CAIR Shuts Down A Blogger
Posted on December 15, 2006
Update: The site is temporarily back up, and Vilmar has a message for everyone. Sadly, he will be hanging up the blogging hobby, but it isn’t because of any kind of pressure. He also says to take it easy on the hosting company, that they have the right to pull the plug if they feel their terms of service to be violated and that they have been a good hosting company altogether. I agree, but still think that CAIR needs to go pound sand and I would also suggest people to choose hosting companies that are more protective of blogger speech.
Hat tip: Beth at MVRWC:
CAIR has been successful in silencing the free speech of a fellow blogger and friend of ours. What for? Well the press release claims his blog was a “Hate Site” that supports killing all Muslim kids.
The Tampa, Fla., office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-Tampa) is calling on an Internet web hosting company in that state to drop a hate site that supports calls to “kill all Muslim kids.â€Â
Under the headline, “Love Your Kids? Fear For Their Future? Kill All Muslim Kids,†the Web site’s owner, who lives in the Tampa area, wrote: “Makes sense to me. After all, if Muslims are raising their little crumb- snatching, curtain climbing, ankle biting rug rats to strap on bombs in order to kill us, it is logically correct to assume that in order to stop that from happening we need to kill all Muslim kids. Starting now.â€Â
Oh, don’t be so shocked! As Snapped Shot points out, he was goofing on a parody article from the well known parody site IMAO. Quite an overreaction by the oversensitive CAIR! The First Amendment should have him covered, and by the way…where is the ACLU? I guess they are busy protecting hate speech against the military and gays from those Phelps creeps. Maybe CAIR should focus on getting some of the Muslim hate sites shut down. There are plenty of those. I’m not alone in my outrage, here’s some reactions from other bloggers.
So CAIR has managed to silence another critic. What happened to free speech? It evidently left the building on 9/11 when too many people decided we needed to make sure we didn’t offend any of the “good Muslimsâ€Â. As far as I’m concerned, there aren’t any good Muslims and this proves it.
Any time a small group forces the majority of the populace to listen to their members preach murder and bloodshed while silencing anyone who throws their words back at them, then the people have surrendered everything. How long before CAIR comes for me … or you?
I urge all of you to write to Vilmar’s hosting service and to every politician you can. If you don’t then you might as well just sit there and keep your mouth shut because if the truth were known Vilmar has only been saying what we all have been thinking but were afraid to say out loud. Now you know why …
They respect freedom of speech? MY ASS. Are they writing letters to the hosts of all the hate-filled jihadi websites that call for violence against innocent people in the name of Islam? Hell no. Bedier has an account on YouTube, and I still see jihadi propaganda there every single day. What have Bedier and CAIR done about that? I’d wager that they’ve turned a blind eye to every bit of it, because they’re more focused on attacking people who oppose terrorism than they have concern for Muslims urging death and destruction on the “infidels.â€Â
Again: It doesn’t matter whether you think Vilmar or, more accurately, Frank was “over the top†or not. You’re certainly entitled to your personal opinion of that, but THAT’S NOT THE POINT.
The point IS that CAIR, once again, are trying to define what can and cannot be said here, in OUR country. And, as always, their double standards are obvious, not to mention that the Dhimmi f***heads running his hosting company promptly grabbed their ankles and begged for a reach-around.
Well, you 7th century sh**heads: I still swear by the First Amendment and I always will, and you’d damn well better either get used to it or pack your lice-infested belongings and get the f*** to a turd world cesspool of your choosing where you can infringe on freedom of speech to your little, shriveled, Satanic hearts’ content.
And I’ve got the Second Amendment to back up the First.
CAIR, which has joined the effort to intimidate airlines into ignoring provocations from Musims, now wants to intimidate the blogosphere into silence. We can blame CAIR for this action, and it certainly reveals them as humorless and autocratic twits, but the real culprit here is HostGator. One would expect a service that hosts blogs to take the First Amendment rights of their clients a little more seriously than this. Instead of dialoguing with Vilmar, or better yet telling CAIR to pound sand, they abruptly took Vilmar’s site down.
