The Racist Jewish Mafia assault on the
Internet |
 |
The Internet has, for the first time, provided individuals and
small
organizations the means to effectively compete with the controlled media
monopoly. The major television networks and the big publishing
conglomerates no longer control what news the world will hear.
The backlash from those who have vested interests in suppressing the
truth has been predictable. A United Nations committee has proposed a
multinational agreement to outlaw "racist" ideas on the Net. Some
countries have already thrown website owners in jail for not conforming to
the Establishment Orthodoxy. One German website operator was arrested
for merely including a link to a 'non political correct site' on his page.
In the United States, efforts to censor the Net have been
impeded by a strong First Amendment tradition guaranteeing freedom of
speech. Not yet ready to take on the Constitution, pressure racist jewish groups such as
the Simon Wiesenthal Center have launched hate campaigns against
internet service providers who don't censor political content, attempting to
blackmail them into yanking the plug on any customer whose views the
racist Rabbis find "offensive." More recently, the Anti-Defamation League of
B'nai B'rith announced agreements with both America Online and The
Learning Company to develop filtering software. Sites not approved by
the ADL, and many others are blocked on any machine using this software, and the
customer is instead be taken to an ADL "re-education" page on
"bigotry." Other filtering software such as Surfwatch and Cybersitter,
usually purchased to block pornography, is also being used to censor
political content, usually without the customer even knowing about it.
In a few cases, politically controlled police agencies simply trump up
other charges against those whose real "crime" is exercising their First
Amendment rights. "Hate crimes" statutes, which have been enacted at the
behest of the ADL in many states, are also used to further distort justice
by making one's political views "evidence" of criminal intent.
In light of this mounting threat to freedom, the HOLY WAR Legal
Defense Fund has been established to pay legal expenses for selected First
Amendment-related cases. The unfortunate reality in America today is that
we can only maintain our Constitutional "rights" if we have the money to
fight for them in the courts.
Won't you please help us stop the International Racist Jewish Mafia,
by helping fund this RESISTANCE? By now, you've probably heard about
the massive effort launched by the Racist Jewish Mafia and their evil lackeys
to destroy the HOLY WAR web site.
If you understand the need for an effective legal resource for
Christian patriots,
please contribute as generously as your means permit. Unlike the ADL,
Wiesenthal Center, and other left wing groups, we have no big corporate
backers. We depend on small donations from people like you.
http://holywar.org - http://abbc.com/holywar
Our Constitutional Right to Distribute Literature
The U.S. Constitution is by definition the basic law of the
land: no federal, state,
county, city or community law can contradict any of the basic principles of the
Constitution. In fact, all policeman and judges are supposed to abide by the Constitution.
To be effective in our struggle for White racial survival, expansion and
advancement, we Creators must become thoroughly familiar with the U.S.Constitution,
and especially its First Amendment which reads as follows: "Congress shall make no
law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, an to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
As you can see from the above quotations, the first Amendment of the U.S.
constitution guarantees every citizen, among other things, freedom of speech. In regard
to leafletting, the supreme court has interpreted this to mean that a state or a
municipality may not ban the distribution of leaflets on streets, sidewalks of public
places, Jamison v. Texas 318 US 413 (1943) and Marsh v. Alabama 326U.S.501(1946).
The supreme court applied this to rule to universities, both state and private, in Papish
v. University of Missouri 410 US 667 (1973). Furthermore, leafletting cannot be
prohibited on a military base in areas of public access, Flower v. U.S. 407 US 197(1972).
The supreme court has also found that the door to door solicitation for the
purpose of distributing information may not be banned regardless of the wishes of the
householder to receive such information in this manner, Martin v. Struthers 319 US 141
(1943). Furthermore, a state or municipality may not tax or license the distribution or
sale of political or religious material door to door, Opelika v. Jones 319 US 105 (1943).
In shopping center cases the supreme court has said that privately owned
property may be treated as if it's publicly where it is held open to the public,
Amalgamated Food Employees Union v. Logan Valley Plaza 391 US 308(1968). In
Amalgamated the union was allowed to picket a business inside the shopping mall.
However, a shopping center may ban leafletting in the shopping mall walkways as this
interferes with the business of the center, Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner 407 US 551(1972). As
yet there has been no case decided on the question of leafletting in the parking lot of a
shopping center, but a leading treatise of the First Amendment says this on the subject:
"The First Amendment interest should not be defeated because the property owner
either disapproves of the message conveyed or simply wants to censor all speech
activities. Whether outside of a freestanding store or in the common areas of a
shopping center, a bare property interest does not justify the justify the subordination
of First Amendment speech rights." Nimmer on Freedom of Speech, Section 4.09, Page
4-121.
In light of the above, we recommend that in the event of arrest while leafletting in
one of the above areas, the individual arrested should file a civil suit for false
imprisonment, malprosecution and the intentional deprivation of constitutional rights
and that the parties sued should include the municipality, the Police department, the
arresting officer and the private property owner(in a shopping center case). In such a
case, punitive as well as compensatory damages will be awarded.
