Search

Archives

More...

Categories

Minister for Men Manifesto

  • Minister_for_men_14

Commission for Equality and Human Rights

Government 'Equalities' Office

Members of Parliament

Helpline Adverts

  • Poster__middle_age_man_bw
AddThis Social Bookmark Button

« TUC AND THEIR HYPOCRISY OVER "CAMBERWELL AND PECKHAM QUESTION" | Main | FUNDRAISING SUMMIT CANCELLED BECAUSE MOST SPEAKERS ARE MEN »

Sunday, 10 February 2013

THE 100 MEN'S HUMAN RIGHTS SITES FEMINISTS SEEK TO CENSOR

In May last year, this blog and its readers broke the story of men's human rights sites been censored and smeared by major mobile phone companies in the UK. It has now emerged that Norton is also smearing most of our movement as hateful, with its DNS service blocking access to many of the most popular sites, this blog included.

It's unsurprising that people would try to censor us in this way and it's particularly disappointing that someone out there is stupid enough to regard this blog as hateful when it's abundantly clear we have no tolerance here for sexism towards anyone, and the whole point of this site is to campaign against sexism and gender hatred.

I've done significant research to find out the true scale the censorship of mens' human rights material and can exclusively reveal the most complete and accurate list of sites currently being blocked. I can also reveal that both O2 and Norton appear to be using the same list for their disgusting censorship. Previous lists of banned sites totalled 21 URLs, my research more than doubles that total to at least 48 sites and 54 urls.

As you can see from the roll of honour below, it's just obscure or slightly confrontational men's human rights sites that are blocked, even more academic resources such as manwomanmyth are barred too. For those yet to utilise this excellent resource, much of it consists of interviews with leading figures on gender issues, such as Erin Pizzey founder of the world's first domestic violence shelters and Michelle Elliot O.B.E. the founder of the children's charity Kidscape. Even completely mainstream figures such Glenn Sacks' nationally syndicated (and no doubt fully FCC compliant) "His Side" radio show don't escape Norton's censors. It's not just the wider men's humans right movement impacted by this scandal, more specific blogs by fathers in support of families are banned, I have to say it's a very strange world Norton are living in where a man's love for his children can be classed as "hate".

Most disturbingly of all, feminists even regard it as hateful to help/support male victims of domestic violence, abuse and even rape victims, with at least two sites solely focused on such subjects blocked under this absurd classification.

If any blog or site owners want to take a stand against this censorship then please add links to some or all of the 48 sites below or promote their articles on Facebook or your favourite forums.

ROLL OF HONOUR

(expanded to 122 sites on 10/07/2013)

 

Notes:

1. A number of other Mens rights sits are blocked due to being classed as pornography. This list is relatively small in number and thus could possibly constitute accidental blocking rather than a deliberate attempt to deny men their human rights and free speech. The above list only consists of sites blocked and smeared as hateful.

2. Sites marked with "*" can be accessed by changing the url to an international domain, e.g. .de, .fr etc

3. Sites highlighted in green were previously classed as hateful and have now been reclassified and un blocked as a result of our work.

4. Non clickable links indicate sites that no longer function but still continue to suffer the "hate" smear.

by John Kimble

Posted at 22:34 in Current Affairs/Political, False Accusations |

| | |

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

David G

I wonder if these organizations can sue Norton for slander and financial impact.

Posted by: David G | Monday, 11 February 2013 at 04:23

CB3

Class action anyone? Just sayin'.

Posted by: CB3 | Monday, 11 February 2013 at 09:25

Sam

You also forgot

http://www.mgtowforums.com/

Which is already blocked by many ISP

Posted by: Sam | Monday, 11 February 2013 at 10:29

Sam

''and Norton.

Posted by: Sam | Monday, 11 February 2013 at 10:43

Michael Klein

I watched the information about this "incident" spread from Voice for men over the pond and into men's networks and I am getting rather frustrated seeing the obvious anomie that seems to be the main form of reaction, apart from advice to change to AVG or the likes (I am guilty of that as well). But it vexes me to see this kind of non-reaction. Is it really the case that the men's movement is not able to gather some funds to take LEGAL action against Norton and fight this infringement to freedom of speech head on?

Posted by: Michael Klein | Monday, 11 February 2013 at 13:19

Scarecrow

It looks like adamsspace has been taken down. Another victory for the censors perhaps...

Posted by: Scarecrow | Monday, 11 February 2013 at 16:25

Stuart

I agrees strongly, that is EXACTLY what the main donation asking sites should be doing.

As I have always stated though, the funds will always disappear "elsewhere" one way or another.

