October 05, 2007

Liberal Paranoia Over AT&T’s Terms of Service.

I've been watching the outrage at several liberal websites over AT&T's terms of service. They fear that AT&T is seeking to censor their views. Not that they have any examples of AT&T censoring any of them over anything. It could maybe possibly happen some day and AT&T has given money to conservatives so the liberal media hit has been put out on Ma Bell.

(much more including an opportunity to pwn the terrorist group Ansar al-Sunnah below the fold)

But at least one blogger gets it.

Via Transterrestrial: Apparently, very few people understand the First Amendment, at least insofar as it protects speech rights. Ahmadinejad had no First Amendment right to speak at Columbia, and he had no First Amendment right to not be criticized, either before, during or after his speech. And I have no First Amendment right to AT&T DSL service, or to not have it cut off if I express an opinion over its tubes. All that the First Amendment says is that "Congress shall make no law," not "Columbia University will grant a podium and audience," or "AT&T shall provide Internet service regardless of the behavior of the customer."

AT&T has a right to do this, but as is often the case, what it has a legal right to do wouldn't necessarily be right. And I would hope that they don't do it, both for their sake and mine.

Rand Simberg goes on to make the point that Glenn Reynolds had made over and over. Censoring a blogger doesn't work. It just results in whatever your trying to suppress ending up all over the intertubes.
So, yeah, I'm concerned, I guess, but as the article points out, it wouldn't be very good PR for them to cut off service to critics (particularly when the criticism is completely legitimate).
But Laura at Huffpo is scared to death AT&T is reading her mail with the finger on the censor button. Sorry Babe, get over yourself, they aren't.

So if AT&T is not feverishly following Laura around what are they doing?

"AT&T respects its subscribers' rights to voice their opinions and concerns over any matter they wish. However, we retain the right to disassociate ourselves from websites and messages explicitly advocating violence, or any message that poses a threat to children (e.g. child pornography or exploitation). We do not terminate customer service solely because a customer speaks negatively about AT&T. This policy is not new and it's not unique to AT&T."
Perhaps Laura is worried that AT&T is one of the most responsive providers when informed of websites that need to be removed (IE bad porn, terrorists and hate groups) Perhaps AT&T considers it bad for their reputation to host terrorists? Well that probably helps their reputation amongst America hating liberal retards, but around here we like it when they remove them.

AT&T and Yahoo are probably the best two providers in responding promptly to complaints about terrorist websites. They often remove them within 48 hours. The worst, in my opinion, are Google's Blogger, Dreamhost and The Planet.

So if you don't want your blips parked next to terrorist blips, I recommend AT&T and Yahoo both. If you are a terrorist loving leftist Huffpo slimebucket, vote with your feet and move to The Planet.

Since we didn't have much luck removing websites from The Planet this week, I've found a website for Ansar al-Sunnah on AT&T.

www.rjfront.info
http://www.reformandjihadfront.org/
The "Reform and Jihad Front" is to the Army of Ansar al Sunnah and The Islamic Army of Iraq what "The Islamic State of Iraq" is to al Qaeda. A front, an umbrella group, and a "shadow government".

The email address to complain to AT&T is

abuse@att.net
We pwned one of Ansar al-Sunnah's sites on AT&T and it moved to overseas. But this one remains. Y'all know what to do with that email address.....

(I'll add the links to the liberal rantings for your entertainment)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/laura-scher/att-out-of-my-inbox_b_67345.html
http://txsharon.blogspot.com/2007/10/at-to-customers-if-you-cant-say.html
http://www.boingboing.net/2007/10/02/att-snowjob-we-wont.html

Hillarious no?

By Howie at 02:40 PM | |