Bennett Haselton, [email]of Peacefire.org, writes on Slashdot, in response to my article Vdare.com Censored by Corporate Software, that although he might defend the right to read us, he disagrees with what we say. Check out the note at the end. (Most of the links are his, I added the link on “once thought” since he was quoting the SPLC quoting us.)

VDARE Fights Blocking By Censorware

The anti-immigration site VDARE.com is publicizing the fact that their site is blocked as a “hate site” by several different blocking programs. They don’t name the programs, although they say that four companies used to block VDARE and “backed off after receiving a lawyer’s letter”.

It seems to be working, since according to the online lookup forms provided by WebSense, N2H2, SurfControl and SmartFilter, only SmartFilter lists the site under “hate speech”; the rest either don’t categorize it or list it in innocuous categories. (N2H2 lists it as “Web Page Hosting/Free Pages”, which makes no sense — but not only that, N2H2 is now owned by the same company that makes SmartFilter, which means the company has VDARE listed one way in one product, and a different way in another.)

VDARE says they decided that showing legal muscle was a good way to get unblocked, after reading about an experiment Peacefire did in which we found that censorware companies would block sites with anti-gay content when they thought the sites were run by individuals, but would not block the *exact same content* when it was hosted by “mainstream” groups like Focus on the Family. Concludes VDARE: “The obvious reason for the double standard is that the foundations have lawyers on staff, and volunteer lawyers, and the Censorware companies are afraid of them.” True — although we did nominate AFA.net as a “hate site” at about the same time, and it did get blocked by Cyber Patrol, so it is possible if the content is extreme enough.

I’m against blocking VDARE, even from people under 18, but only because I’m against such blocking in general. Polls show that most people under 18 are more liberally-minded about race than their parents, suggesting that if you want to end racism, give minors more rights and freedom of information, not less. There was a big flap when it came out that in some Islamic schools in New York, parents had their children taught with textbooks which said that “the Jews killed their own prophets” and “you will find them ever deceitful”, but without more civil rights for people under 18 to seek information for themselves, there’s not much that anybody can do about it.

But as for whether VDARE really should be listed as a “hate site”, the site owner himself says that VDARE is not “white nationalist”, but adds, “We also publish on VDARE.COM a few writers, for example Jared Taylor, whom I would regard as ‘white nationalist’”. Well even if VDARE itself claims not to be ‘white nationalist’, if they host white nationalist writings, it’s still accurate to classify the site as a place where such content is located. VDARE itself is also listed by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group. VDARE’s founder insists they are merely anti-immigration, not white nationalist, although he admits he once thought about adding a chapter to his anti-immigration book Alien Nation about the “last white family” (not the “last non-illegal-immigrant family”) to leave Los Angeles.

Like BoingBoing.Net did before them, VDARE is retaliating against the block by encouraging people to learn how to get around blocking software. I wonder if they looked closely at our site first, since we fight censorship from the point of view of advocating greater civil rights for minors, which would probably not be a popular view with VDARE’s ultra-conservative base. And if that’s not enough, I’m planning to contact WebSense, SurfControl, and any other company that doesn’t currently list VDARE as a “hate site”, and ask them why not. So, VDARE sends us traffic, and this is how we repay them.

Here’s an English translation, you can see a PDF of the the original Spanish here, and note that while the letter was sent out on CCIR letterhead, both Barbara Coe and Nguyen deny sending it. This is via a liberal site which seems to think that Nguyen is part of the “racist right.” The letter seems to me to make the important distinction between those who are citizens and those who aren’t.

Greetings XXXX XXXX,

You are being sent this letter because you were recently registered to vote. If you are a citizen of the United States, we ask that you participate in the democratic process of voting.[Emphasis added.]

You are advised that if your residence in this country is illegal or you are an immigrant, voting in a federal election is a crime that could result in jail time, and you will be deported for voting without having a right to do so.

At the same time, you are advised that the government of the United States is installing a new computer system to verify the names of all new registered voters that vote in the October and November elections. Anti-immigration organizations can ask for information from this new computer system.

Unlike Mexico, here there is no incentive to vote. There is not a voter registration card in the United States. Therefore, it is useless and dangerous to vote in any election if you are not a citizen of the United States.

Do not listen to any politician that tells you the opposite. They are only looking out for their own interests. They only want to win elections without any regard to what happens to you.

Sincerely, Sergio Ramirez

John J. Pitney, [send him mail] on one of NRO’s many blogs has decided that cowardly behavior by the Orange County Republican party is ” the right thing.”

The GOP’s Year of Living Stupidly
[John J. Pitney Jr. 10/20 08:55 AM]
Yet another Republican candidate messes up, this time in California. At least county chairman Scott Baugh reacting by doing the right thing.

The right thing he’s praising is the Orange County Republican party’s decision to betray and abandon a Republican Candidate over a phony issue that offended Hispanics. [OC GOP urges candidate whose campaign sent letter to withdraw By Peter Prengaman, Associated Press, October 19, 2006]When Republican candidate Tan Nguyen, sent out a letter in Spanish to people in his district reminding them that non-citizens are not allowed to vote and can go to jail for doing so, he was threatened with criminal penalties for “intimidation.”

The point all these MSM reporters insist on pointing out is that naturalized immigrants, (like Peter Brimelow, John Derbyshire, and Arnold Schwarzenegger ) are allowed to vote. They know that. They explain it to you at the swearing-in ceremony.

That’s not what Nguyen, an “immigrant himself,” meant. He meant that you must be an American citizen to vote. He’s running against Loretta Sanchez in what used to be Bob Dornan’s district. Sanchez beat Dornan with the aid of illegal alien voters.

Non-citizens are are actually a majority in many California districts, and Democrats are the traditional beneficiaries of the illegal Hispanic vote, as they are of the legal Hispanic vote.

Why is the Orange County Republican Party backing down? And why is NRO endorsing their actions?