Archive for the ‘Holocaust Revisionism’ Category

To begin with, Corbyn has a long history of unsavory associations with anti-Semites. Among other exploits, he has – Tablet Magazine

On June 8, the United Kingdom will hold its general election. Today, the London Jewish Chronicle released its polling on the Jewish vote in the upcoming contest, and the numbers are stark. 77 percent of British Jews say they will vote for Theresa Mays Conservatives, with just 13 percent voting for the opposition Labour party. For comparison, the 2016 exit poll by the Council on American-Islamic Relations showed that Donald Trump received13 percent of the Muslimvote.

What has driven British Jews to flee Labour like minorities who fledthe Republican party under Trump? As in the United States, this exodus is significantlyattributable to the partys radicalleader, in this case, Jeremy Corbyn. In fact, a whopping54 percent of Jews surveyed said they would be more likely to vote for Labour if Corbynwere not in charge. Who then is Corbyn, and why are British Jews so repelled by him?

To begin with, Corbynhas a long history of unsavory associations with anti-Semites. Among other exploits, he has:

Donated to the organization of Paul Eisen, a Holocaust denier, and appeared at his events. He later claimed he was unaware of Eisens unsavory views, despite 15 years of association.

Defended vicar Stephen Sizer, who disseminated materials arguing the Mossad did 9/11, after he was banned from social media by the Church of England for posting anti-Semitic material.

Praised preacher Raed Salah and invited him to parliament. Salah claims that Jews make their Passover matzoh with gentile blood, that Jews had foreknowledge of 9/11, andthat homosexuality is a great crime. He has been banned from the U.K. for anti-Semitic incitement.

Invited activist Dyab Abou Jahjah to parliament and spoke alongside him. Abou Jahjah had called the 9/11 attacks sweet revenge, said Europe made the cult of the Holocaust and Jew-worshiping its alternative religion, and called gays Aids-spreading faggots. He is now banned in the U.K.

Campaigned for the release of Jawad Botmeh and Samar Alami, who were convicted in Britain in 1996 for bombing the Israeli Embassy in London and one of the countrys largest Jewish charities.

Taken together, this pattern of behavior suggests a blind spot for anti-Jewish prejudice at best, and incredibly poor judgment in allies and associates at the very least. After all, it is entirely possible to campaign against imperialism and other Western ills without legitimizing anti-Jewish bigots in the halls of parliament. (Suffice to say, if Donald Trump had engaged in such conduct, it would be national news and rightly so.)

If British Jews have taken note of Corbyns dalliances with anti-Semites, so have British anti-Semites, many of whom have flocked to Corbyns banner. Under his leadership,scores of party officials have had to besuspended or expelled for anti-Semitic hate,in most cases only after media coverageforced the partys hand. Some of these Corbyn supporters have been captured claiming Israel was behind ISIS or 9/11 or the Sandy Hook Massacre, or asserting that Jewish bankers control Britain.

Most damning for Corbyn, however, has been the anti-Jewish bigotry expressed by his key associates and backers. One such supporter is Jackie Walker, a leader of Momentum, the far-left activistgroup that forms the backbone of Corbyns base. Walker is a committed Corbyn backer. She alsoclaimsthat Jews were the chief financiers of the African slave trade, a classic anti-Semitic canard long debunked by historians; has criticized Britains Holocaust Memorial Day; and said she hasnt heard a definition of anti-Semitism thatIcanwork with. After her comment about the slave trade, she was suspended by the party, but by the end of the month, she was reinstated, even as she refused to apologize or retract her bigoted claim. Walkerremained vice-chair of Momentum for months, until her remarks about anti-Semitism and Holocaust Memorial Day led her to be restricted to a less public role on the organizations steering committee. If Corbyn has any problem with his support base being led by an anti-Semite, he has kept it to himself. He has not even criticized Walkers slave trade slur. She remains a Labour party member in good standing.

Then there is former London mayor Ken Livingstone, whom Corbyn personally appointed to oversee a defense policy review. Livingstone had a long record of problematic entanglements with Jews, but this did not deterthe Labour leader from selecting him. Predictably, Livingstone soon imploded in a blaze of anti-Semitic rhetoric and Holocaust revisionism, asserting on live TV that Hitler was a Zionist, that Zionist Jews collaborated with Hitlergross distortions of the historical recordand that a real anti-Semite doesnt just hate the Jews in Israel. Corbyn initially waffled on whether to suspend Livingstone from Labour, and was captured on video running away from a reporter asking him about it. Ultimately, Livingstone received a slap on the wrist from the party, which barred him from holding office for one year, but didnt suspend or expel him from membership. This led 100 of Labours MPs to publiclydenounce their own party for failing to combat anti-Semitism.

This conduct of Corbyns confidants and base, often with his tacit approval, has contributed to a toxic environment for Jewish politicians and journalists during his tenure. In one famous instance, Jewish Labour MP Ruth Smeeth was publicly accused of being part of a media conspiracy against Corbyn by a Momentum activist at a party event, while Corbyn stood by and said nothing. Smeeth walked out and later issued an emotional statement:Until today I had made no public comment about Jeremys ability to lead our party, but the fact that he failed to intervene is final proof for me that he is unfit to lead, and that a Labour Party under his stewardship cannot be a safe space for British Jews. The vitriol has extended to non-Jewish critics of Corbyn as well. After Labours Sadiq Khan, Londons first Muslim mayor, endorsed a challenger to Corbyns leadership, he was hitwith anti-Semitic abuse on social media insinuating that he was under Jewish control. (Khan had previously criticized Corbyn for failing to adequately confront anti-Semitism in the party ranks.)

Journalists, and particularly Jewish ones, have similarlybeen targeted by Corbyns most zealous supporters, not unlike U.S. journalists who critically covered Donald Trumps campaign. Thisanti-media direction comes from the top. Much like Trump, Corbyn has oftenhad harsher words for those in the presswho have covered racists in his base than he has had for the racists themselves. Thus, after leftist Guardian columnist Jonathan Freedland, one of Britains most prominent Jewish journalists, criticized Corbyns associations with anti-Semitic individuals, Corbyn was caughton tape grousing, The big negative today is Jonathan Freedland in the Guardian Labour has a problem with anti-Semitism under Corbyn. Utterly disgusting subliminal nastiness, you know. Hes not a good guy at all. He seems kind of obsessed with me, you know?

Just this week,Jewish journalist Emma Barnett was subject to a torrent of abuse on social mediaanti-Semitic and otherwiseafter she interviewed Corbyn about childcare on the BBC and he appeared unable to answer some of her questions. To his credit, Corbyn apologized for her treatment by his supporters. Thathe only publicly repudiated this conduct days before an impendingelection, however, does not inspire much confidence, though it is a testimony to how blatant the abuse has become that he was forced to do so.

Corbyn has thus left progressive Jews with a profoundly unpalatable choice, pinned between the party whose ideology they share and its disquieting leaderand his most zealous supporters. One does not envy their decision.

Previous: Not In My Name: 100 Labour MPs Denounce Party For Failing to Confront Anti-SemitismJackie Walker Cant Stop Saying Offensive Things About JewsJeremy Corbyn Slams Jewish Journalist for Writing About Anti-Semitism in Labour PartyLabour Officials Suspended After Claiming Jews Were Behind African Slave Trade, Israel Behind ISISLabour Party Suspends Three More Officials for Anti-Semitism The Anti-Semitism Scandal Engulfing the Labour Party Was Entirely Predictable Meet Jeremy Corbyn, the New Leader of Britains Labour Party

Yair Rosenberg is a senior writer at Tablet and the editor of the English-language blog of the Israeli National Archives. Follow him on Twitter and Facebook.

Originally posted here:
To begin with, Corbyn has a long history of unsavory associations with anti-Semites. Among other exploits, he has – Tablet Magazine

Fair Usage Law

May 30, 2017   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed

on stage: Playcrafters presents ‘Denial’ a play about the holocaust and those who deny it – The Phoenix

Did the Holocaust really happen? Does one have a legal right to deny it?

Are there historical revisionists who want the whole incident to fade away or be relegated to a mere fairy tale and why?

These are some of the questions that ran through playwright Peter Sagals mind when he wrote the riveting legal drama about one of the most egregious times in human history. His two-act stage play, Denial, casts an introspective lens into the atrocity that was the Holocaust, and as Sagal says, explores the conflict between justice and morality.

