place for jokes of any sort, the dirtiest jokes you can think of that you could never tell in public because your own mother would hate you,” a network comedy writer told Fox411.com. “But for the first time we feel like there is a taboo."

OBAMA TAKES OVER THE INTERNET

Julius Caesar of the Internet

From The Wall Street Journal
The FCC puts another industry under political control.

A federal appeals court ruled last month that the Federal Communications Commission lacks the authority to regulate the Internet. No worries, mate. This week the Obama Administration chose to "reclassify" the Internet so it can regulate the Web anyway. This crowd is nothing if not legally creative.

For the past decade, broadband has been classified as an "information service" and thus more lightly regulated than traditional telephone services. This has led to an explosion of new investment and Web innovation, but it hasn't sat well with Democrats who want more control over the telecom business, as well as with some Web companies (Google) that want more leverage over Internet service providers like Time Warner or Verizon.

Associated Press FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski did their dirty work this week by announcing that he plans to reclassify broadband lines so his agency can regulate them under rules that were written for Ma Bell in the 1930s. This means subjecting the Internet to new political supervision—from the federal government and 50 state public utility commissions. The goal is to put one more industry under Washington's political thumb.

Even Bill Clinton's FCC, under Chairman Bill Kennard, had refused to go this far. "Classifying Internet access as telecommunication services could have significant consequences for the global development of the Internet," said Mr. Kennard in a 1998 speech. "We recognized the unique qualities of the Internet, and do not presume that legacy regulatory frameworks are appropriately applied to it."

Mr. Genachowski says he's merely hewing to the political middle, pursuing a "third way" on regulation that will "allow the agency to move forward with broadband initiatives that empower consumers and enhance economic growth, while also avoiding regulatory overreach."

But Mr. Genachowski's promise to put in place safeguards so broadband companies are subjected to "only a handful" of phone regulations is hardly reassuring. Even if he keeps his word, what prevents future FCC Chairmen from reversing course? If Google or some other big political donor doesn't get its way, its lobbyists will descend on the White House or Congress, which will lobby the FCC, which may well do their bidding.

Our reporting suggests that something like that may have happened in this case. All indications early this week were that the FCC wouldn't take such a drastic step. But when a Washington Post story reported that news, the liberal "consumer" lobbies went to the barricades, and Mr. Genachowski's team sequestered itself from other FCC commissioners for most of Tuesday. Late Wednesday, he broke the "reclassify" news. Perhaps they all had overnight epiphanies.

In any case, Mr. Genachowski has provided no evidence that the current regulatory approach is failing. The Supreme Court's 2005 Brand X decision reconfirmed cable broadband's current classification as an information service, and that regulatory certainty has led to a burst of capital investment and competition.

In the past five years, U.S. companies have invested $576 billion in communications equipment and structures, according to Bret Swanson of Entropy Economics. Add computers and software, and U.S. capital expenditures on information technology since 2005 have totaled $2.2 trillion. Telecom accounts for nearly half (47%) of all non-structure capital investment in the U.S.

The FCC decision adds a new element of political risk to these investments, which can only make companies more cautious. At a minimum, the FCC action will be challenged in court and introduce years of uncertainty at a time when the economy needs all the risk-taking and investment it can get.

At worst, it will lead to a new era of political meddling in Internet investment, bandwidth allocation, and no doubt much more. Google and others who are cheering now may not like where this ends up when, say, religious right groups start demanding FCC content regulations during the next GOP Administration.

Autos, health care, energy, Wall Street and now telecom. Is there any American industry this Administration doesn't want to run?

Pedestrian Infidel: Finally Blocked By The UAE

We have finally been blocked by the UAE internet controlling authorities. Well, as I mentioned yesterday, my last post was our 1500th post. I guess we are considered a "threat" now. Oh well, can't go wrong there.

Pedestrian Infidel

Fareed Zakaria, "Moderate" Muslim, Nixed Mohammed Cartoons

In other words, Zakaria advised Yale University Press not to publish the Danish cartoons.

