More examples of our so called 'Free Speech'
 

Here is an article from Debbie Schlussel on how her website was blocked in a discriminatory manner and how she was able to get the decision reversed.


QUOTE:http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2009/03/getting_my_site.html



March 22, 2009

How I Got My Site UnBlocked From Lib Computer Co. Execs: Pls. Let Me Know If Your Company/Agency Blocks DebbieSchlussel.com

Printer Friendly
By Debbie Schlussel
**** UPDATE, 03/23/09: DebbieSchlussel.com still being blocked ****
**** CORRECTION: I originally noted the company blocking my site as "Smart Computing." It is Secure Computing. Not sure why I had "Smart" on my mind, since the original move to block my site wasn't smart, just obnoxious. ****
A couple of readers told me my site was blocked at their respective hotel and employer within the last month. But in the last few days, a ton of readers have let me know that this site, DebbieSchlussel.com, was being blocked by their employer with the designation "hate/discrimination." The same thing happened to readers from the Veterans Adminstration, General Motors, Wachovia, Hilton/Hampton Suites, etc., when they tried to access this site.
I learned, today, via this article, that my site was being blocked by McAfee's Secure Computing TrustedSource product.
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/pc2.jpg I contacted the in-house PR person from Secure Computing, who answered her cellphone (which was not designated as such on the company's website). She was initially upset I called on her cellphone and said this was the first she'd heard of this problem. At first, she incorrectly blamed the individual companies for my site being blocked "because they don't want their employees online during work." But that's not the case, I pointed out, since other sites with similar content were not, in fact, blocked at their workplaces. She asked me to write her an e-mail. I sent the e-mail below, and presto-change-o, I heard back from both the PR person and McAfee's Director of Web Security Research (McAfee owns Secure Computing).
I learned from them that apparently a Secure Computing executive (whom I believe was referred to with female pronouns) manually changed the benign designation of "Politics/Opinion" on both DebbieSchlussel.com and Pamela Geller's Atlas Shrugs to "Hate/Discrimination" on March 18th, which is the reason many of you have been unable to access my site since then at companies which filter out sites so designated by TrustedSource.
Yes, some liberal, apparently biased McAfee/Secure Computing exec used her own personal political bias--or that of someone who contacted her--to sabotage my site and Pamela's and censor us. Not such a "Trusted Source" after all, is it? Yes, we are in a day and age where the left cannot control the internet, so they try to censor out what they don't want you to read.
Fortunately, the McAfee people say that because of my call and e-mail (again, they say they only heard from me and this is the first they knew of this), they have reversed the designation and labeled our sites, "Politics/Opinion." The McAfee web security person apologized repeatedly, to her credit.
Please e-mail me and let me know whether or not you can access this site now from work (if you cannot, you are obviously reading and e-mailing me later in the day from home). Please also let me know at which company you work. Your e-mails will be confidential. This is important because some companies use different programs, and I want to tackle all of them.
I'm told that they are meeting tomorrow to discuss how to stop one person from censoring out websites in the future, as was done to me and my site in this case. I'm also told, though, that the re-designation of my site to "Politics/Opinion" is not permanent, as two others need to review it and agree. Let's hope they are objective and not knee-jerk liberals (or pan-Islamists) in doing so. They said they will let me know their final decision and why. Stay tuned, and in the meantime, please read this e-mail below, which I sent to get this outrageous decision reversed. (Please also note that the McAfee people claim that Gateway Pundit was never labeled as "Hate/Discrimination" and thus wasn't subject to the censorship that I was.)
We must remain vigilant on this issue as traffic is the lifeblood of websites, including this one.
***