Ubiquitous in the entertainment field from NPR host and comedian, to actor, director, and prolific writer, Sagal chose the subject matter for his play by way of a loose association with a real life Holocaust denier who penned, The Hoax of the 20th Century in 1973.

Advertisement

Sagals fictionalized version is set in a legal office in California. The year is 1990 when Bernard Cooper (played by Mark Ayers) is a college professor of engineering whose personal effects are confiscated by the FBI. When brought in for prosecution, Jewish lawyer Abigail Gersten (played by Margo Weishar), a specialist in the 1st amendment, is requested by the ACLU to defend Cooperan anti-Semite who alleges his free-speech rights have been usurped by an overbearing government when he says the Holocaust was a perpetrated fiction designed by Jews to malign der Fhrer (German autocrats). Now hes being sued for inciting a riot.

Adding to the drama is young Jewish zealot Adam Ryberg (played by Sean Collins) who is the prosecuting attorney and questions Abigails moral compass for defending the indefensible whom she defends as much as detests. Humorous elements are lent by Stefanie (played by Carlene Lawson), the secretary whose presence adds even another layer of prejudice to the whole fiasco.

Its not an easy show emotions are raw, says Director Arnie Finkel. But its a show with a message that everyone should hear.

Rounding out the cast are two holocaust survivors, Noah (played by Julian Bonner) and Nathan (played by Dan Gudema).

While the story line is dramatic and speaks to mans inhumanity to man, there are some lighter moments within the play, including music. The set is an interesting layout shaped in a labyrinth as opposed to the traditional straight line and is produced by Cathy Carroll and Ro Carpenter.

The compelling plot takes some stunning twists and will leave the audience in rapt attention while it highlights the human condition in all of its facetsmorality and legality among them. In understanding how the world works, its important to focus on how to change the flaws in mans corruptible human nature that would conjure such prejudice and injustice. First, it must be accounted for and recognized for what it is.

Theres no answer to holocaust deniers, Finkel says. Hopefully, it will make us think.

If you go:

Playcrafters presents

Denial

at the Barn

2011 Store Road at Skippack Pike

Skippack, PA

June 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 15, 16, 17 @ 8 p.m.

June 11 @ 3 p.m.

Info: www.playcrafters.org

Phone: 610-584-4005

Tickets: $17.

Here is the original post:
on stage: Playcrafters presents ‘Denial’ a play about the holocaust and those who deny it – The Phoenix

Fair Usage Law

May 29, 2017   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed

8 Embarrassing Things Trump Did on His European Tour – Google (press release)

WASHINGTON: For nine days, Donald Trump has been traveling across the Middle East and Europe, bringing every terrible stereotype about ugly Americans to vivid life. He labeled Germany (where he doesnt have business interests) very bad after saying nary a critical word in Saudi Arabia (where he does have business interests). He chastised our partners in NATO while revealing he doesnt actually understand how it all works. He literally threw his weight around like an attention-starved problem child, and he broadcast his every move to the world via his cellphone, which would be a security risk if we had a president anyone wanted to kidnap.

Mostlywhen he wasnt trading arms for political and personal gainTrump acted like an embarrassing boor. He cant help proving that he and his followers are the punchlines to a joke the rest of the world is laughing at.

Here are eight examples.

1. Lied to the new French president about supporting him in the election even though its really easy to find out he didnt.

You were my guy,” Trump reportedly said to newly elected French president Emmanuel Macron, a quote that suggests the president doesnt know many of us have eyes and ears and internets that prove hes lying. For someone so practiced at lying, the president remains terrible at it.

While Trump never explicitly endorsed noted Islamophobe, Holocaust revisionist and French National Front leader Marine Le Pen, he gushed over her racist bonafides during the French election. “She’s the strongest on borders, and she’s the strongest on what’s been going on in France,” he said in an April interview with the Associated Press. “Whoever is the toughest on radical Islamic terrorism, and whoever is the toughest at the borders, will do well in the election.”

On April 21, a couple days shy of the first round of voting, and 24 hours after the shooting of a police officer on the Champs-lyses, Trump tweeted, Another terrorist attack in Paris. The people of France will not take much more of this. Will have a big effect on presidential election!

2. Tried to pull that weird, aggressive handshake move with Macron and failed.

Probably because of his insecurity about his wittle Vulgarian fingers, Trump turns every handshake into a textbook display of macho posturing and heterosexual male insecurity. Its happened enough times now that word has gotten around, and Macron had reportedly been forewarned by French ambassador Grard Araud. The result, as you can see in a video below, was that Macron was fully ready for a hands-only cagematch and Trump found himself out-muscled by his French counterpart. Quelle tristesse!

3. Tried the handshake thing again with Macron. Failed again.

Arriving at NATO headquarters, Macron doubled down, and then tripled down on his Trump diss. First, as Macron walked toward Trump in a cluster of world leaders, he did a super conspicuous dodge of the U.S. president and instead veered toward German chancellor Angela Merkel and also anyone not named Donald Trump. Only after Macron ran out of ways to avoid Trump did he finally take Trumps extended hand, but immediately turned the American presidents yank-and-pull tactic against him. Watching the video, below, you can almost hear every single person thinking, is this guy for real?

4. Asked Macron for his private cellphone number.

Of course, it makes sense that Trump would develop a new respect, and probably a reverence for anyone who beats him in a pissing match. After repeatedly witnessing Macrons feats of strength, Trump turned fanboy and decided he wanted Macron for a new best friend. “Do you want my cell phone [number] so we can speak directly to each other?” Trump reportedly asked the big, strong Frenchman.

5. Physically pushed Montenegros leader out of his way.

Trump wanted to be in the front row when pictures were taken so he pushed his way to the front of the crowd of assembled leaders. That included shoving Montenegro Prime Minister Duko Markovi to one side. A lot was written about Trumps offensive behavior, but CNN pointed out a mostly overlooked bit about NATO, Montenegro and Trumps idol, Vladimir Putin:

This was Markovic’s and Montenegro’s first NATO summit. The tiny Balkan country has just been accepted into the alliance, much to Moscow’s chagrin. How much chagrin? Authorities in Montenegro say they stopped a Russian-backed plot to kill Markovic’s predecessor, which was aimed at preventing Montenegro from joining NATO. They have arrested 14 people, including two Russians. (Russia denies involvement.) The plot, prosecutors say, sought to install a new government loyal to Russia and opposed to Montenegro’s efforts to grow closer to the West and to NATO. The plot failed, and now Montenegro is becoming NATO’s 29th member.

Watch how, after bullying his way to the front, cocky Trump tugs on his suit jacket with smug satisfaction. Because he is the absolute worst.

6. Made a NATO speech that gave world leaders a good, derisive laugh.

NATO members must finally contribute their fair share and meet their financial obligations, Trump said in a lecture he delivered at NATO headquarters. But 23 of the 28 member nations are still not paying what they should be paying, and what they are supposed to be paying, for their defense. This is not fair to the people and taxpayers of the United States.

Trump seems to think NATO is like a social club, with member nations paying dues into some central kitty. It isnt. A 2014 agreement established that member countries should be spending 2 percent of their GDP on their own military defense. Those countries have until 2024 to hit that goal. Trump is trying to be the worlds policeman on a policy thats neither set in stone nor even a concern for another seven years. Its also rich coming from someone whose most noted business practice is refusal to pay his debts.

The speech went over like a lead balloon with assembled world leaders, who smirked, snickered and whispered to each other as Trump spoke. In the video below, Luxembourgs Xavier Bettel and Frances Macron seem to share a giggle at Trumps expense.

And I never asked once what the new NATO headquarters cost, Trump added. I refuse to do that.

Heres Angela Merkel looking rightly annoyed.

You can see the stifled giggles on the faces of Estonian prime minister Jri Ratas, Croatian president Kolinda Grabar-Kitarovic, Lithuanian president Dalia Grybauskaite, German chancellor Angela Merkel, and French president Emmanuel Macron.

7. Riding in his golf cart while everyone else walks in Italy.

A summation of Trumps afternoon on Saturday, from the Times of London:

The distance between Donald Trump and his G7 partners was spelled out dramatically today when Theresa May and the leaders of Italy, France, Germany, Japan and Canada strolled the streets of Taormina, Sicily while he followed in a golf cart.

The six are planning to put pressure on Mr. Trump over his opposition to free trade and efforts to combat climate change. They walked the 700 yards from the traditional G7 group photo, taken at a Greek amphitheatre, to a piazza in the hilltop town, but Mr. Trump stayed behind until he could take a seat in the electric vehicle.

