Counterterrorism Expert Removed Under Statedly False Pretenses From GoFundMe Site (Randyjw; August 23, 2018)
Counterterrorism expert and author, Robert Spencer, reports yesterday that his GoFundMe account has been cancelled, in essence, due to reasons for which the GoFundMe site has stated: that (WePay) is “unable to process payments related to Hate, violence, racial intolerance, terrorism, the financial exploitation of a crime, or items or activities that encourage, promote, facilitate, or instruct others regarding the same.”
There is certainly a difference between those who advocate hate and commit terrorism, versus those who seek to explain it. His scholarly pursuit into Islamic theology, law, and history since 1980 and his Masters degree in Religious Studies from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, support his serious endeavor to teach about these subjects with more than a modicum of knowledge surrounding the issues. He is the author of eighteen books, among them New York Times bestsellers, and has presented informational lectures to multiple branches of the United States government, including to the FBI and to the intelligence community, to the Justice and State Departments, to various army commands, and to the German Foreign Ministry. His expertise has been sought on countless media programs, including through cable, radio, television and internet venues. He provides consultation to the Center for Security Policy.
I’m noticing that perhaps a problem exists in the reading comprehension levels of those customer support-type of people who are tasked with the “censoring” of the internet: perhaps they are confusing the legal terms of their companies’ policies. They see the terms “related to Hate,” as in the above, and believe that it means to encompass any speech referring to hateful acts, of which Jihadist beheadings referenced, perhaps, by Spencer, might be considered one of the criteria. Yes, Jihadist beheadings are certainly hateful. They also see the phrase, “terrorism… or instruct others regarding the same,” and believe that the act of teaching about Jihadist beheadings, and other principles, conflates equally to the act of the actual commitment of Jihadist beheadings (for example).
Here is a news bulletin for you: There is no equivalency! Teaching about the hateful acts of another is not necessarily equivalent to actually committing those same acts. I know that some people like to make a comparison of this free expression type of argument by comparing a Nazi reenactment scene, replete with swastikas and armbands, as being akin to free speech about Islam. It is, and it isn’t. I mean, they do still allow neo-Nazis to parade in Skokie, Illinois as their constitutional right to self-expression. Clearly, those who take part in such a demonstration are showing their feelings about Jews – – they hate them. Frankly, I’d be embarrassed if I were them, but they’re not exactly the brightest lights in the universe, now… are they?
But, we’ve already found that where logic and the Left goes, well… whoops – – there it goes.
See the bio of Robert Spencer offered through his website, here:
https://www.jihadwatch.org/about-robert
Read the article he writes, here:
Spencer, Robert. “GoFundMe falsely accuses Robert Spencer of violating Terms of Service, allows no appeal”; Jihadwatch.org; August 22, 2018:
Update (September 12, 2018):
Robert Spencer contributes scholarly articles to the FrontPage Mag website, as does Jamie Glazov. Jamie Glazov was just placed on a 30-day ban for his posting of an article on September 10th, one day prior to the anniversary of 9-11, on counter-Jihad. Facebook banned him, on SEPTEMBER 11th, of all days, for the reason given that it didn’t meet their Community Standards. As is pointed out in the updating link, below, what is it Facebook can possibly object to about trying to counter Jihad? Glazov was also banned in May from Twitter for referencing quotes from the Sahih Bukhari texts and to Qur’anic Suras. Additionally, Facebook banned him in April for making a screenshot of a threat he had received on his Facebook page from a man that said he would “break his mouth” and then posting that, along with a post posing a question to Mark Zuckerberg asking if the posted threat was safe for the FB community? He received a seven-day ban and ban notice. In writing to Facebook to learn why he was banned for posting/reporting his receipt of a threat, he received a Facebook Blocks content message, without any further response.
frontpagemag.com. “Facebook Bans Frontpage Editor Jamie Glazov on 9/11 – For Posting on How to Prevent Another 9/11
It’s against Facebook’s “community standards” to try to stop Jihadist attacks on Americans.”; frontpagemag.com* (editor of frontpagemag.com is Jamie Glazov); September 12, 2018:
Update (September 20, 2018):
Still conflating the ideology of Jihad and the following-out of its tenets by the mujahedeen, versus others not engaged in Jihad and who speak out against the ideology as the same thing, Theresa May seems to have still lumped-in Robert Spencer with the former:
Spencer, Robert. “UK’s PM May Again Equates Robert Spencer with Jihad Terrorists: Opposing jihad terror and plotting jihad terror are the same thing, right?”; frontpagemag.com; September 20, 2018:
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/271373/uks-pm-may-again-equates-robert-spencer-jihad-robert-spencer
Update (October 1, 2018):
Certain types of speech are protected by our Constitution, and have received requisite backing in judicial rulings. While it would be discriminatory against classes of people we have considered protected, such as those of racial groups, ethnic heritage, religion and other sets, to use prejudicial speech and/or to have it result in unfair treatment to an individual(s), some other forms of speech are considered passable (maybe), if they are in parody/satire form. Have you ever noticed how certain exceptions to copyright notices state that small excerpts of copyrighted material may be used, for instance, if for critique, such as in a review, or if, perhaps, used in instructional study. This allows the instructor to showcase bodies of work which point out the particular examples they are purporting to teach. Teaching about serial killers does not make one a serial killer. Therfore, the same principles should apply to teaching about terrorism – – it just should depend upon the intended audience. If one were to teach about terrorism to responsible individuals, there would be no probable cause for concern about untoward influencing to ill effect. If, on the other hand, one is training future terrorists by teaching about terrorist methods, then that has quite different intent. The two, as noted above, are not at all the same. And now, Europe is levying potentially catastrophic fines (4%!) to compel internet companies to remove any potential “hate speech” and “fake news” content from their platforms. However, if they use illogical rationale by conflating the instruction of a reprehensible behavior with the committing of a reprehensible behavior, then they have no business ruling an entire continent, given that they cannot distinguish the clear demarcation between each.
Bergman, Judith. “EU: Politicizing the Internet”; gatestoneinstitute.org; September 30, 2018:
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13042/eu-internet-censorship
Millière, Guy. “Is Criticizing Terrorism ‘Mental Illness?'”;gatestoneinstitute.org; October 4, 2018:
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13072/le-pen-dissent-mental-illness
News Notes 1 