From: Debbie Schlussel writedebbie@gmail.com Date: Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 3:55 PM
Subject: Secure Computing's Designation of my Site as "Hate/Discrimination" . . .
To: ally_zwahlen@securecomputing.com
Ms. Zwahlen:
Pursuant to our conversation, today, your company and it's "TrustedSource" product have designated my conservative political website, http://www.debbieschlussel.com, as "Hate/Discrimination," which has led many of my readers in the past few days to note that their employer has blocked my site because of your designation and your products. I have thousands of readers a day, and I have learned that my site as well as two other sites with several thousand readers, Atlas Shrugs and Gateway Pundit, are also similarly and inaccurately designated at "hate/discrimination" by your company and its products, leading companies that use your products to block our sites.
Our sites are not hate/discrimination sites, and we hope we don't have to take this much farther. However, if this situation is not resolved to our satisfaction, we will, and we will be forced to report on this on our sites and list the Fortune 500 companies and government agencies that use your biased designations of websites with which someone at your company who doesn't like our politics has chosen to sabotage us. I hope you will get to the bottom of this and resolve it, rather than continuing to give me the false and untrue excuse that this lies with the companies that use your product. This lies with your company and its designation of our sites as hate/discrimination. If that designation were removed, there would be no problem accessing our sites. For now, my site is now blocked from General Motors, Wachovia, the Veterans Administration, Hilton/Hampton Suites Hotels. All of these companies have told those who've inquired that they block out sites your company's TrustedSource notes as "hate/discrimination" and "racism," neither of which describe my site at all.
Here are the details on what your company is doing and why the blame lies directly with you. This article lists the sites your designation has been bestowed upon and why we are now blocked.
http://usabig.com/atnmst/jrnl_ii.php?art=29
Please note that I am a practicing attorney, licensed in the State of Michigan. Should I have to pursue further action in this matter, I would do so in Michigan, as your company's software and improper designation of my site has taken place at the Michigan offices of General Motors, among others. Your designation of my site as "hate/discrimination" interferes with my relationship with my customers and readers and has harmed me significantly with tremendous damages.
I look forward to your prompt response and resolution of this matter to my satisfaction, which means the removal of "hate/discrimination" and/or "racism" designations of my site and the use of the "Politics/Opinion, Blogs/Wiki," which your company has designated other sites with the same content and opinions as my own.
Again, please let me know when my site is re-designated in a proper, accurate, and benign manner, and/or what action you and your company intend to take. This is a potential public relations nightmare for your company that you have the opportunity to quickly resolve.
Thank you,
Debbie Schlussel

Here are the responses:

From: Zwahlen,Ally Ally_Zwahlen@securecomputing.com Date: Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 8:11 PM
Subject: Re: Secure Computing's Designation of my Site as "Hate/Discrimination" . . .
To: writedebbie@gmail.com
I'm looking into this now...I have technical team members on this tonight.

***

From: Zwahlen,Ally Ally_Zwahlen@securecomputing.com Date: Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 8:13 PM
Subject: Re: Secure Computing's Designation of my Site as "Hate/Discrimination" . . .
To: writedebbie@gmail.com
Can you give me a phone number? One of our technical team members will call you to work this out.

***

From: Zwahlen,Ally Ally_Zwahlen@securecomputing.com Date: Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 8:44 PM
Subject: RE: Secure Computing's Designation of my Site as "Hate/Discrimination" . . .
To: Debbie Schlussel writedebbie@gmail.com
Debbie,
[Name redacted] (technical manager) and I will be calling you in a few minutes . . . conferencing her in.
Ally Zwahlen
Director, Public Relations
McAfee, Inc.
925.207.4573 Direct
ally_zwahlen@securecomputing.com

Thanks to Ally Zwahlen for getting right on this, especially on a Sunday, and to her Director of Web Security, who asked that her name not be made public.


Posted by Debbie at March 22, 2009 09:44 PM

Get ready for the lefties like our lovable pirate to defend this as a non-governmental play. If it was aimed at a lib site the outcry would be deafening.

This has nothing to do with governmental suppression of free speech, does it? Why do you post such drivel? Do private companies not have a right, in your view, to choose what content they wish to carry?

Absolutely. When you are using company equipment or services the things you create (be it work product or nothing) belong to the company. The company has a 100% right to restrict and audit what you do on their machines. This should be spelled out in the policy you signed when you started working there. NOTHING you do on a company computer is private.

-Jason

The point is the software manufacturer labeled her site as hate speech. Not that companies are restricting access while at work.

Hey Mwood -- you were right on the money!

Do you want a third party determining what you can or cannot view? Since Secure Computing is not the end user of these web sites what right do they have in setting policies for other entities as to what is acceptable and what is not? And then they implement their decision without informing the end users of what they did. I applaud DS on fighting to get her site unblocked. This nannyism of our lives is getting out of hand.