He had been the last to arrive for the photo, keeping the others waiting at the amphitheatre

“She doesn’t have the stamina, Trump, probably on the verge of being winded, said of Hillary Clinton last year. I said she doesn’t have the stamina, and I don’t believe she does have the stamina.”

8. Complained that he hasnt been given carte blanche to make a fast buck in Europe.

Every time we talk about a country, he remembered the things he had done. Scotland? He said he had opened a club. Ireland? He said it took him two and a half years to get a license and that did not give him a very good image of the European Union, according to a source who spoke with Belgian outlet Le Soir. One feels that he wants a system where everything can be realized very quickly and without formalities.

(Kali Holloway is a senior writer and the associate editor of media and culture at AlterNet. This article has been made possible because of the readers and supporters of AlterNet)

Read the original post:
8 Embarrassing Things Trump Did on His European Tour – Google (press release)

Fair Usage Law

May 29, 2017   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed

Facebook moderators being told not to remove Holocaust denial – Jewish News

Facebook moderators are being told not to remove Holocaust denial or revisionism even in countries where that is illegal, according to leaked internal documents.

The guidance notes, published in The Guardian, show that the company does not remove offensive content in ten of the 14 countries where Holocaust denial is illegal, and that it only removes it in the others because of the threat of legal action.

By way of an example, one document says a picture of a concentration camp with the caption Never again believe the lies would be allowed if posted anywhere other than in Israel, France, Germany or Austria.

The Facebook documents, which include training manuals, reveals that the social media site will use geo-blocking only when a country has taken sufficient steps to demonstrate that the local legislation permits censorship in that specific case.

Citing a defence of free speech, it says Facebook does not welcome local law that stands as an obstacle to an open and connected world and will only consider blocking or hiding Holocaust denial comments and images if we face the risk of getting blocked in a country or a legal risk.

It continues: Some 14 countries have legislation on their books prohibiting the expression of claims that the volume of death and severity of the Holocaust is overestimated. Less than half the countries with these laws actually pursue it. We block on report only in those countries that actively pursue the issue with us.

Monika Bickert, head of global policy management at Facebook, said: Whether reported by government entities or individual users, we remove content that violates our community standards.

Read this article:
Facebook moderators being told not to remove Holocaust denial – Jewish News

Fair Usage Law

May 24, 2017   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed

British Labour leader’s worrying ties to Holocaust deniers – Ynetnews

An investigation published on Sunday by British newspaper The Telegraph revealed that Labour Party Leader Jeremy Corbyn, who is considered anti-Israeli and was accused in the past of anti-Semitism, was a loyal supporter of the anti-Israel campaign group Deir Yassin Remembered (DYR) years after its organizers were exposed publicly for their extreme anti-Semitic views.

“While there is no suggestion Mr. Corbyn shares their views, his association raises serious questions about his judgment,” wrote the Telegraph.

Labour Party Leader Jeremy Corbyn (Photo: GettyImages)

Kaffash added that Corbyn was “a very important supporter” of DYR, saying that although she does not believe that he was not aware of what Eisen’s or her views were, she does not think that he is Holocaust denier nor an anti-Semite.

Photo: Reuters

Corbyn himself stated that had he known Mr Eisen was a Holocaust denier he would have had nothing to do with DYR, claiming he was utterly unaware of his views.

Corbyn is not a stranger to this sort of controversy. Though regretting it later, he was criticized for saying that he regards militant groups Hamas and Hezbollah as “friends,” saying that their labeling by the British government as terror groups is a “historical mistake.”

Corbyn was also involved in a major crisis last year after claims spread that he did little to counter reports of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party, and even reportedly got angry when his team told him he needed to improve relations with the Jewish community.

(Translated & edited by Lior Mor)

Follow this link:
British Labour leader’s worrying ties to Holocaust deniers – Ynetnews

Fair Usage Law

May 22, 2017   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed

Mussolini in Lower Manhattan – The Villager


The Villager
Mussolini in Lower Manhattan
The Villager
I was deeply chagrined that sharing the stage with Atzmon (who has a website full of Holocaust revisionism and recycles every anti-Semitic trope about Jews and world domination) was attorney Stanley Cohen, long a hero on the Lower East Side for his …

Continued here:
Mussolini in Lower Manhattan – The Villager

Fair Usage Law

May 18, 2017   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed

How fake news is destroying transparency on the internet – Irish Times

Many of the early, optimistic assumptions about how the internet would create a public sphere with greater openness, transparency and accuracy have been battered by how it has actually been used and abused, according to Frank Pasquale, professor of law at the University of Maryland.

During a talk, The Automated Public Sphere, last week at Berlins digital culture festival Re:publica, Pasquale said that fake news stories, the spread of propaganda, secret sponsors behind what we see and read, and hashtag flooding (using hashtags to flood searches on a topic) had all damaged utopian ideas about the public benefits of the internet.

We were told the internet would empower everyone and reduce the dominance of mainstream media, but it has also encouraged extremism, he says. It promised openness, but lets influence go unchecked and unmonitored because it is difficult to figure out who is actually funding and supporting many websites.

He also notes that academic researchers have established that tens of thousands of posts to social-media sites during the American presidential election came from automated bots. Hundreds of fake stories were shared.

The use of so-called dark ads (promoted but unpublished posts, visible only to followers of a Facebook page) and ad personalisation directly targeted certain types of content to those who are most susceptible to it because such content and news stories appeared in an individuals personal news feed where a wider community could neither see the posts nor refute them.

So, you can accelerate propaganda, as well as accelerate truth, he says.

While some fake news stories rightly appear ridiculous to most such as the pizzagate story that claimed Hillary Clinton and others were secretly running a child-abuse ring in the back of a popular Washington DC pizza restaurant there are susceptible audiences.

We have to worry a great deal about floating voters, low education voters, voters at the edge of the political process being susceptible, he says. Sometimes the goal is simply to create doubt, so that some voters never vote at all.

On Facebook, everything looks the same, and appears with the same level of authority on a newsfeed, but this provides a debased egalitarianism. And theres little incentive for tech giants to rush to address the problem. Profits are linked to the proliferation of fake news: Sensational lies and outrage cycles promote user engagement.

Rhetoric in the US again, largely from the tech industry about the need to have one unbroken, unified internet deters addressing the problem. The common assertion is that introducing regulation and oversight means you will break the internet, Pasquale says.

And deregulation is very disingenuous because deregulation is a lie. You essentially cede power to massive corporations to be de facto regulators. Facebook and Google are effectively the regulators but acting in ways without public accountability.

He is also very worried that the US-centric view of the world is overinfluencing international bodies, when culturally specific models are needed.

What could be done to improve the situation?

Labelling, monitoring and explaining hate-driven, biased search results is Pasquales first suggestion. He points to the rise of alt-right and Holocaust revisionism, the expert gaming of search results by the extreme right so that a Google search on topics such as the Holocaust returns false stories as top results.

Autocomplete bias, where a partially typed in search query returns hate-driven suggestions for completing the search phrase, is also an issue. Whole racial groups have hate-filled autocompletes, he said.

After Charleston church shooter Dylann Roof had googled subjects such as black on white crime and seen racist autocompletes and fake news that suggested white genocide was a possibility, he murdered nine people in a historically black church. And the fake pizzagate story reportedly originated in a white supremacists tweet.

To address the problem, automatic logs could reveal where such information originates, which also could be crucial to rapid responses and information take-downs by tech companies before a gunman goes to a location, as happened after the proliferation of the pizzagate story.

We should require immutable audit logs, Pasquale says. Silicon Valley experts say the internet is now so complicated that laws can never catch up, but I think its very important . . . that we push back immediately. We cannot adopt this condescending mode that the coding sphere is too complicated for the rest of us to understand. We can at least have logs of the data that are influencing certain results on Google and could help identify certain sources of information.

Google continues to maintain it doesnt want human interference with its algorithms, he says. So often in tech companies, anything involving a human is seen as a defect.

But Pasquale says restoring human editors is also an inevitable part of this process. Failure to keep human editors has led to the proliferation of fake news. We have to restore the integrity of journalism as a profession, not merely as a source of piecework, propaganda and PR.

He says we need some sort of analysis and labelling process for data, which shouldnt be that alien a concept. We already accept labelling of drugs and food, he says.

What we need as a second step in the information economy is, we need to have information about the information we get. That would help us decide what news we are going to trust, and what feeds are we going to follow. Too often, technology giants use assertions of trade secrecy to block offering any transparency about their algorithms and what they do.