From this post at Islam in Action, citing this source:

...Fareed Zakaria, editor of Newsweek International, a world affairs columnist and CNN host who serves on Yale's governing board, said he told Yale that he believed publishing the images would have provoked violence.

"As a journalist and public commentator, I believe deeply in the First Amendment and academic freedom," Zakaria said. "But in this instance Yale Press was confronted with a clear threat of violence and loss of life."

It appears that BHO had Zakaria's book The Post-American World on his reading list:



Just sayin'...

Additional reading: more from Creeping Sharia about Zakaria's views in Newsweek and at his web site.

Censorship

Yours truly was censored on a Yahoo! Groups discussion list recently for using a word. The word was “Muzzies”.

The odd thing is that the censoring organisation was the UK’s Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association (GALHA), which, as its name suggests, is not especially fond of religion. And it’s less fond – or should be – of religions that like to bash gays.

I can’t say I’ve been that frequent a poster, but I’ve posted a fair few over the years. I won’t be doing so again, except to respond to something that really needs a response.

What rubbed salt into the wounds was that a member of the GALHA committee – who censor members’ posts to that discussion list – said the word was akin to “Paki” and “nigger”. Well is it? You wuold have to have a pretty skewed sense of etymology to think so. Those words are distinctly racist, and to be discouraged (although I personally wouldn’t go so far as to censor them, but would merely expect others, and possibly myself, to come into the discussion and give the culprit a verbal going-over, because racism just isn’t acceptable). “Muzzies”, on the other hand, is clearly referring to a religious persuasion.

To give the censors their due, they allowed my next post onto the list, but could they have done otherwise, since in it I felt I had to rebut the accusation of racism? The word “Muzzies” was then used – in my post – because we were now discussing the word rather than merely using it.

Now why am I talking on here about a dispute on a discussion list over the use of a word? Well the word does concern Muslims, which this blog is about. The word was mildly piss-taking, which is what antireligion organisations do (certainly my other blog, Pink Triangle, does, as does another favourite of mine, the Freethinker). And, of course, censorship was afoot.

And I’ve blogged on here before about how the UK is appeasing Muslims, the very people who pose such a threat to our culture, and especially to gays and lesbians, of whom I am one (well, gay, not lesbian – at least not the last time I looked).

I don’t expect this sort of appeasement from a “humanist” organisation. While I would expect it to get excited over out-and-out racism, I don’t expect such groups to waste valuable energy censoring the word “Muzzies”.

By the way, for those of you who are gay, or straight but gay-friendly, and/or are atheists, freethinkers, agnostics, we’ve set up an alternative discussion group called Gaytheist, which can be found on Pink Triangle sidebar or by sticking your email address in the box below.

Subscribe to Gaytheist

Obama passing new law to allow searching of PC's, Laptops, and media devices

It's Not Paranoia If It Is the Only Logical Explanation

Randy Taylor at Northeast Intelligence Network has an interesting theory as to why Obama is engaging in arguably treasonous acts such as the CIA "torture" memos release -- eviscerating that agency's ability to acquire crucial intelligence from detainees, "damaging America's standing" before the hypocritical thugs who control most of the world, giving his expanding army of O-bots another reason to approve of his groveling before those thugs, and warning those who do try to defend the US that they may face prosecution for their efforts -- and while Taylor's analysis is extreme, it fits the facts better than the notion that this carefully packaged product of the Left is merely inept or naive.

Taylor sums it up thusly:

Obama is systematically placing the few effective government people, patriots, Republicans and anyone who is considered a threat to his illegal control of America on a black list he has carefully prepared. Obama is playing “romancing the Muslim”, “coddling the communists” and bad mouthing any form of true patriotism within America while wanting to outlaw free speech because he perceives patriotic Americans as threats to his idea of socialist government and his dictatorship agenda. He knows that as it stands at this precise moment in time, he cannot place America and her citizens into the position he desires, that being the position of a police state under a dictatorship. He cannot at this time force us into being participants in a global government. No, it will require one more drastic measure to bring us into the slot he has slated for us as Americans.

