Posts Tagged ‘Financial Times’

CENSORSHIP, EVERYONE?

Monday, November 23rd, 2015

Note (30NOV2015): As Europe is over-run with Mohammedans, many of whom are active terrorists and as Mohammedan violence escalates, Barack Hussein Obama II retaliates by attending an international conference on the greatest hoax since filtered cigarettes, so-called climate-change. Well folks, the climate always is changing — always has, always will. The major factor therein, by far, is the relationship between Earth and Sun.

No one is in favor of pollution of air, earth, or water; but such pollution is not the same as climatic change. The primary cause of air pollution is volcanic activity. It already was decimating the dinosaurs before the asteroid hit. Second is too much human activity as a consequence of too much reproduction by the most hyper-sexual species on Earth. Yes, the rate of increase is decreasing; even so, the absolute numbers are increasing.

What all such matters have to do with retaliating against the violence inherent in Mohammedanism, however, is anybody’s guess. Accordingly, in retaliation against Obama’s retaliation, this posting will run another week and likely will have about the same effect.

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” -George Orwell (1903-1950)

“We welcome criticism of our coverage but we may remove comments that are derogatory or make sweeping generalisations about people of a particular nationality or religion.” -e-mail from Financial Times

The above message was in reference to a comment posted therein about Mohammedanism, quoting the Koran.  It cited the posting herein below, “PARIS? YOU WERE WARNED!”.

To characterize Mohammedanism based upon its own bible apparently is an anathema to the Editors of FT. Yet, explicitly and repeatedly, the Koran preaches murder and mayhem against so-called infidels.

Don’t believe it? Read the Koran; don’t simply read about the Koran.

Then, judge behavior by its consequences (www.inescapableconsequences.com). The consequences of the policies towards Mohammedanism of those in political power — policies reflected by the Editors of FT — are proving disastrous. Economically, the cost to the West, as well as other countries such as Egypt, is in the billions. The cost to the Mohammedans perpetrating the acts of violence, merely a few thousands. We American “infidels” call it getting a big bang for the buck.

Contrary to the myth spread by self-loathing Christian and secular Euro-Caucasians, one cannot be a Mohammedan and follow the Koran without perpetrating and supporting either murder of infidels or their submission to the dictates of the Mohammedan theologians. Anyone who says otherwise simply is lying. Believe him at your peril.

In order to comment, you must be registered with WordPress.

CENSORSHIP HARD & SOFT

Monday, February 2nd, 2015

“You neglected to mention that, for 20 years, Obama and his wife, both with documented Marxist backgrounds, listen to their Negroid pastor scream, ‘God d*mn America!’”

Should this comment have been censored by a member of Big Media? Should its author forever have been banned?

censor: (noun) an official who examines material that is to be published and suppresses parts considered offensive or a threat to security; (verb) to suppress or remove unacceptable parts of a book, film, etc. –Oxford University Dictionary

“He who controls the present controls the past. He who controls the past controls the future.” – George Orwell (1903-1950)

Censorship comes in two, basic forms — hard and soft. Different in form, their consequences are similar.

Hard occurs when it is a government that officially bans free speech and prosecutes those who violate that ban. Such was the case in Nazified Germany and the erstwhile Soviet Union.

Soft occurs when it is public-oriented but private entities, such as Big Media, that explicitly or implicitly conspire to suppress free speech. Such is the case today in many Western countries including the United States of America; witness, for example, the persecuting context characterizing Big Academia.

In 2012, the censors at Reuters banned us for posting a comment that they found disagreeable or offensive even though it contained no profanity, no obscenity, no personal insult, no call to violence, nor any criticism of anyone not in the public light. Reuters furnished no reason. http://nationonfire.com/category/uncategorized/page/3/

Subsequently, the censors at Red State (a conservative, Republican-oriented website) banned us for posting a comment or comments that they found disagreeable or offensive even though none contained profanity, obscenity, personal insult, call to violence, or any criticism of anyone not in the public light. As had Reuters, Red State gave no reason, nor were we able to uncover one from the website.