Entities meaning news organisations and websites as well as search platforms have to recognise people may only be reading the headlines on search returns, which may imply a fake story is a real story. Even a story-verification website such as Snopes contributes to this problem because a search produces a result that is just a headline that states the fake story. This may then be shown to be false within a Snopes article, but many people never read the story.

The public probably need intermediaries sites such as Google and Facebook, which carry the stories and headlines and links to assess and address such problems, and some of the funding for such an exercise probably has to come from intermediaries themselves, especially as more and more revenue goes to intermediaries, not the media organisations supplying the news they link to.

He thinks further development of a principle such as the EUs right to be forgotten to have links to irrelevant or outdated information removed from search engines has a place, too.

I know it is controversial and that there are concerns in the press about links being removed to factual stories or information, but he thinks that in individual cases a humane, compassionate response . . . is for the intermediary to intervene.

Many people dont understand the difference between sponsored content and organic content. These basic levels of media literacy should be taught in school to children from about age nine on, Pasquale believes.

And just addressing the filter bubble where people increasingly only see news that aligns with and reinforces their existing point of view, thanks to social media and search algorithms doesnt work.

He points to factually misleading tweets from Fox News (although he notes something similarly misleading could come from left-wing news sources) and says offering such posts isnt a proper counterbalance.

The problem here is [that] modulation presumes rational deliberation.

He argues that his suggested modes of regulation would enable us to move a bit closer to a better modulated, more legitimate public sphere.

He adds: Its really a plea for structure. The current process offers little structure and is instead one of extreme corporate power.

Go here to read the rest:
How fake news is destroying transparency on the internet – Irish Times

Fair Usage Law

May 18, 2017   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed

Mark Oppenheimer: What’s good about odious speech – Winona Daily News

In 2009, I interviewed Mark Weber and Bradley Smith, two amateur historians notorious for being among the leading Holocaust revisionists. Smith is an old-school denier, dubious about the existence of gas chambers, while Weber merely believes that Jews exaggerate history to help consolidate Zionist power.

I interviewed Weber in his offices outside Los Angeles, and Smith at a coffee shop close to the border of Mexico, where he lived. In each case I went alone. Although I wasnt afraid neither had a history of physical violence meeting with two men whod spent their professional lives spinning theories about the perfidy of my people was, at the least, a bit creepy. Lets put it this way: I hugged my wife extra tight before leaving home.

Lately, Ive been reminiscing about my time with Smith and Weber, and not just because white nationalists now have a president who they feel is sympathetic to their cause. Rather, the triggering event, if you will, is the national debate about how to confront speech we find odious.

On college campuses across the country, students have reacted with fear and anger to the possibility that far-right (or even slightly right) thinkers might speak some words somewhere in their vicinity. At Middlebury College, students violently protested a talk featuring Charles Murray, author of The Bell Curve, a 1994 book that many call racist. At Claremont McKenna College, protesters shut down a speech by Heather Mac Donald, whose recent book defends police officers. Ann Coulter had to cancel a speech at UC Berkeley.

Protesters have not argued these speakers pose an immediate physical threat to students of color, or women, or anybody. Instead, they posit that its wrong or somehow psychically damaging to allow certain views a platform.

At Wellesley College, for example, a student editorial in March insinuated that Laura Kipnis new book, which questions how Title IX is applied to sexual life on campuses, undermines the existence and rights of others. Students at Claremont McKenna, and the other four colleges in Pomona, wrote a letter stating that merely engaging with Mac Donald is a form of violence.

The same logic undergirds the vicious campaign against philosopher Rebecca Tuvel, who recently published an article using the analogy of trans people to interrogate the transracialism of Rachel Dolezal, the white woman who famously passed as black. In a letter to Hypatia, the feminist journal that published Tuvels article, hundreds of signatories argued that the articles failures of scholarship do harm to the communities who might expect better from Hypatia. The articles continued availability, they claimed, causes further harm.

Unquestionably, words can, and do, cause harm. Im not interested in lending support to policies that I despise. But free speech is an important value, one that protects everyone with unpopular views: critics of Israel, defenders of revolutionary movements, anti-vaccine activists. Those who run from unpopular views, moreover, may ultimately harm themselves.

Let me return to the question everyone asked me in 2009: What was it like to meet with Holocaust revisionists? And then spend many more hours on the telephone, listening to their cracked, sinister theories about me, my relatives, my dead co-religionists?

Truth be told, it was invigorating. They were so deluded, so sad, and so alone in the world. Their lives were tangled webs of failed ambitions, failed ideas, even failed marriages. They werent well. I was. It was heartening to listen to my enemies respectfully, and conclude that in a country that permits free inquiry, they would never win.

Interviewing Smith and Weber two men who downplay the literal genocide of my people; who dehumanize me more profoundly than even Murrays critics believe that he dehumanizes others actually empowered me as a thinker, as a progressive, and as a Jew. Having looked at evil, I found it puny. We can beat this, I found myself thinking.

I dont think that can be everyones response to every speaker. There are good reasons that a victim of sexual violence might avoid speeches that could trigger memories of the assault. Victims of police violence might carefully consider how theyd feel listening to a speaker who plays down their experience. A concentration-camp survivor might not, to put it mildly, be the right person to interview Smith and Weber.

Each person has to be her own best judge of what experiences will be valuable, detrimental, painful or simply a waste of time. Id skip Coulter because I know what I think of her views. Id rather read a novel or scramble some eggs.

But imagine if, instead of protesting Mac Donalds speech at Claremont, students had waited until she finished, taken the microphone, and then described the abuses theyd experienced at the hands of police officers?

They might have changed her mind, if only a little. But even if they hadnt, theyd have used their experience to shrink hers. Theyd have said, You dont scare us. Theyd have enlarged the scope of their world, and theyd have done so as allies of free speech. And I suspect that theyd have left the room emboldened, ready for the next time.

Mark Oppenheimer is a contributing writer to the Los Angeles Times opinion section and the author of three books, most recently Wisenheimer: A Childhood Subject to Debate.

Excerpt from:
Mark Oppenheimer: What’s good about odious speech – Winona Daily News

Fair Usage Law

May 15, 2017   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed

Column: What?s good about odious speech – Bend Bulletin

In 2009, I interviewed Mark Weber and Bradley Smith, two amateur historians notorious for being among the leading Holocaust revisionists. Smith is an old-school denier, dubious about the existence of gas chambers, while Weber merely believes that Jews exaggerate history to help consolidate Zionist power.

I interviewed Weber in his offices outside Los Angeles, and Smith at a coffee shop close to the border of Mexico, where he lived. In each case, I went alone. Although I wasnt afraid neither had a history of physical violence meeting with two men whod spent their professional lives spinning theories about the perfidy of my people was, at the least, a bit creepy. Lets put it this way: I hugged my wife extra-tight before leaving home.

Lately, Ive been reminiscing about my time with Smith and Weber, and not just because white nationalists have a president who they feel is sympathetic to their cause. Rather, the triggering event, if you will, is the national debate about how to confront speech we find odious.

On college campuses across the country, students have reacted with fear and anger to the possibility that far-right (or even slightly right) thinkers might speak some words somewhere in their vicinity. At Middlebury College, students violently protested a talk featuring Charles Murray, author of The Bell Curve, a 1994 book that many call racist. At Claremont McKenna College, protesters shut down a speech by Heather Mac Donald, whose recent book defends police officers. Ann Coulter had to cancel a speech at UC Berkeley.

Protesters have not argued these speakers pose an immediate physical threat to students of color, or women, or anybody. Instead, they posit that its wrong or somehow psychically damaging to allow certain views a platform.

Unquestionably, words can, and do, cause harm. Im not interested in lending support to policies that I despise. But free speech is an important value, one that protects everyone with unpopular views.

Let me return to the question everyone asked me in 2009: What was it like to meet with Holocaust revisionists? And then spend many more hours on the telephone, listening to their cracked, sinister theories about me, my relatives, my dead co-religionists?

Truth be told, it was invigorating. They were so deluded, so sad, and so alone in the world. Their lives were tangled webs of failed ambitions, failed ideas, even failed marriages. They werent well. I was. It was heartening to listen to my enemies respectfully, and conclude that in a country that permits free inquiry, they would never win.