Posted by: Stuart | Monday, 11 February 2013 at 16:26

Dan

How did Norton and the other censoring organisations establish this list of sites?

Was there an algorithm, or was the selection made by an individual at Norton? In either case, what were the criteria used to define these sites as hate sites?

Were they given advice from an outside agency? If so, what was that agency(s)?

Where does Norton block access -- at work computers? On personal mobiles? -- I seem to be able to access at least this site from both.

Has anyone contacted Norton or the other relevant organisations to ask these questions?

The answers are crucial to understanding whether this is a deliberate campaign or mistake in programming.

Thanks

Posted by: Dan | Monday, 11 February 2013 at 17:20

stuart

Do you REALLY need to work it out Dan? How many feminist sites are blocked?

Posted by: stuart | Monday, 11 February 2013 at 21:03

Tom Martin

Wrong as it is of Norton to categorize men's rights groups as hate groups, it is equally wrong of men's rights groups to categorize the whole of feminism as a hate movement.

John the Other for instance (associated with A Voice for Men) is a serious men's rights activist, who nevertheless dismisses the whole of feminism as a 'hate movement'.

What types of feminism are hateful?

Posted by: Tom Martin | Monday, 11 February 2013 at 21:25

Dave

Tom,

You have to be kidding us, right? The hatred comes out in music and videos, on TV, in the media, advertising, news, radio, soaps, dramas, comedy, basically everywhere. I'm not saying that ALL feminists are full of hatred but the feminist movement is based upon promoting the rise of women at the expense of men. I regularly read and hear feminist speech that is absolutely and undeniably based on a foundation of hatred. The issue we've had over the last handful of decades is that the louder and more vocal feminists in the media have had one hell of an influence over the up-and-coming generation and successfully convinced them that hurling abuse at men is ok, even somewhat cool and powerful (girl power). This coupled with the fact that women are naturally protective of each other means it's a total disaster for men who are useless at protecting themselves and basically all f this creates a society which is pretty cruel to men. Now, yes, there is cruelty to women, too, but this gets RECOGNISED and acted upon and reported. Whereas men's rights campaigners get their sites blocked and their cries for help get IGNORED.

Anyway,here's a few hate quotes from feminists for you:


■“I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honourable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.” – Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor
■“To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he’s a machine, a walking dildo.” -– Valerie Solanas
■“I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig.” — Andrea Dworkin
■“Rape is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear” — Susan Brownmiller
■“The more famous and powerful I get the more power I have to hurt men.” — Sharon Stone
■“In a patriarchal society, all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent.” — Catherine MacKinnon
■“The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race.” — Sally Miller Gearhart
■“Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience.” – Catherine Comins
■“All men are rapists and that’s all they are” — Marilyn French
■“Probably the only place where a man can feel really secure is in a maximum security prison, except for the imminent threat of release.” — Germaine Greer.

Posted by: Dave | Monday, 11 February 2013 at 22:04

John Kimble

Dave - apparently that MacKinnon text is a misquote and it was someone else attempting to sum up her philosophy.

Feminists are famous for taking things out of context on purpose, so we should avoid making such mistakes, even if doing so honestly, and insist on 100% accuracy ever single time. There's more than enough hateful feminist quotes out there to find something to replace it with.

Posted by: John Kimble | Monday, 11 February 2013 at 22:48

Dave

You're right John, there are literally hundreds of hateful quotes. I just simply googled and came across dozens of sites with these types of quotes. I don't know about the MacKinnon quote and can't comment on its validity. Perhaps Skimmington can remove that one if it's incorrect. I prefer to be fair. What I can say is that it appalls me when rape (which I agree is truly shameful) is taken out of context and applied to all of men! How offensive and hateful is that! It disgusts me, it really does, how some feminists can label all men like this. That is what I call uncalled for hatred.

Posted by: Dave | Monday, 11 February 2013 at 23:47

Douglas

Damn. I can`t believe the misandry. How are these Feminists getting away with this? My eyes are being opened.

Posted by: Douglas | Tuesday, 12 February 2013 at 08:09

Bob

Feminist power is based on manipulation. They cannot tolerate free voices on internet and need to defamate them.

Posted by: Bob | Tuesday, 12 February 2013 at 16:13

Groan

Tom I would cite the willfull and programmed distortion of domestic violence or abuse. Where ideologically driven self declared feminists use lies ,distortion and suppression to actively deny boys and men support or even compassion or justice. http://www.oneinthree.com.au/news/2013/2/6/male-victims-of-domestic-violence.html
Of course this isn't all feminists but it is a significant wing.

