 |
Net Censorship and Terrorism (NCAT) other acronyms
Latest Update June 7, 2003
by Dan Kettler © 1999-2003
|
| Some of us have been taking action to thwart the efforts of Net Censorship and Terrorism. Pete Stapleton, in his way, contributes to that by filing a complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California for Libelous Defamation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For postings found on linked pages which are noted as
having DEJA links, go to 
and enter the "From:" address in the space designated author.Enter
one of the newsgroups shown in the message header, and some
of the text of the posting in the "with the exact phrase" area.
Then, you should find the correct message. Later on,
will refine their search procedure. Google has recently added a "message
ID" area.
has acquired the archives of DEJA,
and have committed themselves to restoring user access all the way back
to the year 1995. For more information, click
here.
Hate Crimes On The Internet, and the laws that protect people from them
See this page to find out what is abuse
of
the Net, and abuse on the Net? What would you sue someone
for, or complain to an ISP or the FBI about?
Outline for the information on this page
1. Intimidation
3. Filter URLs
4. Defamation
2. Lawsuits
4. Harassment
5. Forged Posts
6. Threats
The following is the brief description for what is written below in greater detail.
A. Censorship 1.
Censorship by intimidation with ridicule,
insults, etc.
This causes people to discontinue writing to
newsgroups.
2. Censorship by deception to Admins and the
Internet Service Providers about individuals
This brings temporary or permanent
discontinuation of service.
During the year 2000, numerous bogus complaints
appeared in newsgroups from PSF. Some
are
recorded on this page, asking readers to complain
to INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS (ISPS).
See DEJA NEWS for the archiving
of additional
posts not linked at the above page.
Again,
in November 2000, complaints
in newsgroups this time turned to complaints to
my INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER.
The Compuserve reference.
3. Censorship by influencing providers of service
to filter out references to URLs, or certain
text.
4. Censorship by defamation, causing people who
read the newsgroups to not believe, or read
the writing of the targeted person. There are
many examples of defamation on the blackmail
page. The defamation, particularly of Raymond
Karczewski and his wife, is nasty.
During March 2000, the fanatics brought a new
intensity to the defamation, and the USENET
posts from me clearly illustrate that fact.
5. Censorship by cancellation of posts.
6. Censorship by the writing of lies in charters
and faqs, causing some to be pressured by
others to comply with non-existent rules that
censor one's writing.
7. Censorship by the complete trashing of newsgroups
so that advocates do not want to particpate, bringing
the newsgroups to a condition of being overrun by
fanatics. It's discussed on this linked page.
In all the above examples, I am referring to unlawful
acts. If posts are cancelled because of legitimate violations, if
one insults/ridicules another in retaliation with
the
truth, or there are legitimate
complaints to Internet Service Providers so that a person must discontinue
violations, that is not censorship.
Then, of course, Net Terrorism as documented with proven examples here, is also censorship.
Some of the 7 types of Censorship are not conclusively
proven as having taken place from the activities of Pseudo-Skeptic-Fanatics.
The same is true of Net Terrorism with the 6 types shown. However,
the proofs presented for certain important points are enough to show that
Net
Censorship and Terrorism (NCAT) from Pseudo-Skeptic-Fantics
is
a proven fact.
This shows what people
have written about being discouraged from participation in the alt.paranormal
newsgroup.
There were written complaints to PCI Systems
and net abuse newsgroups from Blaine
Henry (aka "digger") of alleged "spam." It was proven false by the
combination of PCI's
communication to me denying that his accusations had any merit, and the
agreement
of posters to NANAU,
Other censorship attempts with PCI Systems occurred by multiple posters
bogus
complaints, in 1997.
All complaints were ignored by PCI Systems, except to notify me that they
considered them bogus. See
this
link for examples of other posts with complaints about alleged
violations, asking readers to complain
to ISPS.
Again, in November
2000, bogus complaints in newsgroups this time turned to e-mail to
my
INTERNET SERVICE
PROVIDER from Blaine Henry and others. Here are copies of the
correspondence, and
the discussion that came about afterward in newsgroups.
Again,
in May 2003, bogus complaints in newsgroups
this time turned to e-mail to my
INTERNET SERVICE
PROVIDER from Widdershins and others. Here are copies
of the discussion
that came about afterward in newsgroups.
This is the Compuserve reference.
Item 3
E-mail was written to RemarQ, claiming commercial purposes for my posting references to my web pages. I contacted RemarQ and they eventually removed the filters (and sent an e-mail message to me confirming that fact) which had automatically banned my mention of "http://www.psicounsel.com" or any variation of it. Then, I resumed posting references to my web page which exposes the deceptive, cult-like, activites of these censors. Bob Officer wrote repeatedly to the newsgroup: news.admin.net-abuse.usenet (NANAU) to have me censored and prevent my telling of that web page and another with advice for others to repost. On Aug. 10, 1999, I wrote to NANAU, and showed how the twisted "rules" of Bob Officer were complete nonsense. There was a reply from Bob Officer, and a short dialogue continued, but the points I proved with facts and logic are shown correct by the continued policy of posts not being legally cancellable. See this link and this for details.