Interviewing Smith and Weber two men who downplay the literal genocide of my people; who dehumanize me more profoundly than even Murrays critics believe that he dehumanizes others empowered me as a thinker, as a progressive, and as a Jew. Having looked at evil, I found it puny. We can beat this, I found myself thinking.

Mark Oppenheimer, a contributing writer to the Los Angeles Times opinion section, is the host of the podcast Unorthodox.

Excerpt from:
Column: What?s good about odious speech – Bend Bulletin

Fair Usage Law

May 13, 2017   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed

To begin with, Corbyn has a long history of unsavory associations with anti-Semites. Among other exploits, he has – Tablet Magazine

On June 8, the United Kingdom will hold its general election. Today, the London Jewish Chronicle released its polling on the Jewish vote in the upcoming contest, and the numbers are stark. 77 percent of British Jews say they will vote for Theresa Mays Conservatives, with just 13 percent voting for the opposition Labour party. For comparison, the 2016 exit poll by the Council on American-Islamic Relations showed that Donald Trump received13 percent of the Muslimvote. What has driven British Jews to flee Labour like minorities who fledthe Republican party under Trump? As in the United States, this exodus is significantlyattributable to the partys radicalleader, in this case, Jeremy Corbyn. In fact, a whopping54 percent of Jews surveyed said they would be more likely to vote for Labour if Corbynwere not in charge. Who then is Corbyn, and why are British Jews so repelled by him? To begin with, Corbynhas a long history of unsavory associations with anti-Semites. Among other exploits, he has: Donated to the organization of Paul Eisen, a Holocaust denier, and appeared at his events. He later claimed he was unaware of Eisens unsavory views, despite 15 years of association. Defended vicar Stephen Sizer, who disseminated materials arguing the Mossad did 9/11, after he was banned from social media by the Church of England for posting anti-Semitic material. Praised preacher Raed Salah and invited him to parliament. Salah claims that Jews make their Passover matzoh with gentile blood, that Jews had foreknowledge of 9/11, andthat homosexuality is a great crime. He has been banned from the U.K. for anti-Semitic incitement. Invited activist Dyab Abou Jahjah to parliament and spoke alongside him. Abou Jahjah had called the 9/11 attacks sweet revenge, said Europe made the cult of the Holocaust and Jew-worshiping its alternative religion, and called gays Aids-spreading faggots. He is now banned in the U.K. Campaigned for the release of Jawad Botmeh and Samar Alami, who were convicted in Britain in 1996 for bombing the Israeli Embassy in London and one of the countrys largest Jewish charities. Taken together, this pattern of behavior suggests a blind spot for anti-Jewish prejudice at best, and incredibly poor judgment in allies and associates at the very least. After all, it is entirely possible to campaign against imperialism and other Western ills without legitimizing anti-Jewish bigots in the halls of parliament. (Suffice to say, if Donald Trump had engaged in such conduct, it would be national news and rightly so.) If British Jews have taken note of Corbyns dalliances with anti-Semites, so have British anti-Semites, many of whom have flocked to Corbyns banner. Under his leadership,scores of party officials have had to besuspended or expelled for anti-Semitic hate,in most cases only after media coverageforced the partys hand. Some of these Corbyn supporters have been captured claiming Israel was behind ISIS or 9/11 or the Sandy Hook Massacre, or asserting that Jewish bankers control Britain. Most damning for Corbyn, however, has been the anti-Jewish bigotry expressed by his key associates and backers. One such supporter is Jackie Walker, a leader of Momentum, the far-left activistgroup that forms the backbone of Corbyns base. Walker is a committed Corbyn backer. She alsoclaimsthat Jews were the chief financiers of the African slave trade, a classic anti-Semitic canard long debunked by historians; has criticized Britains Holocaust Memorial Day; and said she hasnt heard a definition of anti-Semitism thatIcanwork with. After her comment about the slave trade, she was suspended by the party, but by the end of the month, she was reinstated, even as she refused to apologize or retract her bigoted claim. Walkerremained vice-chair of Momentum for months, until her remarks about anti-Semitism and Holocaust Memorial Day led her to be restricted to a less public role on the organizations steering committee. If Corbyn has any problem with his support base being led by an anti-Semite, he has kept it to himself. He has not even criticized Walkers slave trade slur. She remains a Labour party member in good standing. Then there is former London mayor Ken Livingstone, whom Corbyn personally appointed to oversee a defense policy review. Livingstone had a long record of problematic entanglements with Jews, but this did not deterthe Labour leader from selecting him. Predictably, Livingstone soon imploded in a blaze of anti-Semitic rhetoric and Holocaust revisionism, asserting on live TV that Hitler was a Zionist, that Zionist Jews collaborated with Hitlergross distortions of the historical recordand that a real anti-Semite doesnt just hate the Jews in Israel. Corbyn initially waffled on whether to suspend Livingstone from Labour, and was captured on video running away from a reporter asking him about it. Ultimately, Livingstone received a slap on the wrist from the party, which barred him from holding office for one year, but didnt suspend or expel him from membership. This led 100 of Labours MPs to publiclydenounce their own party for failing to combat anti-Semitism. This conduct of Corbyns confidants and base, often with his tacit approval, has contributed to a toxic environment for Jewish politicians and journalists during his tenure. In one famous instance, Jewish Labour MP Ruth Smeeth was publicly accused of being part of a media conspiracy against Corbyn by a Momentum activist at a party event, while Corbyn stood by and said nothing. Smeeth walked out and later issued an emotional statement:Until today I had made no public comment about Jeremys ability to lead our party, but the fact that he failed to intervene is final proof for me that he is unfit to lead, and that a Labour Party under his stewardship cannot be a safe space for British Jews. The vitriol has extended to non-Jewish critics of Corbyn as well. After Labours Sadiq Khan, Londons first Muslim mayor, endorsed a challenger to Corbyns leadership, he was hitwith anti-Semitic abuse on social media insinuating that he was under Jewish control. (Khan had previously criticized Corbyn for failing to adequately confront anti-Semitism in the party ranks.) Journalists, and particularly Jewish ones, have similarlybeen targeted by Corbyns most zealous supporters, not unlike U.S. journalists who critically covered Donald Trumps campaign. Thisanti-media direction comes from the top. Much like Trump, Corbyn has oftenhad harsher words for those in the presswho have covered racists in his base than he has had for the racists themselves. Thus, after leftist Guardian columnist Jonathan Freedland, one of Britains most prominent Jewish journalists, criticized Corbyns associations with anti-Semitic individuals, Corbyn was caughton tape grousing, The big negative today is Jonathan Freedland in the Guardian Labour has a problem with anti-Semitism under Corbyn. Utterly disgusting subliminal nastiness, you know. Hes not a good guy at all. He seems kind of obsessed with me, you know? Just this week,Jewish journalist Emma Barnett was subject to a torrent of abuse on social mediaanti-Semitic and otherwiseafter she interviewed Corbyn about childcare on the BBC and he appeared unable to answer some of her questions. To his credit, Corbyn apologized for her treatment by his supporters. Thathe only publicly repudiated this conduct days before an impendingelection, however, does not inspire much confidence, though it is a testimony to how blatant the abuse has become that he was forced to do so. Corbyn has thus left progressive Jews with a profoundly unpalatable choice, pinned between the party whose ideology they share and its disquieting leaderand his most zealous supporters. One does not envy their decision. Previous: Not In My Name: 100 Labour MPs Denounce Party For Failing to Confront Anti-SemitismJackie Walker Cant Stop Saying Offensive Things About JewsJeremy Corbyn Slams Jewish Journalist for Writing About Anti-Semitism in Labour PartyLabour Officials Suspended After Claiming Jews Were Behind African Slave Trade, Israel Behind ISISLabour Party Suspends Three More Officials for Anti-Semitism The Anti-Semitism Scandal Engulfing the Labour Party Was Entirely Predictable Meet Jeremy Corbyn, the New Leader of Britains Labour Party Yair Rosenberg is a senior writer at Tablet and the editor of the English-language blog of the Israeli National Archives. Follow him on Twitter and Facebook.