Posted by: Groan | Tuesday, 12 February 2013 at 23:17

Tom Martin

If MRAs stop generalizing about feminism, feminists will have less cause to generalize about MRAs.

Warren Farrell distinguishes between 'mature' and 'immature' feminists for instance.

I distinguish between the egalitarian feminists, and the er... hookers.

Posted by: Tom Martin | Wednesday, 13 February 2013 at 20:58

John

I believe you need to add www.judgybitch.com to the Roll of Honor.

Posted by: John | Thursday, 14 March 2013 at 03:31

Atheismplus_

Thanks for an valuable list of links - one of them mine!

Posted by: Atheismplus_ | Thursday, 14 March 2013 at 14:36

Toysoldier.wordpress.com

Well, that is interesting. I did not expect providers to list a blog discussing sexual violence against males as a "hate" site while they list a site like manboobz "blogging."

Posted by: Toysoldier.wordpress.com | Thursday, 14 March 2013 at 15:40

John Kimble

"I believe you need to add www.judgybitch.com to the Roll of Honor."

I'm just dealing with all the sites that are defamed as "hateful" right now. That domain is blocked as pornography and to introduce that issue would complicate matters at the moment I think.

Posted by: John Kimble | Thursday, 14 March 2013 at 23:02

John Kimble

"Thanks for an valuable list of links - one of them mine!"

Welcome to the blog, which one is yours? I suppose congratulations are in order whichever one it is.

Posted by: John Kimble | Friday, 15 March 2013 at 07:48

Walter Schneider

Thanks for your involvement with this issue. I did not know until just yesterday at noon that my website is one of those on the list of blocked FRA websites.

I won't be able to spend any time today on this problem but would like to kow whether there is a preferred forum at which this is being discussed. If there is such a forum, please let me know its URL.

Posted by: Walter Schneider | Saturday, 16 March 2013 at 07:29

Walter Schneider

John, I think that you may want to add another website to the list of blocked sites: http://blog.fathersforlife.org/

Although that website can still be accessed, I cannot make any posts to it. An attempt to log in results in the message, "Access denied."

Posted by: Walter Schneider | Saturday, 16 March 2013 at 07:43

Tom

I have now emailed

http://www.freedomhouse.org

Human Rights Watch

The Guardian

A Harvard Professor that has written about freedom of speech

And a few others.

I urge others to send emails to similar organisations and individuals. This is actually a great oportunity because we get a great excuse to mkae influential people look at our sites and read them carefully. And it could lead to press coeverage as well.

Posted by: Tom | Saturday, 16 March 2013 at 20:00

Walter Schneider

Update on the blocking of http://blog.fathersforlife.org/

Log-in on that site has been blocked by the host server, because that site was hacked into. I won't be able to do anything about that problem until coming Monday.

The home page (plus a few other key pages that are popular entry points to the site) at http://fathersforlife.org still blocked.

Posted by: Walter Schneider | Saturday, 16 March 2013 at 21:26

Walter Schneider

John, I put up a field with scrolling text, giving a short outline of the blocking problem and a link to your article at the top of every web page at http://fathersforlife.org. Most of the web pages at the site are still accessible and are being found through Internet searches and through direct links from other websites. That text will remain there until the blocking stops.

I don't know what else I can do to give the problem maximum visibility.

The website still receives a fair amount of traffic. In fact, the blocking has not made much of an impact. It is hard to tell that there has been any reduction in traffic on account of it There has been a slight, overall increase in traffic going to the site during the past four weeks, but the blocking is a nuisance. I hope that the scrolling text will have an effect, so as to put a bit of pressure on the companies that are enabling the blocking.

Please be so good and read the text. I don't want to make it any longer, but some of the wording could be changed, i. e. to include the names of parties that you feel should be mentioned.

Go to http://fathersforlife.org/News_now.htm (or any other web page, except the home page) to see the scrolling text.

Posted by: Walter Schneider | Sunday, 17 March 2013 at 03:46

John Kimble

Walter- that 403 error on the main page of your site is totally unrelated to this.

Everyone will receive that 403 error, whereas Symantec only block perhaps 10% of visitors.

You have a separate problem with your webhost which is totally unrelated to this discussion (though your site is also being censored by O2/ Symantec for certain people)

Posted by: John Kimble | Sunday, 17 March 2013 at 06:48

Walter Schneider

Chris, I thought that I had responded to your last comment, but somehow nothing shows up. So let me try again, and this time more thoroughly.

You asked whether the blocking is universal. I have no clue. All I know is that there are now two web pages at my website that I cannot access on the Internet:

The URL of the first blocked page is:
http://fathersforlife.org
Accessing the page on the Internet will produce a 403 Error.