…..
The best remedy for bad speech is more speech, not prior restraint and silencing techniques. People who try to shut down bloggers have no interest in freedom and liberty.
Sheesh, these people can dish it out, but they sure can’t take it. And frankly, I will take the side of my friend and fellow blogger any day, over people who funnel money to terrorist groups, who make every effort to undermine our security by whining about profiling, and who routinely excuse terrorist attacks all over the world.
Also…thanks to Urbang Grind:
Now if any of you want to contact Hostgator and complain, here is their contact information.
» Filed Under Uncategorized
Trackback URL
Comments
25 Responses to “CAIR Shuts Down A Blogger”
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
Typical. CAIR practices “Freedom of speech for me and not for thee“
This isn’t a free speech issue. When he began transacting business with his service providers, he agreed to give them an editorial veto. After receiving a complaint, they are exercising it.
He’s still free to spread his message. I’m sure he can find a more lenient service provider if he feels that his message needs to remain intact.
The issue is that CAIR can shut down satirists with a phone call or two, and that ISPs are so bedwettingly-scared of the organization that it’s CAIR’s veto that counts, not the ISP’s.
Hey, does this look familiar, Jay?
http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2006/08/31/president-bush-assassinated-in-new-movie/
This is you, complaining about a fictional movie depicting the assassination of a U.S. president. That was unacceptable to you, yet a blogger should be able to talk about killing Muslims because it’s just a parody?
Actually, I never said it should be stopped, I just said it was bad taste. I never called for it to be shut down.
“and by the way…where is the ACLU? I guess they are busy protecting hate speech against the military and gays from those Phelps creeps.”
Exactly. More evidence of the hypocrisy of the ACLU who don’t really care about Free Speech for all, just some.
“Maybe CAIR should focus on getting some of the Muslim hate sites shut down. There are plenty of those.”
Again, you are spot on! Again we see CAIR whining about “reprussions” without ever really standing up against those of their religion who are bloodthirsty murderers. Which side is CAIR really on? I think we know the answer to that.
Once again Jeff Molby is supporting the wrong side.
Ok, so you’ve assembled a list of red herrings and ad hominem attacks. Now, tell me what this incident has to do with the following sentence.
Henry Whacksman ,
The movie violates federal law while from what I know the parody does not. I think the parody was in bad taste but I do not know if that is a good enough reason to censor it. If you can prove it encourages violence against Muslim children or against Muslims in general then I will join with you in getting it censored.
Henry Whack: Complaining about a movie is not the same as removing someones entire blog. Nice try.
I took a look at my site logs and guess who paid my blog a visit earlier today?
http://www.thatpoliticalblog.com/serendipity/uploads/images/cair.jpg
“The movie violates federal law while from what I know the parody does not.”
Kerwin Brown, what federal law does the movie violate? Also remember that it was made in Great Britain.
“Ok, so you’ve assembled a list of red herrings and ad hominem attacks.”
What list?
“Now, tell me what this incident has to do with the following sentence.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
The same thing that ACLU defenses of NAMBLA, or Michael Newdow’s desire to remove “In God We Trust” from our money…Freedom of Speech.
This one. Here are two red herrings that you agreed with:
Here is an ad hominem attack:
and another red herring:
Go ahead and hate CAIR for filing the complaint. I understand completely.
You still haven’t taken Step One in demonstrating how this relates to the first amendment. This incident is an example of one party exercising an escape clause in a business contract.
Oh yeah, you tossed in two more red herrings for good measure:
This comes from the United States Codes Title 18 Part 1 Chapter 115 Section 2385 “Advocating The Overthrow of The Government”
“Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or
I do not believe the film was shown in the U.S. which only makes it an act of war and not a crime.
If the producers has made the film with a fictitious President that could not be construed to be any sitting President, candidate or political officer or if they make shooting the President clearly a wrong handed action then I do not believe the law would apply.