Fair Usage Law

May 30, 2017   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed

on stage: Playcrafters presents ‘Denial’ a play about the holocaust and those who deny it – The Phoenix

Did the Holocaust really happen? Does one have a legal right to deny it? Are there historical revisionists who want the whole incident to fade away or be relegated to a mere fairy tale and why? These are some of the questions that ran through playwright Peter Sagals mind when he wrote the riveting legal drama about one of the most egregious times in human history. His two-act stage play, Denial, casts an introspective lens into the atrocity that was the Holocaust, and as Sagal says, explores the conflict between justice and morality. Ubiquitous in the entertainment field from NPR host and comedian, to actor, director, and prolific writer, Sagal chose the subject matter for his play by way of a loose association with a real life Holocaust denier who penned, The Hoax of the 20th Century in 1973. Advertisement Sagals fictionalized version is set in a legal office in California. The year is 1990 when Bernard Cooper (played by Mark Ayers) is a college professor of engineering whose personal effects are confiscated by the FBI. When brought in for prosecution, Jewish lawyer Abigail Gersten (played by Margo Weishar), a specialist in the 1st amendment, is requested by the ACLU to defend Cooperan anti-Semite who alleges his free-speech rights have been usurped by an overbearing government when he says the Holocaust was a perpetrated fiction designed by Jews to malign der Fhrer (German autocrats). Now hes being sued for inciting a riot. Adding to the drama is young Jewish zealot Adam Ryberg (played by Sean Collins) who is the prosecuting attorney and questions Abigails moral compass for defending the indefensible whom she defends as much as detests. Humorous elements are lent by Stefanie (played by Carlene Lawson), the secretary whose presence adds even another layer of prejudice to the whole fiasco. Its not an easy show emotions are raw, says Director Arnie Finkel. But its a show with a message that everyone should hear. Rounding out the cast are two holocaust survivors, Noah (played by Julian Bonner) and Nathan (played by Dan Gudema). While the story line is dramatic and speaks to mans inhumanity to man, there are some lighter moments within the play, including music. The set is an interesting layout shaped in a labyrinth as opposed to the traditional straight line and is produced by Cathy Carroll and Ro Carpenter. The compelling plot takes some stunning twists and will leave the audience in rapt attention while it highlights the human condition in all of its facetsmorality and legality among them. In understanding how the world works, its important to focus on how to change the flaws in mans corruptible human nature that would conjure such prejudice and injustice. First, it must be accounted for and recognized for what it is. Theres no answer to holocaust deniers, Finkel says. Hopefully, it will make us think. If you go: Playcrafters presents Denial at the Barn 2011 Store Road at Skippack Pike Skippack, PA June 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 15, 16, 17 @ 8 p.m. June 11 @ 3 p.m. Info: www.playcrafters.org Phone: 610-584-4005 Tickets: $17.

Fair Usage Law

May 29, 2017   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed

8 Embarrassing Things Trump Did on His European Tour – Google (press release)

WASHINGTON: For nine days, Donald Trump has been traveling across the Middle East and Europe, bringing every terrible stereotype about ugly Americans to vivid life. He labeled Germany (where he doesnt have business interests) very bad after saying nary a critical word in Saudi Arabia (where he does have business interests). He chastised our partners in NATO while revealing he doesnt actually understand how it all works. He literally threw his weight around like an attention-starved problem child, and he broadcast his every move to the world via his cellphone, which would be a security risk if we had a president anyone wanted to kidnap. Mostlywhen he wasnt trading arms for political and personal gainTrump acted like an embarrassing boor. He cant help proving that he and his followers are the punchlines to a joke the rest of the world is laughing at. Here are eight examples. 1. Lied to the new French president about supporting him in the election even though its really easy to find out he didnt. You were my guy,” Trump reportedly said to newly elected French president Emmanuel Macron, a quote that suggests the president doesnt know many of us have eyes and ears and internets that prove hes lying. For someone so practiced at lying, the president remains terrible at it. While Trump never explicitly endorsed noted Islamophobe, Holocaust revisionist and French National Front leader Marine Le Pen, he gushed over her racist bonafides during the French election. “She’s the strongest on borders, and she’s the strongest on what’s been going on in France,” he said in an April interview with the Associated Press. “Whoever is the toughest on radical Islamic terrorism, and whoever is the toughest at the borders, will do well in the election.” On April 21, a couple days shy of the first round of voting, and 24 hours after the shooting of a police officer on the Champs-lyses, Trump tweeted, Another terrorist attack in Paris. The people of France will not take much more of this. Will have a big effect on presidential election! 2. Tried to pull that weird, aggressive handshake move with Macron and failed. Probably because of his insecurity about his wittle Vulgarian fingers, Trump turns every handshake into a textbook display of macho posturing and heterosexual male insecurity. Its happened enough times now that word has gotten around, and Macron had reportedly been forewarned by French ambassador Grard Araud. The result, as you can see in a video below, was that Macron was fully ready for a hands-only cagematch and Trump found himself out-muscled by his French counterpart. Quelle tristesse! 3. Tried the handshake thing again with Macron. Failed again. Arriving at NATO headquarters, Macron doubled down, and then tripled down on his Trump diss. First, as Macron walked toward Trump in a cluster of world leaders, he did a super conspicuous dodge of the U.S. president and instead veered toward German chancellor Angela Merkel and also anyone not named Donald Trump. Only after Macron ran out of ways to avoid Trump did he finally take Trumps extended hand, but immediately turned the American presidents yank-and-pull tactic against him. Watching the video, below, you can almost hear every single person thinking, is this guy for real? 4. Asked Macron for his private cellphone number. Of course, it makes sense that Trump would develop a new respect, and probably a reverence for anyone who beats him in a pissing match. After repeatedly witnessing Macrons feats of strength, Trump turned fanboy and decided he wanted Macron for a new best friend. “Do you want my cell phone [number] so we can speak directly to each other?” Trump reportedly asked the big, strong Frenchman. 5. Physically pushed Montenegros leader out of his way. Trump wanted to be in the front row when pictures were taken so he pushed his way to the front of the crowd of assembled leaders. That included shoving Montenegro Prime Minister Duko Markovi to one side. A lot was written about Trumps offensive behavior, but CNN pointed out a mostly overlooked bit about NATO, Montenegro and Trumps idol, Vladimir Putin: This was Markovic’s and Montenegro’s first NATO summit. The tiny Balkan country has just been accepted into the alliance, much to Moscow’s chagrin. How much chagrin? Authorities in Montenegro say they stopped a Russian-backed plot to kill Markovic’s predecessor, which was aimed at preventing Montenegro from joining NATO. They have arrested 14 people, including two Russians. (Russia denies involvement.) The plot, prosecutors say, sought to install a new government loyal to Russia and opposed to Montenegro’s efforts to grow closer to the West and to NATO. The plot failed, and now Montenegro is becoming NATO’s 29th member. Watch how, after bullying his way to the front, cocky Trump tugs on his suit jacket with smug satisfaction. Because he is the absolute worst. 6. Made a NATO speech that gave world leaders a good, derisive laugh. NATO members must finally contribute their fair share and meet their financial obligations, Trump said in a lecture he delivered at NATO headquarters. But 23 of the 28 member nations are still not paying what they should be paying, and what they are supposed to be paying, for their defense. This is not fair to the people and taxpayers of the United States. Trump seems to think NATO is like a social club, with member nations paying dues into some central kitty. It isnt. A 2014 agreement established that member countries should be spending 2 percent of their GDP on their own military defense. Those countries have until 2024 to hit that goal. Trump is trying to be the worlds policeman on a policy thats neither set in stone nor even a concern for another seven years. Its also rich coming from someone whose most noted business practice is refusal to pay his debts. The speech went over like a lead balloon with assembled world leaders, who smirked, snickered and whispered to each other as Trump spoke. In the video below, Luxembourgs Xavier Bettel and Frances Macron seem to share a giggle at Trumps expense. And I never asked once what the new NATO headquarters cost, Trump added. I refuse to do that. Heres Angela Merkel looking rightly annoyed. You can see the stifled giggles on the faces of Estonian prime minister Jri Ratas, Croatian president Kolinda Grabar-Kitarovic, Lithuanian president Dalia Grybauskaite, German chancellor Angela Merkel, and French president Emmanuel Macron. 7. Riding in his golf cart while everyone else walks in Italy. A summation of Trumps afternoon on Saturday, from the Times of London: The distance between Donald Trump and his G7 partners was spelled out dramatically today when Theresa May and the leaders of Italy, France, Germany, Japan and Canada strolled the streets of Taormina, Sicily while he followed in a golf cart. The six are planning to put pressure on Mr. Trump over his opposition to free trade and efforts to combat climate change. They walked the 700 yards from the traditional G7 group photo, taken at a Greek amphitheatre, to a piazza in the hilltop town, but Mr. Trump stayed behind until he could take a seat in the electric vehicle. He had been the last to arrive for the photo, keeping the others waiting at the amphitheatre “She doesn’t have the stamina, Trump, probably on the verge of being winded, said of Hillary Clinton last year. I said she doesn’t have the stamina, and I don’t believe she does have the stamina.” 8. Complained that he hasnt been given carte blanche to make a fast buck in Europe. Every time we talk about a country, he remembered the things he had done. Scotland? He said he had opened a club. Ireland? He said it took him two and a half years to get a license and that did not give him a very good image of the European Union, according to a source who spoke with Belgian outlet Le Soir. One feels that he wants a system where everything can be realized very quickly and without formalities. (Kali Holloway is a senior writer and the associate editor of media and culture at AlterNet. This article has been made possible because of the readers and supporters of AlterNet)