The URL of the second blocked page is:
http://fathersforlife.org/feminism/feminist_terms_defined.htm
Accessing the page on the Internet will produce a 403 Error.

There may be other pages at my website that are blocked, but I will not check a thousand web-page URLs to determine which are being blocked.

Someone from Minnesota told me that my website is being blocked on account of religion (within the context of parental control). I don't kow what he bases that on. I don't know how to check for that. When I use the O2 status checker at http://urlchecker.o2.co.uk/urlcheck.aspx it gives me the impression that my website has been rated a hate site and that it does not meet O2 policies.

I have no possible way that I know of that permits me to determine what their policies are, what standards they use to grade websites by, who established those standards and whether or how they comply with Canadian laws.

All I do know is that an obscure European organization that is the result of a number of mergers has control over whether I can exercise my right to free speech and does have the power to abrogate my right to free speech for reasons it does not disclose.

That violates my rights by the constitutional standards that apply in every country of the world that I know about.

I don't know what crime I have committed. I don't know that I have committed a crime. I don't know what crime I have been accused of. I don't know who did the accusing, who conducted the trial, who passed judgment and pronounced the sentence, when or where. All I know is that a sentence has been passed. I don't even know what the sentence is. I only see some of its effects. Amongst those effects is the fact that thousands of other people can no longer see some of the things I had to say. Not only my civil rights have been violated. *Everyone's civil rights have been violated.*

You better all become very concerned about this example of abuse of power. It is worse and far more insidious than many other things I know and can think of. It is a step on the road to totalitarianism that lacks any legislative or democratic approval.

Posted by: Walter Schneider | Sunday, 17 March 2013 at 21:09

Walter Schneider

I am sorry for possibly misleading someone. Before I posted me preceding comment, the first paragraph of the comment should have been removed and the second Paragraph amended to read "Someone asked whether the blocking is universal...."

My apologies for posting the comment before making those changes.

Posted by: Walter Schneider | Sunday, 17 March 2013 at 21:16

Walter Schneider

Update on the feminist-inspired attack on human-rights websites, through filtering and blocking.

The problem with the 403 errors that affected the website f Fathers for Life is fixed. I don't know whether you know what file permissions are, but they determine whether a web page and associated files can be accessed. Quite a few of the files at my website had their file permissions changed. There is no way it can be determined when that happened, not without a lot of work. I have no way of knowing that it happened, unless I look for such files. It takes me about an hour to check all of the file directories at the server to find the files that cannot be accessed. I'll just have to include doing that in my regular routines.

The rep. from my host server feels that it can happen by accident, but I doubt that that is what it was. There was a pattern to the file changes. Most of the files involved contained criticisms of feminism. Articles by Erin Pizzey were especially affected.

The problem with filtering and blocking (through things like parental control, offered with anti-virus software) is an issue of deliberate censorship of FR and MR websites that still needs to be addressed. I will now have a bit more time to spend on that.

Posted by: Walter Schneider | Monday, 18 March 2013 at 23:19

bestextenzereviews.com

the-48-mens-human-rights-sites-feminists-seek-to-censor.

Posted by: bestextenzereviews.com | Monday, 15 April 2013 at 14:09

ken wiebe

I am informed that BC Fathers (http://www.fathers.bc.ca is on the "hate site" list. I already sued the Canadain federal government about this type of thing, and the BC Supreme court agreed it was Defamation.

If anyone is considering suing for Defamation, I would be happy to help. I learned a lot about the law of Defamation during the 5 year course of this lawsuit.

Posted by: ken wiebe | Wednesday, 22 May 2013 at 01:14

Grievous Wounds

I had no idea this list existed until the Symantec scandal.

Posted by: Grievous Wounds | Tuesday, 11 June 2013 at 06:17

http://www.wolfpackwarriors.com

So my site is been blocked and called a hate site...well I feel special...I just opened it recently too, could this have something to do with redit, looks like thats were its coming from, or they are getting their info on men's site from there.
Since those who are behind this are trying to shut us down, it means that they are afraid of our site doesn't it. I have no hate speech on mine so Ill take it as a badge of honor.

Posted by: http://www.wolfpackwarriors.com | Tuesday, 02 July 2013 at 03:14

Carissa

However, it does have excellent facilities and a highly educated, English speaking work-force. This even includes almost 90% of the apartment development projects that are currently ongoing in Australia. One should specialize especially during the initial stages of your business i.

Posted by: Carissa | Tuesday, 17 September 2013 at 05:47

The comments to this entry are closed.

Total Politics

  • Ukpolitical300

Twitter

About

Subscribe to this blog's feed
Blog powered by Typepad

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Reading List