It is also funny how the sites being blocked are all right wing...

The definition of H/D web sites used by Secure Computing is
"Hate/Discrimination (hs)
Web pages that provide information that would encourage the oppression of a specific group of individuals. This includes promoting, explicitly or implicitly, an agenda against groups based on race, religion, nationality, gender, age, disability, or sexual orientation. Political parties with a specific hate-based agenda may be included. If involving jokes or humor, the focus of the entire site must be considered hateful or discriminatory to fall under this category."

Funny how HuffingtonPost, Daily Kos, Free Mumia, etc are OK, but Atlasshrugged, Debbie Schlussel, Ann Coulter,etc are not...

Could somebody have an agenda here?

Ah yes, a conspiracy! Black Helicopters! Vince Foster! EEEEEEEEE!

Ah, the continued theory of left-leaning liberal media.
I think FAUX news did a story on that...

As for site blocking, who hired the company that did the blocking?
Somebody did - "The same thing happened to readers from the Veterans Adminstration, General Motors, Wachovia, Hilton/Hampton Suites, etc., when they tried to access this site."
These companies obviously (for reasons unknown) think McAfee does a good job for them. I won't have McAfee on my system, but thats just me.
Personally, I think the right wing wackos yell louder and get more attention for their counterparts in the "news" business than the left wing wackos

Oh my God! McAfee has a copy of Obama's Birth Certificate as their site validator! Get me Glenn Beck on the phone !!!! Call Infowars!!!!! Get my AK-47 out from under the pillow! eeeeeekkkkeeekkkkkkk!!!!! It's CONSPIRACY!

George Bush senior lives in Maine too.

The moment a person forms a theory, his imagination sees in every object only the traits which favor that theory.

Interestingly, I surfed the site in question, tho most of her blog postings have no comments, meaning no one reads the ridiculous Koolaid she is posting, one section had a few comments, here's one:

WITH A NAME LIKE "MARVIN SUTTON" I'M GUESSING HE COULD HAVE BEEN A YID

^ that would block access to the site to computers accessing thru my workplace, which does not allow racist drivel to be accessed. I also noted her favorite theme on her home page is putting up pictures of illegal aliens giving her the finger and grabbing their crotches and such. It is no wonder firewalls are picking her up.

Here's her website. Is this a campaign ad or free speech?

//www.ammtaxlaw.com/

Of course. Since government is nowhere near any of this, why wouldn't someone point that out?

You're not serious, are you?

Because pointing it out misses the point and is a diversion.;)

This thread has a point?

I think that both the left and the right use the Henry II strategy.

Henry hated his chancellor, Archbishop Thoman Becket, but he couldn't kill him or the Pope, who had a big army in those days, would kill his English a$$. So Henry kept saying " Oh, Will no one or nothing rid me of this meddlesome priest?" After saying it a few times, one of the loyal royal staff weenies (similar to loyal AIG executives and loyal SS who loaded the ovens at Auschwitz) took the hint and just had their people go out and stab him 12 times.

It's called " plausible deniability."

The left and the right both have obsequious sycophantic fanatics who do this kind of dirty work for their masters...they work for PACs.

That's why I'm an independent.

s

I too am an independent, although not for the reason you so eloquently described; I just hate extremes.:)

Perfect.

A plague on both their houses!

Where's Carleton? I'll bet a dollar he has a sonnet for this moment.

LOL

Are you saying that the people at McAfee are "obsequious sycophantic fanatics" doing "dirty work for their masters" on the left?

With all due respect, that is crazy talk.

Heck, I'll make one.

http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/200...tomo/story.jpg

:confused:A plague on whose houses? WTF are you guys talking about?

Gosh, funny how we know what each other is writing. It must be a libertarian thang. You boys who play team sports wouldn't understand.

Rs&Ds.
3rd parties.

What does McAfee software have to do with Rs or Ds?That's a rather large group, wouldn't you say?

I thought libertarians were all about limited government.

Botnst, I think you should just recite Rainer Maria Rilke's poem on why it's fun to take a shower...:)

Apparently, MacAfee is an obsequious sycophantic fanatic. Of the D's I assume.

It is. Unfortunately not large enough.

