All right.
Everyone has by now heard of the kerfuffle connected with Harry's Place and here is the issue in a nutshell:
1. From Cassandra;
2. From Ginro.
I don't visit Harry's Place because I was told two years ago it was ruled with a rod of iron by some shadowy figure who makes his writers toe the political line and unfortunately, the major bloggers who told me this did influence me. Maybe I should look at it again. I do remember commenting several times and not getting any response or acknowledgement whatsoever. Again, I might try to get some sort of response.
That's not really the point here though. The point is that a jihadi type wishes to stifle free speech [and the telling of what I have no doubt is the truth] by means of litigation.
Some readers will remember that my own blog was also pushed off the net on July 4th-6th by threat of litigation and I have no intention of opening that whole thing up again but it does lead one to think about such people.
I do recall a lot of personal support though from quite a few really good blogfriends plus others who were mere acquaintances and well-wishers and that was quite humbling. There is definitely a spirit of closing ranks in the sphere and that's what we should do now against ALL people who feel that litigation is the way to make their point.
If I employ the distasteful term "scumbag" for the Usmanovs of the world, then please forgive me. I can forgive and have done so. I can't forget.
Anyway, at Bloghounds, Cassandra has started the ball rolling and I join her in recommending that if you can see your way clear [we don't go for directives at Bloghounds], maybe you could run a banner of some kind [there's a BMP PNG which Blogger upload doesn't recognize and so I can't personally add it] at Cassandra's.
I'll put up something in the sidebar soon.
I might have some sympathy for Harry's Place if
ReplyDelete1. DavidT wasn't such an obvious zionist nutter presumably designed to troll muslim opinion and
2. the link the the original article that they are saying has amended didn't contain "british-muslim-initiative-we-resent-the-evil-jew-in-britain" and still have that as the headline.
They seem to have admitted that it was all down to Al-Jaz getting it wrong so the least they could do under those circumstances would be amend the headline and the link but no the automatic anti-semetic defence kicks in.
I don't thinkn that was the issue Baht At, but thata thye tried to silence Harry's Place for speaking out in a freedom of speech moment,quoting them no less, after first initially slandering Harry themselves, then as a back up action threatening litigation for libel.
ReplyDeleteI was referring to such hypocricy which is rife amongst bloggers who actually support Harry's Place yet do the same themselves/or support opposite actions elsewhere.
That was the point of James's post as far as I could see.
But the point about Harry's Place is even though they admit their initial post was based on a Al-Jaz typo they are persisting with using the misquote as their link and headline. In those circumstances they are being dishonest (albeit about some serious unpleasant people but that doesn't matter) and they deserve to be closed down.
ReplyDeleteOnce they change the headline and link to reflect the actual story rather than the one their zionist troll wants to report then I'll support them - until then I'm on the side of the angels
Getting back to your original post James. If you want to use the original image to upload to your sidebar (in blogger) I can help you with that xx Just ask, it will only take a couple of minutes to sort out!
ReplyDeleteThese remaining comments are pertinent to the issue and remain.
ReplyDeleteCommenters are grown people and know the limits. I've made it abundantly clear that ad hominem is not on here, except by me or directed at me. 3rd parties - not on, I'm afraid.
For visitors here for the first time and wondering what the heck I'm going on about, it's about comments I just deleted.