"The Jews!!!"

.

This thread will be an ongoing chronicle of documentation regarding HuffPost's persistent approval and publication of miscellaneous Jew- and Israel-bashing/mocking comments on its news threads, many/most of which have nothing to do with the topic of those threads.

According to HuffPost's FAQ: Comments & Moderation, Comment Policy and Terms of Service (Section 3[iii]), both of these offenses (ethnic slurs, off-topic commentary) are supposedly grounds for banning. But what is one to make of the fact that it is HuffPost itself that makes exceptions to these commenting policies, if the submitted comment targets Jews and/or Israel?

As noted elsewhere on HB, this is not a matter of free speech. HuffPost and its users are free to say whatever they want. The marketplace (and possibly law enforcement agencies; here, here), however, reserves the right to hold HuffPost and its users accountable for what the latter submits, and the former decides to approve for publishing on its site.

If you have an item that you think should be covered here, please email it to huffbuster1@aol.com.


===================================

APRIL 27: SWINE FLU THREAD; THE JEWS!!!

From April 26-27, HuffPost's splash front page headline was dominated by this story: Swine Flu: White House Says "It's Not A Time To Panic".


Yet if one visited the site at 6:15am on April 27, read the story and followed the page down to read comments, one would have found the following:

• 93 comments were pending its approval
  
  
• HuffPost was running nearly an hour behind in publishing approved comments (note time stamps at bottom of first comment, 5:21am, and the computer time at lower right of screen, 6:16am)

And what was the very first comment (above, enlarge) one would have encountered on this thread about the tragic spread of this frightening flu, throughout the world --- a comment that had been reviewed, approved and published by HuffPost?

WooWooZoo See Profile I'm a Fan of WooWooZoo I'm a fan of this user permalink

Frum"s confused defense of Jane Harman and AIPAC

David Frum wants to defend Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) from allegations that she sold her influence to get charges reduced or dropped in an espionage case, but he ignores the corruption in favor of making a confused defense of leaks. In "The Real Jane Harman Scandal," Frum instead accuses the accusers for attacking Harman and the AIPAC-connected ring while supposedly letting the New York Times off the hook for exposing national-security programs.

thats why they are called 'Masters of Deceit'

Of course watch BlueStateMan makes excuses and condone it and even try to say I am a ''hater'.

Obfuscation is the name of their game.
Reply Favorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:21 AM on 04/27/2009

================================

.