My point was that we have gotten to the point where a single person at McAfee or another so called Internet Rating Host determines what you can see on your browser. In this case the person determined on her own somehow that DS and Atlasshrugged were hate mongers. Do we want a single person having this control over what WE can see? In this particular case even McAfee realized that this was a mistake and corrected the ratings (after DS threatened them with a lawsuit)

The Internet should be an open forum for all sides be they right, left, center, Nazi, Commie, etc.

For all the lefties here who think this is a joke, free speech is only free when the opinions you hate the most are allowed to be heard...

What you are saying makes no sense. The First Amendment applies to the government, not to private businesses. The Left is not really known for it's opposition to free speech, you are making up a boogey man, in fact, this entire thread is laughable and stupid, and you offer zero evidence that this event you cite has anything to do with, well anything. Dude, you are drinking way, way too much Koolaid. When the US government does something to limit your access to the Internet, get back to us. Private businesses are under no obligation to enforce the 1st Amendment, to test this, send the females in your office links to Hustler's web site, or better yet, surf it while your boss looks over your shoulder while congratulating him for allowing it to get thru his firewall so that you can enjoy your 1st Amendment rights. Let us all know how that works out. And like I said, I've looked at her site and urge others to as well, she posts obscene gestures and allows racist comments in her blog posting, and if I operated an Internet hosting business and didn't want her garbage on my servers, I would be fully within my rights, I owe no one "the right of free speech" on my private property, and that's what an Internet server is, private property, and this woman, a lawyer who gets her way by bullying people with threats of junk lawsuits, has no "violation" of her 1st Amendment rights that I can see.

This happens all the time. You don't decide what gets played on the radio or tv for example. Unless you're a tv/radio producer.

Not on a company computer.

Not a joke, but companies decide how you use their computers.

The person in question was apparently working in good faith and made an error, which was corrected quickly. Prove me wrong. Furthermore, if you're truly mortified about the prospect of one person determining the content of an information venue, brace yourself for this next phrase: Newspaper Editor.

I doubt that a company the size of McAfee was rocked to the core by the threat of a lawsuit from one disgruntled blogger. Again, an error was made and was quickly corrected. Non-drama.

Nothing McAfee did prevented the existence of the site in question. Their filtering services, voluntarily purchased by their customers, had briefly and erroneously prevented access to the site.

Your post is overheated, hysterical, foil-hat-esque...

Does that include porn?

I really think I hear more whining from the right.
And free speech is one of the basic tenets of our society, one that many brave people have given their lives for, so don't just assume that the other side of the aisle doesn't get it.
Now you will have to excuse me, my foil hat needs another layer.

Kiddie porn is free speech. But I cannot imagine a reasonable person believing there is any redeeming social or artistic value in it. So I think the overwhelming majority of people are very supportive of laws sanctioning kiddie pornographers.

So is "free" speech actually open only to that speech which is normative to society?

I think if we let the twisted thoughts breathe a bit we can all list any number of things that we accept as evil without a second thought and applaud absolute suppression of those activities & behaviors. Some taboos are so strong that nobody is willing to take the side in an argument in which they must advocate for those behaviors. Is that rational?

Botnst emerges as an advocate of kiddie porn? Please, please you are giving me way too much ammunition....

Good to see you're drinking again.

Strangely, I find us in the same boat, just different threads.


I'll take a shot at your questions.

I don't think so, although it's tough since members of society are the speakers. It seems natural they we judge amongst ourselves what is appropriate. And, we limit free speech for public safety.
Even still, I think free speech should not require public approval. Speech is not action. Provided that speech (or rather expression) doesn't have a physical component that breaks laws, no, free speech is not limited to what is normative.

Yes it is rational. No one should have to or expect to advocate for behaviors one abhors.

Kiddie porn isn't speech if it's film or image, I believe that would be expression or "art". Talking about kiddie porn is probably protected; look at NAMBLA (?) not sure of the acronym but I'm sure it's close. To be clear (so the pirate doesn't make the same mistake about me as he did about Bot) I am totally against any kind of those activities.

It used to irritate me. I'm thinking that he probably fights a substance abuse problem and in resolving it, projects his problems. I doubt he has a sexual attraction toward children but I bet he doesn't get along well with strong-willed women.

Just guessing.

Be careful! your projectile vomit and spinning head may attract the moderator.