Fair Usage Law

May 29, 2017   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed

Facebook moderators being told not to remove Holocaust denial – Jewish News

Facebook moderators are being told not to remove Holocaust denial or revisionism even in countries where that is illegal, according to leaked internal documents. The guidance notes, published in The Guardian, show that the company does not remove offensive content in ten of the 14 countries where Holocaust denial is illegal, and that it only removes it in the others because of the threat of legal action. By way of an example, one document says a picture of a concentration camp with the caption Never again believe the lies would be allowed if posted anywhere other than in Israel, France, Germany or Austria. The Facebook documents, which include training manuals, reveals that the social media site will use geo-blocking only when a country has taken sufficient steps to demonstrate that the local legislation permits censorship in that specific case. Citing a defence of free speech, it says Facebook does not welcome local law that stands as an obstacle to an open and connected world and will only consider blocking or hiding Holocaust denial comments and images if we face the risk of getting blocked in a country or a legal risk. It continues: Some 14 countries have legislation on their books prohibiting the expression of claims that the volume of death and severity of the Holocaust is overestimated. Less than half the countries with these laws actually pursue it. We block on report only in those countries that actively pursue the issue with us. Monika Bickert, head of global policy management at Facebook, said: Whether reported by government entities or individual users, we remove content that violates our community standards.

Fair Usage Law

May 24, 2017   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed

British Labour leader’s worrying ties to Holocaust deniers – Ynetnews

An investigation published on Sunday by British newspaper The Telegraph revealed that Labour Party Leader Jeremy Corbyn, who is considered anti-Israeli and was accused in the past of anti-Semitism, was a loyal supporter of the anti-Israel campaign group Deir Yassin Remembered (DYR) years after its organizers were exposed publicly for their extreme anti-Semitic views. “While there is no suggestion Mr. Corbyn shares their views, his association raises serious questions about his judgment,” wrote the Telegraph. Labour Party Leader Jeremy Corbyn (Photo: GettyImages) Kaffash added that Corbyn was “a very important supporter” of DYR, saying that although she does not believe that he was not aware of what Eisen’s or her views were, she does not think that he is Holocaust denier nor an anti-Semite. Photo: Reuters Corbyn himself stated that had he known Mr Eisen was a Holocaust denier he would have had nothing to do with DYR, claiming he was utterly unaware of his views. Corbyn is not a stranger to this sort of controversy. Though regretting it later, he was criticized for saying that he regards militant groups Hamas and Hezbollah as “friends,” saying that their labeling by the British government as terror groups is a “historical mistake.” Corbyn was also involved in a major crisis last year after claims spread that he did little to counter reports of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party, and even reportedly got angry when his team told him he needed to improve relations with the Jewish community. (Translated & edited by Lior Mor)

Fair Usage Law

May 22, 2017   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed

Mussolini in Lower Manhattan – The Villager

The Villager Mussolini in Lower Manhattan The Villager I was deeply chagrined that sharing the stage with Atzmon (who has a website full of Holocaust revisionism and recycles every anti-Semitic trope about Jews and world domination) was attorney Stanley Cohen, long a hero on the Lower East Side for his …

Fair Usage Law

May 18, 2017   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed

How fake news is destroying transparency on the internet – Irish Times

Many of the early, optimistic assumptions about how the internet would create a public sphere with greater openness, transparency and accuracy have been battered by how it has actually been used and abused, according to Frank Pasquale, professor of law at the University of Maryland. During a talk, The Automated Public Sphere, last week at Berlins digital culture festival Re:publica, Pasquale said that fake news stories, the spread of propaganda, secret sponsors behind what we see and read, and hashtag flooding (using hashtags to flood searches on a topic) had all damaged utopian ideas about the public benefits of the internet. We were told the internet would empower everyone and reduce the dominance of mainstream media, but it has also encouraged extremism, he says. It promised openness, but lets influence go unchecked and unmonitored because it is difficult to figure out who is actually funding and supporting many websites. He also notes that academic researchers have established that tens of thousands of posts to social-media sites during the American presidential election came from automated bots. Hundreds of fake stories were shared. The use of so-called dark ads (promoted but unpublished posts, visible only to followers of a Facebook page) and ad personalisation directly targeted certain types of content to those who are most susceptible to it because such content and news stories appeared in an individuals personal news feed where a wider community could neither see the posts nor refute them. So, you can accelerate propaganda, as well as accelerate truth, he says. While some fake news stories rightly appear ridiculous to most such as the pizzagate story that claimed Hillary Clinton and others were secretly running a child-abuse ring in the back of a popular Washington DC pizza restaurant there are susceptible audiences. We have to worry a great deal about floating voters, low education voters, voters at the edge of the political process being susceptible, he says. Sometimes the goal is simply to create doubt, so that some voters never vote at all. On Facebook, everything looks the same, and appears with the same level of authority on a newsfeed, but this provides a debased egalitarianism. And theres little incentive for tech giants to rush to address the problem. Profits are linked to the proliferation of fake news: Sensational lies and outrage cycles promote user engagement. Rhetoric in the US again, largely from the tech industry about the need to have one unbroken, unified internet deters addressing the problem. The common assertion is that introducing regulation and oversight means you will break the internet, Pasquale says. And deregulation is very disingenuous because deregulation is a lie. You essentially cede power to massive corporations to be de facto regulators. Facebook and Google are effectively the regulators but acting in ways without public accountability. He is also very worried that the US-centric view of the world is overinfluencing international bodies, when culturally specific models are needed. What could be done to improve the situation? Labelling, monitoring and explaining hate-driven, biased search results is Pasquales first suggestion. He points to the rise of alt-right and Holocaust revisionism, the expert gaming of search results by the extreme right so that a Google search on topics such as the Holocaust returns false stories as top results. Autocomplete bias, where a partially typed in search query returns hate-driven suggestions for completing the search phrase, is also an issue. Whole racial groups have hate-filled autocompletes, he said. After Charleston church shooter Dylann Roof had googled subjects such as black on white crime and seen racist autocompletes and fake news that suggested white genocide was a possibility, he murdered nine people in a historically black church. And the fake pizzagate story reportedly originated in a white supremacists tweet. To address the problem, automatic logs could reveal where such information originates, which also could be crucial to rapid responses and information take-downs by tech companies before a gunman goes to a location, as happened after the proliferation of the pizzagate story. We should require immutable audit logs, Pasquale says. Silicon Valley experts say the internet is now so complicated that laws can never catch up, but I think its very important . . . that we push back immediately. We cannot adopt this condescending mode that the coding sphere is too complicated for the rest of us to understand. We can at least have logs of the data that are influencing certain results on Google and could help identify certain sources of information. Google continues to maintain it doesnt want human interference with its algorithms, he says. So often in tech companies, anything involving a human is seen as a defect. But Pasquale says restoring human editors is also an inevitable part of this process. Failure to keep human editors has led to the proliferation of fake news. We have to restore the integrity of journalism as a profession, not merely as a source of piecework, propaganda and PR. He says we need some sort of analysis and labelling process for data, which shouldnt be that alien a concept. We already accept labelling of drugs and food, he says. What we need as a second step in the information economy is, we need to have information about the information we get. That would help us decide what news we are going to trust, and what feeds are we going to follow. Too often, technology giants use assertions of trade secrecy to block offering any transparency about their algorithms and what they do. Entities meaning news organisations and websites as well as search platforms have to recognise people may only be reading the headlines on search returns, which may imply a fake story is a real story. Even a story-verification website such as Snopes contributes to this problem because a search produces a result that is just a headline that states the fake story. This may then be shown to be false within a Snopes article, but many people never read the story. The public probably need intermediaries sites such as Google and Facebook, which carry the stories and headlines and links to assess and address such problems, and some of the funding for such an exercise probably has to come from intermediaries themselves, especially as more and more revenue goes to intermediaries, not the media organisations supplying the news they link to. He thinks further development of a principle such as the EUs right to be forgotten to have links to irrelevant or outdated information removed from search engines has a place, too. I know it is controversial and that there are concerns in the press about links being removed to factual stories or information, but he thinks that in individual cases a humane, compassionate response . . . is for the intermediary to intervene. Many people dont understand the difference between sponsored content and organic content. These basic levels of media literacy should be taught in school to children from about age nine on, Pasquale believes. And just addressing the filter bubble where people increasingly only see news that aligns with and reinforces their existing point of view, thanks to social media and search algorithms doesnt work. He points to factually misleading tweets from Fox News (although he notes something similarly misleading could come from left-wing news sources) and says offering such posts isnt a proper counterbalance. The problem here is [that] modulation presumes rational deliberation. He argues that his suggested modes of regulation would enable us to move a bit closer to a better modulated, more legitimate public sphere. He adds: Its really a plea for structure. The current process offers little structure and is instead one of extreme corporate power.