I personally expect a major catastrophic event, either biological or worse inside America within the first year of this dictator in office simply so he can place America under martial law. He has to initiate something like this as his thought process is -he sees a major terrorist event as the only catalyst to use in order to sucker the law enforcement community and military to impose military restraints on America and her citizens, allowing him the dictator powers he needs. It will be sold to the American public, law enforcement and the military as necessary for national security and it will evolve into a systematically controlled stripping Americans of all rights including the right to assemble, the right to protest, the right to free speech, the right to bear arms, all under the guise of national security. Obviously communications will be cut and the media will only broadcast what is vetted for release to anyone fortunate enough to still have communications. Travel will be restricted and leaving the country will not be an available option once martial law goes into effect. Eventually, law enforcement and military will realize what is actually happening yet will have a difficult time in reversing it. Top military and law enforcement will either be bribed or threatened to remain loyal to the dictatorship. Dissenters will be done away with.

The prospect of an all-out police state following a catastrophic attack may be overstating the case, to say nothing of overestimating the O-bot administration's ability to control events. But it is a more accurate perspective than that Obama is either trying to vengefully destroy the country or simply "in over his head" and floundering. A socialist "multiculturist" dictatorship that is part of a world government system is Obama's idea of what is "good for America". Defenders of Capitalism, Western Civilization, the Constitution, and anyone else outside of his Marxist-Black-"Christian"-Muslim-Socialist-Liberation-Theology worldview is the enemy and must be subdued, one way or another. If he can accomplish that while appearing to be the savior of America in her time of greatest peril, so much the better for him.

Last Night On KFNX

Our guest host Jim Horn and I interviewed Tracy of No Compromise When It Comes To Being Right, which has a blog and used to have an Internet radio show on Blog Talk Radio. No more!

I have previously posted what happened to Tracy's show HERE at IBA.

Tracy was with us during the first half of the show. Unlike Blog Talk Radio, KFNX allowed Tracy to share the some of the information which she was trying to share earlier this week on BTR.

You can download a recording of the show HERE.

Saudi Issues A TV Fatwa

Graphic: The Fatwa Pig

From this source, on the business page of Yahoo! News, on September 12, 2008:

Top cleric in Saudi judiciary: it's OK to kill owners of TV networks airing 'immoral content'

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia (AP) -- Saudi Arabia's top judiciary official has issued a religious decree saying it is permissible to kill the owners of satellite TV networks that broadcast immoral content.

In the past, Al-Lihedan called upon Saudis to fight against American forces in Iraq. Now he's moved his jihad-by-fatwa to the media.

Will Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal find himself under the shadow of a fatwa? After all, the prince owns Rotana, the most popular of the Arabic satellite networks.

Anyway, just wait until more Moslems invest in Western satellite systems. Censorship will take center stage.

And think of all the shows you like, the shows that you will no longer be able to watch. Remember: Sayyed Qutb found the crooners' song "Baby, It's Cold Outside" immoral. The Moslem perception of immorality differs from that of the West's.

Another reason to be sure we infidels win!

Dhimmitude At Random House

(hat-tip to THE ASTUTE BLOGGERS)

Fear of retaliation and political correctness have led to yet another Twenty-first Century book burning — not in the literal sense, of course. Today, the West is much more sophisticated.

Random House Inc., the world's largest English language trade publisher of fiction, nonfiction, and children's books, has backpedaled from publishing The Jewel of Medina, even though the author had received an advance of $100,000.

Read the rest at Always On Watch.

Ian McKewan Discovers That The Term "Islamism" Is Unacceptable

The noose on even ever-so-gently criticizing any aspect of Islam is tightening.

Ian McKewan just discovered so when he used the term "Islamism " which generally refers to militant Islam.

Excerpt from this article in the Independent (via Jihad Watch):

The novelist Ian McEwan has launched an astonishingly strong attack on Islamism, saying that he "despises" it and accusing it of "wanting to create a society that I detest". His words, in an interview with an Italian newspaper, could, in today's febrile legalistic climate, lay him open to being investigated for a "hate crime".