Other pages,
not entirely related to the censorship issue, show examples that
give insight into the character of Bob Officer.
Defamation is a form
of censorship, since those reading about the person will tend to either
not believe that person, or they will not read what
the person has written.
The defamation I refer to, here, consists of lies. If I find that
the writing of another is, obviously, bigotry, and I call it that, it is
not censorship. As an example, If someone writes that supposedly
my "peers" voted me as "kook," and the fact is that pseudo-skeptic
fanatics (not my "peers") did, then this is a form of censorship.
If someone writes that I was "elected" by Usenet as a "kook" when less than 1/100 of 1 percent of Usenet said I was a "kook," that that is lying defamation and a form of censorship. I have been repeatedly defamed on Usenet with lies, such as false accusations of "spam" and "pornography," all proven untrue.
Accusations of fraud, on my part, abounded in newsgroups. The reader can see how I confronted the accusers, and defeated them with law, logic, and provable facts. GOOGLE's search filter shows the use of the word "fraud" in my most recent posts.
Alleged pornography http://www.psicounsel.com/tits.html
The incoherency accusation has been repeated many times, each time proven false, yet repeated again and again.
Alleged incoherence http://www.psicounsel.com/nyt.html
For other accusations
about me not covered on this page, consult thearchives
of my past posts by selecting these addresses
as "author." Then, to find the truth or falsehood of certain accusations,
find other appropriate USENET postings in
dan@psicounsel.com
dankettler1619@yahoo.com
dkettler@ix.netcom.com
@kettlerenterprises.com
zonbello@aol.com
dankettler@hotmail.com
psicounsel@aol.com
WEBSITE@psicounsel.com_seesignature
WEBSITE@kettlerenterprises_SEESIG.com
earlgordoncurley@aol.com
72711.707@compuserve.com
I was accused of being bigoted against the Irish because I addressed someone named "Mick" by name. "Mick" is a derogatory term for Irish people.
I was accused of hating blind people because I spoke of someone being spiritually "blind," and what I'd written previously was obviously figurative.
Even though I corrected
the persons making the accusations a number of times, proving each time
that such allegations were obviously
false, they repeated
the lies.
Repeated accusations of Edmond H. Wollmann and I as
"kooks" is defamation, and therefore a form of censorship.This is an example from Lou Minatti, using "kook" as a censoring tool
During March 2000, the intensity of defamation is clearly illustrated in these references.
Another form of censorship is the cancellation of posts. Cancellation is not always purposeful censorship.
The DEJANEWS archives also show these censorship attempts in "digger's" writing about an alleged charter.
This is about the alt.astrology.metapsych charter, and this link from the referenced page gives one example
of how such phony charters are used as tools of censorship. This debate reveals deception on the part
of FAQ writers, and writers of alleged charters.
The manner that fanatics ruin the appearance, and appeal, of newsgroups is discussed on this linked page.
During September 1999, an Admin, Howard Goldstein publicly discussed preventing certain postings from appearing, particularly reposts. This was to affect not only me, but others as well. He wrote of automatically cancelling posts.
In Usenet Posts, Howard Goldstein twisted what this NCAT page says. Here are some of his words, and mine too.
A discussion about the above described activities took place in Usenet Newsgroups. It was alleged thata. These are threats of, and/or actually exposing a person's real or false
past if/when they do not change Internet activity. This may include a
person's criminal, motor vehicle, or financial history including bankruptcy.b. These are threats of, and/or actually addressing law enforcement
authorities, financial institutions, or employers, telling them of alleged
suspicions, or actual facts that could be investigated, and attempting
to get the person to lose their bank's confidence, or their employment,.
of committment to a mental institution, or incarceration in prison.
2. Threats of, or actual frivolous lawsuits over net activity
(to sue a person without a substantial case)These are called "harassment" suits. In the USA, suits can be initiated which
cause great hardship to the person defending, and there is little cost to the person
initiating them.
3. Repeatedly posting or placing unwanted home addresses and phone numbers on
the Internet (Usenet and the World Wide Web) for the implied, or stated purpose
of intimidation.Here is a comment about such activity.
4. Harassing/threatening telephone calls, e-mail, or regular mail about Net activity
5.Forged posts which falsely depict people as against a particular group.
Though the examples given are not of particularly dangerous groups, people
who have written or stated public opposition to the activities of other groups
have been murdered. A talk-show host was shot and killed decades ago, and
that gave good cause for other talk-show hosts to excercize care with their
statements.Other forged posts depict the person's alleged writing as stupid,
crude, or excessively hostile. This can also be false accusations that
a person is the illegal canceller of posts.
6. Threats of, or actual physical violence/murder to prevent a person from
posting, or for revenge.
Who is doing this Net Censorship and Terrorism?
proponents of the paranormal/astrology such as Edmond H. Wollmann, Lucianarchy, and Raymond Karczewski
had taken part in the above described censorship and terrorism. I refuted those allegations on this linked page.
The activities described above are from pseudo-skeptic-fanatics. I imagine some proponents have done the
above, as there are fanatics from every point of view. In alt.paranormal/alt.astrology, however, the major activity
described above is from these particular fanatics, the pseudo-skeptic variety.