Fair Usage Law

May 18, 2017   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed

Mark Oppenheimer: What’s good about odious speech – Winona Daily News

In 2009, I interviewed Mark Weber and Bradley Smith, two amateur historians notorious for being among the leading Holocaust revisionists. Smith is an old-school denier, dubious about the existence of gas chambers, while Weber merely believes that Jews exaggerate history to help consolidate Zionist power. I interviewed Weber in his offices outside Los Angeles, and Smith at a coffee shop close to the border of Mexico, where he lived. In each case I went alone. Although I wasnt afraid neither had a history of physical violence meeting with two men whod spent their professional lives spinning theories about the perfidy of my people was, at the least, a bit creepy. Lets put it this way: I hugged my wife extra tight before leaving home. Lately, Ive been reminiscing about my time with Smith and Weber, and not just because white nationalists now have a president who they feel is sympathetic to their cause. Rather, the triggering event, if you will, is the national debate about how to confront speech we find odious. On college campuses across the country, students have reacted with fear and anger to the possibility that far-right (or even slightly right) thinkers might speak some words somewhere in their vicinity. At Middlebury College, students violently protested a talk featuring Charles Murray, author of The Bell Curve, a 1994 book that many call racist. At Claremont McKenna College, protesters shut down a speech by Heather Mac Donald, whose recent book defends police officers. Ann Coulter had to cancel a speech at UC Berkeley. Protesters have not argued these speakers pose an immediate physical threat to students of color, or women, or anybody. Instead, they posit that its wrong or somehow psychically damaging to allow certain views a platform. At Wellesley College, for example, a student editorial in March insinuated that Laura Kipnis new book, which questions how Title IX is applied to sexual life on campuses, undermines the existence and rights of others. Students at Claremont McKenna, and the other four colleges in Pomona, wrote a letter stating that merely engaging with Mac Donald is a form of violence. The same logic undergirds the vicious campaign against philosopher Rebecca Tuvel, who recently published an article using the analogy of trans people to interrogate the transracialism of Rachel Dolezal, the white woman who famously passed as black. In a letter to Hypatia, the feminist journal that published Tuvels article, hundreds of signatories argued that the articles failures of scholarship do harm to the communities who might expect better from Hypatia. The articles continued availability, they claimed, causes further harm. Unquestionably, words can, and do, cause harm. Im not interested in lending support to policies that I despise. But free speech is an important value, one that protects everyone with unpopular views: critics of Israel, defenders of revolutionary movements, anti-vaccine activists. Those who run from unpopular views, moreover, may ultimately harm themselves. Let me return to the question everyone asked me in 2009: What was it like to meet with Holocaust revisionists? And then spend many more hours on the telephone, listening to their cracked, sinister theories about me, my relatives, my dead co-religionists? Truth be told, it was invigorating. They were so deluded, so sad, and so alone in the world. Their lives were tangled webs of failed ambitions, failed ideas, even failed marriages. They werent well. I was. It was heartening to listen to my enemies respectfully, and conclude that in a country that permits free inquiry, they would never win. Interviewing Smith and Weber two men who downplay the literal genocide of my people; who dehumanize me more profoundly than even Murrays critics believe that he dehumanizes others actually empowered me as a thinker, as a progressive, and as a Jew. Having looked at evil, I found it puny. We can beat this, I found myself thinking. I dont think that can be everyones response to every speaker. There are good reasons that a victim of sexual violence might avoid speeches that could trigger memories of the assault. Victims of police violence might carefully consider how theyd feel listening to a speaker who plays down their experience. A concentration-camp survivor might not, to put it mildly, be the right person to interview Smith and Weber. Each person has to be her own best judge of what experiences will be valuable, detrimental, painful or simply a waste of time. Id skip Coulter because I know what I think of her views. Id rather read a novel or scramble some eggs. But imagine if, instead of protesting Mac Donalds speech at Claremont, students had waited until she finished, taken the microphone, and then described the abuses theyd experienced at the hands of police officers? They might have changed her mind, if only a little. But even if they hadnt, theyd have used their experience to shrink hers. Theyd have said, You dont scare us. Theyd have enlarged the scope of their world, and theyd have done so as allies of free speech. And I suspect that theyd have left the room emboldened, ready for the next time. Mark Oppenheimer is a contributing writer to the Los Angeles Times opinion section and the author of three books, most recently Wisenheimer: A Childhood Subject to Debate.

Fair Usage Law

May 15, 2017   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed

Column: What?s good about odious speech – Bend Bulletin

In 2009, I interviewed Mark Weber and Bradley Smith, two amateur historians notorious for being among the leading Holocaust revisionists. Smith is an old-school denier, dubious about the existence of gas chambers, while Weber merely believes that Jews exaggerate history to help consolidate Zionist power. I interviewed Weber in his offices outside Los Angeles, and Smith at a coffee shop close to the border of Mexico, where he lived. In each case, I went alone. Although I wasnt afraid neither had a history of physical violence meeting with two men whod spent their professional lives spinning theories about the perfidy of my people was, at the least, a bit creepy. Lets put it this way: I hugged my wife extra-tight before leaving home. Lately, Ive been reminiscing about my time with Smith and Weber, and not just because white nationalists have a president who they feel is sympathetic to their cause. Rather, the triggering event, if you will, is the national debate about how to confront speech we find odious. On college campuses across the country, students have reacted with fear and anger to the possibility that far-right (or even slightly right) thinkers might speak some words somewhere in their vicinity. At Middlebury College, students violently protested a talk featuring Charles Murray, author of The Bell Curve, a 1994 book that many call racist. At Claremont McKenna College, protesters shut down a speech by Heather Mac Donald, whose recent book defends police officers. Ann Coulter had to cancel a speech at UC Berkeley. Protesters have not argued these speakers pose an immediate physical threat to students of color, or women, or anybody. Instead, they posit that its wrong or somehow psychically damaging to allow certain views a platform. Unquestionably, words can, and do, cause harm. Im not interested in lending support to policies that I despise. But free speech is an important value, one that protects everyone with unpopular views. Let me return to the question everyone asked me in 2009: What was it like to meet with Holocaust revisionists? And then spend many more hours on the telephone, listening to their cracked, sinister theories about me, my relatives, my dead co-religionists? Truth be told, it was invigorating. They were so deluded, so sad, and so alone in the world. Their lives were tangled webs of failed ambitions, failed ideas, even failed marriages. They werent well. I was. It was heartening to listen to my enemies respectfully, and conclude that in a country that permits free inquiry, they would never win. Interviewing Smith and Weber two men who downplay the literal genocide of my people; who dehumanize me more profoundly than even Murrays critics believe that he dehumanizes others empowered me as a thinker, as a progressive, and as a Jew. Having looked at evil, I found it puny. We can beat this, I found myself thinking. Mark Oppenheimer, a contributing writer to the Los Angeles Times opinion section, is the host of the podcast Unorthodox.

Fair Usage Law

May 13, 2017   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed


Fair Use Disclaimer

"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."

Under the 'fair use' rule of copyright law, an author may make limited use of another author's work without asking permission. Fair use is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. The fair use privilege is perhaps the most significant limitation on a copyright owner's exclusive rights.

Fair use as described at 17 U.S.C. Section 107:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phono-records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

  • (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for or nonprofit educational purposes,
  • (2) the nature of the copyrighted work,
  • (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and
  • (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."