In an interview with Guido Santevecchi, a London correspondent for Corriere della Sera, the Booker-winning novelist said he rarely grants interviews on controversial issues "because I have to be careful to protect my privacy". But he said that he was glad to leap to the defence of his old friend Martin Amis when the latter's attacks on Muslims brought down charges of racism on his head. He made an exception of the Islamic issue out of friendship to Amis, and because he shares the latter's strong opinions.

"A dear friend had been called a racist," he said. "As soon as a writer expresses an opinion against Islamism, immediately someone on the left leaps to his feet and claims that because the majority of Muslims are dark-skinned, he who criticises it is racist.

"This is logically absurd and morally unacceptable. Martin is not a racist. And I myself despise Islamism, because it wants to create a society that I detest, based on religious belief, on a text, on lack of freedom for women, intolerance towards homosexuality and so on – we know it well."

McEwan – author of On Chesil Beach and the acclaimed Atonement and Enduring Love – has spoken on the issue of Islamism before, telling The New York Times last December: "All religions make very big claims about the world, and it should be possible in an open society to dispute them. It should be possible to say, 'I find some ideas in Islam questionable' without being called a racist."

But his words in the Corriere interview are far stronger, although they do fall short of the invective deployed by Martin Amis. He has said "the Muslim community will have to suffer until it gets its house in order", and told The Independent's columnist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, a Muslim, in an open letter: "Islamism, in most of its manifestations, not only wants to kill me – it wants to kill you."

I admit to not having read Martin Amis. Wiki information on him is HERE. Maybe he is a racist, but I don't immediately find any such information.

Perhaps readers and commenters here at IBA know more about Martin Amis -- and Ian McKewan, for that matter.

In any case, I see the West moving toward a time, not too far in the future, that will forbid any criticism of Islam whatsoever. If that day comes to pass, we will have lost the war of ideas in even limited public-forums.

It Begins - The Shutdown of the Free Internet by 2012

Thanks to ‘bbc truth monopoly’ for this lead.

On the heals of the site shut down by Typepad of Aussie News & Views and now Sharia Finance, comes word that Bell Canada and TELUS (formerly owned by Verizon) employees officially confirm that by 2012 ISP's all over the globe will reduce Internet access to a TV-like subscription model, only offering access to a small standard amount of commercial sites and require extra fees for every other site you visit.

These 'other' sites would then lose all their exposure and eventually shut down, resulting in what could be seen as the end of the Internet.

From I Power.

Dylan Pattyn, who is currently writing an article for Time Magazine on the issue, has official confirmation from sources within Bell Canada and is interviewing a marketing representative from TELUS who confirms the story and states that TELUS has already started blocking all websites that aren't in the subscription package for mobile Internet access. They could not confirm whether it would happen in 2012 because both stated it may actually happen sooner (as early as 2010). Interviews with these sources, more confirmation from other sources and more in-depth information on the issue is set to be published in Time Magazine soon.

Could this be the Net in 2012?

Get a FREE TRIAL COPY of the The Gathering Storm eBook which includes the Forward by Walid Shoebat, Introduction, and first 50 pages of The Gathering Storm eBook. And sign up for my free WEEKLY STORM REPORT and receive a synopsis of the most important weekly news revealing the intimidation, infiltration and disinformation tactics used to soften-up the non-Muslim world for domination.

Censorship in Spain

The most important concern I had before 9 March elections was precisely that of censorship against non-politically correct ideas if Zapatero won. Well, Zapatero won and the first intent of censorship has come too. A supposedly anti-racist NGO Movement against intolerance has asked the Government to see if they can shut several webs and blogs because they were listed in an anti-immigration website deemed as "racist and far-right". The problem is that the authors of those blogs listed weren't even aware their blogs were listed there and the NGO didn't even take the time to read all the blogs they were -and are- asking to shut. Now they have even erased some of them -also here-, while keeping others listed, and menacing them with legal actions because of the "Statements that are made against the NGO and its president".