Then, late last year Financial Times banned us. Below is the admittedly somewhat-jumbled correspondence with FT (personal identities and case number redacted). Judge for yourself the following:

From Financial Times (10/17/2014):
We have removed an offensive comment that you posted on our site.

Such contributions are not welcome on ft.com and breach our commenting rules.

We have banned you from commenting as a result. From now on, only you will be able to see the comments that you post.

Yours,
FT.com

To Financial Times (10/20/2014):
Subject: Banned

I received an e-mail advising me that I have been banned by FT from making comments that can be read by other viewers; however, I may make comments that can be read only by me. I hereby request that you confirm the veracity of said e-mail. If it is valid, I hereby request that you
send me a copy of the comment(s) that were deemed to be offensive and to explain in what way you found them offensive.

From Financial Times (10/20/2014):
Thank you for contacting the Financial Times Customer Service team.

We acknowledge receipt of your email and have opened a case for you with case number 0…63. Please use this case number when communicating with us.

We will attempt to respond to your query within 24 hours.

For help with common queries, please visit our Help pages at help.ft.com

 Kind regards
FT Customer Service

From Financial Times (10/22/2014):
Thank you for contacting Financial Times Customer Service.

We apologise as we do not have the information on our end but we have raised you query to our Editorial Team. We’ll send you feedback as soon as we get updates from the Editorial Department.

In the meantime, should you have any questions or require further assistance, then please do not hesitate to contact us.

Kind regards,
Financial Times Customer Service – FT.com

 From Financial Times (10/22/2014):
Thank you for contacting Financial Times Customer Service.

We apologise for the inconvenience that this may have caused you.

Every FT.com subscription is bounded (sic) by our terms and condition. We have received a copy of the deleted comment the (sic) you requested from our Editorial Team. Please see attached file.

[FT Attached File With “Offensive” Verbiage as follows:
@LMB You neglected to mention that, for 20 years, Obama and his wife, both with documented Marxist backgrounds, listen to their Negroid pastor scream, “God d*mn (asterisk used by us as is commonly done in quoting profanity) America!”]

Flagged as strong profanity by SAFE
Moved to trash by … , FT

To Financial Times (10/23/2014):
Subject: Re: Case … Comments Query

Sir,
Firstly, did I write anything that was untrue, profane, obscene, or defaming of a private individual?

Secondly, you misuse the term, discrimination,* as do many. Without the capacity to discriminate, (e.g., food from poison; friend from foe) all animal life on Earth quickly would perish. I believe that you mean “denigrate” or “demean”.

Thirdly, do you regard Negro, the correct noun (Negroid being the correct adjective) biologically/medically, as being denigrating or demeaning? Until recently, the term, black, was regarded by those to whom it refers as an insult, their preferring either Negro or colored  (e.g., The United Negro College Fund and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People). You seem to be tripping over your own editorial policy.

Fourthly, am I still banned from commenting publicly?

(*Note: Term used in “Terms and conditions” published by FT.)

From Financial Times (10/24/2014):
Thank you for contacting the Financial Times Customer Service team.

We acknowledge receipt of your email and have opened a case for you with case number 0…36. Please use this case number when communicating with us.

We will attempt to respond to your query within 24 hours.

For help with common queries, please visit our Help pages at help.ft.com

 Kind regards
FT Customer Service

From Financial Times (10/30/2014):
Thank you for contacting the Financial Times Customer Service team.

We acknowledge receipt of your email and have opened a case for you with case number 0…25. Please use this case number when communicating with us.

We will attempt to respond to your query within 24 hours.

For help with common queries, please visit our Help pages at help.ft.com

 Kind regards
FT Customer Service

From Financial Times (10/31/2014):
Thank you for your response.

We apologise for the delay of our response as we have already forwarded your concern to our Editorial Team and we’re waiting for their response/explanation as to why your comments were deleted. As of the moment we do not have the answer if your username is still banned from commenting publicly in FT.com. We will send you feedback as soon as we get updates from the Editorial team.

We understand that this is important to you and we appreciate your patience on this one.

In the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact us again should you have additional queries.

