One of the ADL's victims, Christian Identity Pastor Eli James, published a copy of the letter from the ADL online:
|Click image for larger version|
Two other reported victims include another Christian Identity Pastor, William Finck, as well as an anti-Zionist activist, Mike Delaney. Dual-Seedline Christian Identity is billed as "anti-Semitic" because of its central premise that Jews are a separate race created by the physical union of Even and Satan in the Garden of Eden (Reverend Ted Pike published his objections to Christian Identity on June 18th, 2012). Note how one of the co-signatories of the letter, Deborah M. Lauter, bills herself the "Director of Civil Rights"; the irony of a so-called "director of civil rights" inducing ISPs to violate the civil right of free speech of their customers is overwhelming.
Of course, this is where extreme libertarians will enter the discussion and claim that because the ISPs are privately-owned, they can do what they want, yada, yada, yada, and why don't the victims find another ISP, yada, yada, yada. Well, Mike Delaney actually went that route. Almost one month ago, Delaney's sites were booted off GoDaddy because they were too politically incorrect. So Delaney transferred his sites to 1and1.com, the same ISP used by William Finck. Now Delaney, like Finck, has been booted from 1and1.com. So what's the libertarian response if Delaney can't get any ISP to host his sites? The libertarians never seem to be able to answer that question.
Further research indicates a Jewish blogger, Diane Ravitch, who lost relatives in the Holocaust, received an email from the ADL complaining not about her posts, but about references and analogies to Adolf Hitler and the Holocaust that appear in the comments section of her blog. Apparently the references were not critical or condemnatory enough to suit the ADL. Ravitch indicates she will not cave in to the ADL; it does not appear that the ADL complained to her ISP, though.
An even graver concern are the long-term implications of the ADL's offensive against free speech. It appears the ADL, for now, is limiting their targeting to sites they deem "racist" or "anti-Semitic". The SPLC started out that way as well, but then cast a wider net to target pro-family groups, immigration restrictionist groups, and militia groups. What assurances have we that the ADL won't follow the SPLC's business model and start targeting pro-family, immigration restrictionist, and militia websites. Today the ADL targets William Finck, Eli James, and Mike Delaney -- tomorrow, they could target Jim Minnery, Jeanne Devon, or Norm Olson.
This is a good reason to oppose the criminalization of so-called "hate speech". Certain forms of speech are universally known to be offensive; they're covered under "incendiary speech" and libel laws. But no two people react identically to being insulted; one man's hate can be another man's truth. Thus it frequently cannot be predicted whether or not speech will offend someone. Case in point: A white Massachusetts cop was recently fired from his job for calling black Boston Red Sox outfielder Carl Crawford a "Monday". Who the hell knew there was a racial connotation to the term "Monday"? Perhaps if the cop had known that it would have been considered actionable, he might not have used the term. Too many people are getting blindsided and witch-hunted merely for errors in judgment. Society fails to properly distinguish between ignorance and malevolence.
The Anti-Defamation League has clearly established itself as the sworn enemy of the First Amendment.