“This one. Here are two red herrings that you agreed with:
“and by the way…where is the ACLU? I guess they are busy protecting hate speech against the military and gays from those Phelps creeps.â€Â
Here is an ad hominem attack:
More evidence of the hypocrisy of the ACLU who don’t really care about Free Speech for all, just some.
and another red herring:
Again we see CAIR whining about “reprussions†without ever really standing up against those of their religion who are bloodthirsty murderers.”
If you are going to use big words like “red herring” and “ad hominem” it would behoove you to familiarize your self with their meanings.
Neither of these quotes of mine comprise any red herrings or ad hominem attacks.
The questioning of the absence of the ACLU in this case where someones freedom of speech is being censored is germane to the point of Jay’s post. It is where the very outrage against CAIR and even the blog admin comes from.
CAIR’s move here against this blogger’s freedom of speech and their constant warnings of impending reprecussions since 9/11 and every other attack since then, yet not standing up against the terrorists among their religion is a comment that bears being made and again is relevant to the topic, that is, CAIR’s attack on that blogger’s freedom of speech.
ACLU’s selected concern for some people’s freedom of speech (i.e. Fred Phelps, NAMBLA, Michael Newdow)is not an ad hominem attack so much as it is an observation that goes naturally on the question of where are they with respect to this bloggers free speech rights.
I would suggest you skip trying to use words you aren’t really familiar with and try and refute what I say.
Nice try though ; )
“You still haven’t taken Step One in demonstrating how this relates to the first amendment. This incident is an example of one party exercising an escape clause in a business contract.”
I haven’t taken step one as you call it because naturally the government isn’t the one doing the censuring. In fact you using the First Amendment here qualifies as more of a “red herring” than any of my so called “red herring” statements.
The ACLU are a group of lawyers. They could step forward on behalf of the blogger and counter-sue CAIR.
I am and I respectfully disagree with your assertions to the contrary.
CAIR “attacked” his speech, not his freedom of speech. It is a very important difference.
A month ago, the blogger had the freedom to write and publish virtually anything he wanted to say, subject to only a few legal exceptions and whatever business contracts he might make in the process. He still has the very same freedom, as even he has acknowledged.
There is no legal action. CAIR filed a complaint with his service provider. The service provider exercised their escape clause.
You can hate CAIR for making the choices they did, but this has nothing to do with constitutional freedoms.
“There is no legal action. CAIR filed a complaint with his service provider. The service provider exercised their escape clause. ”
There is no legal action due to the absence of the supposed “watch dog of free
speech” - the ACLU.
It is amazing how you find the distinction between “speech” and “feedom of speech”.
I guess you have a lot of explaining to do when it comes to, say, Fred Phelps and his gang.
Speech: The faculty or act of speaking.
Freedom of speech: The freedom, ability, or permission to do so.
He lost access to a platform that he enjoyed, but he still has the same freedom he always had.
“You can hate CAIR for making the choices they did, but this has nothing to do with constitutional freedoms.”
Again, which side are you on? Exactly?
I’m not on a side. I’m just trying to objectively dissect the issue.
I’m no friend of CAIR. This may very well be every bit as evil as this site purports. That doesn’t make this a first amendment issue.
Sorry, I’m submitting too quickly. Please forgive the grotesque grammar errors in the last few posts.
I see, you are more concerned with CAIR’s First Ammendment issues than you are with anyone who might have different ideas.
So, are you, like the ACLU concerned with a select few’s First Ammendent rights as opposed to others?
You do know that satire is satire. Right?
Clay, I’ve explained my perception of this incident as fully as I possibly can. You seem no closer to understanding my words than you were a couple days ago.
You seem convinced that the blogger’s freedom of speech has been restricted because his service provider pulled the plug pursuant to a contractual agreement. I disagree completely. There’s nothing more that can be said at this point, so I’m bowing out of this conversation.
Fair enough. The ACLU has been conspicuously absent once again.
Which has, I believe been Jay’s point.