Kind regards,
Financial Times Customer Service – FT.com

From Financial Times (11/07/2014):
Thank you for contacting the Financial Times Customer Service team.

We acknowledge receipt of your email and have opened a case for you with case number 0…18. Please use this case number when communicating with us.

We will attempt to respond to your query within 24 hours.

For help with common queries, please visit our Help pages at help.ft.com

 Kind regards
FT Customer Service

From Financial Times (11/13/2014)*:
Thank you for your time earlier. We will process your cancellation as requested.

We have scheduled cancellation of your subscription upon the end of your current term of 18 December 2014.

You will still be able to use your log in details to access registration-only tools and features but will no longer have unlimited access to FT.com articles.

I trust that we have resolved your query and will now be closing this case.

If you would like to discuss renewal options that may be available to you, then please do let us know and a member of our Customer Service Team will be happy to go through these with you.

Should you require further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Kind regards,
Financial Times Customer Service – FT

*After telephonic conversation cancelling our subscription.

From Financial Times (11/13/2014):
We would like to invite you to participate in a short survey to tell us about your recent contact with our Customer Service team. Your feedback is important to us.

 To take part in the survey, please click on the link below:
http://www. … .

 Kind regards
FT Customer Service

Discussion
“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” -Edmund Burke (1729-1787)

Sadly — nay, frighteningly — an evil fog of soft tyranny is enveloping the United States of America. It is an oppressive mixture of political, economic, and sociological toxins. Censorship by Big Media represents but one example.

As to the particulars, admittedly Red State is a website of opinion — conservatively-oriented if not fully Republican. Its censorship raises questions. Does it banning us without stated reason represent the point of view of conservatives or Republicans as a political party? Are these folks surreptitiously in favor of suppressing speech that they regard as disagreeable or offensive even be it true, correct, and relevant? If so, what does such censorship say to those Americans who regard themselves as conservatives and/or Republicans or to those who merely vote Republican?

Financial Times and Reuters, however, do not present themselves as merely organs of opinion but of facts offered as “news”. FT even posts its banner as “Without Fear Or Favour”.

“Because I make you feel bad doesn’t make you right.” -Current Saying

Of note, after all the correspondence from FT, we never received a reply regarding the status of the ban. We understand that it remains in effect. Moreover, why would anyone want to post a comment that only he could read, pursuant to the offered restriction by FT?

To whom was the single sentence in question so “offensive”? What made it so offensive? Was the posting untrue? Was the posting so “offensive” that its author should be banned from FT for life instead of merely deleting the posted comment?

These two organs of Big Media promote themselves as conduits of “news”. They ban requested comments that they find disagreeable or offensive even be they true, correct, and relevant — comments without profanity, obscenity, personal insult, or calls to violence; comments with criticism of only public figures; comments factually true and correct. How does that censorship reflect upon their reporting? Are they to be trusted to report “news” truthfully and totally without fear or favor?

“Fire!”

In the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, the Founding Fathers protected freedom of speech — primarily political speech. A question arises therefrom. Is any sort of censorship of any sort of speech by any entity, public or private, ever justified? Should anyone be allowed to say any thing at any time no matter what the consequences; for example, intentionally and falsely shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater? The U.S. Supreme Court rightly has ruled no.

Censorship, however, is to a society similar to that which seasoning is to a stew. In small amount, an asset and legitimate protection. Beyond a small amount, a liability and illegitimate oppression.

Clearly, being private entities, FT and Reuters have the right to ban whomever and censor whatever they wish and appear to be doing so albeit in a manner that appears more than slightly arbitrary, whimsical, and capricious. Conversely, those who avail themselves of their censored offerings have the right to judge for themselves whether these organizations are exceeding the bounds of censorship appropriate and reasonable; and they, too, have a right — perhaps, a duty to humanity, their nation, and themselves — to act accordingly.

“The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.” -Traditional Saying

Let us not forget “B =f(x) under c”. Behavior has its consequences in a given context (www.inescapableconsequences.com). Let us not forget that the consequence of a behavioral deficit in vigilance and acting therefrom is tyranny.