HuffPost's protection of the most egregious violators of its "policies" --- and its banning of non-violators, on a minute-to-minute basis

.

Casual and long-term observers of HuffPost's "news" story comment threads have noted that they are routinely engulfed with violations of its Comment Policy and Terms of Service --- and sometimes, far worse. For an overview of this sitaution, please see: Comparing HuffPost comment threads to those on other major political blogsites.

From vulgar personal attacks, to slurs based on religion, race, sexual orientation and ethnicity, to "outing," stalking and threatening other users, to urgings and threats of violence against public figures --- one often encounters pretty much anything but the topic of the "news" item in question.

HuffPost has repeatedly claimed that such incidents are anomalies --- that comments that violate its policies "occasionally slip through," but that it vigilantly works 24-7 to keep its user comments within the boundaries of its rules (more).

This article, the result of extensive observation, research and documentation, explodes this myth, and sheds light onto the real reasons why so many of HuffPost's "news" threads appear as they do, day after day, month after month, year after year.

CONTENTS

OVERVIEW

(1) Select statements by Arianna Huffington regarding HuffPost's policies on user conduct

(2) Examples of comments by egregious violators whom HuffPost has knowingly enabled and protected, and allowed to remain commenting (under their original or slightly-modified screen names) for one to four years, and to the present day

(3) The proof that HuffPost has been pre-moderating user comments on its news threads since March 2008 (and to some extent, since October 2007)

(4) HuffPost's non-partisan Comment Policy & Terms of Service

(5) The reality: The three "castes" of HuffPost users, and how the site deals with each

(6) Five examples of users whom HuffPost has knowingly protected, and allowed to egregiously violate its CP-TOS at will, for one to four years

(7) Twenty examples of non-violating users whom HuffPost has banned for daring to express dissenting opinions, challenging or mocking the site's "protected caste' of egregious violators, or responding to their vicious attacks, in kind

(8) Three tests that Huff-Watch has run that further prove the fact that HuffPost censors and bans certain users on a discriminatory, moment-to-moment basis --- while leaving its most egregious violators free to continue

===========

OVERVIEW

Like other major "newspapers," HuffPost --- which bills itself as "The Internet Newspaper" --- has established and articulated rules of conduct for those who wish to comment on news stories. As is described here, "comment threads" on sites such as HuffPost are the 21st-century, electronic, real-time version of letters-to-the-editor in printed newspapers and news magazines.

Visitors wishing to obtain comment-posting privileges at HuffPost must first agree to abide by its Comment Policy and Terms of Service ("CP-TOS"). These provisions are fairly standard among major "news" websites. They essentially dictate that users agree to conduct themselves with civility (see Section 4). Conversely, HuffPost has repeatedly claimed that in order to enforce its CP-TOS, it prevents the posting of and/or promptly removes user comments that violate these provisions, and warns that it bans persistent violators, by blocking their IP addresses (see Section 1).

Since 2007, numerous incidents of user-generated hate speech on HuffPost were exposed in the national media and on blogs --- including justifications and wishes for the death/murder of protectees of the Secret Service (1, 2, 3, 4).

In response, Arianna Huffington has strenuously claimed (see Section 1) the site has “a zero tolerance policy” for hate speech of any kind, and works diligently against it, 24-7. She has dismissed such incidents as being the responsibility of “a miniscule minority” of “clearly unhinged, fringe” users, and “anonymous, trouble-making trolls” (hit-and-run users), who may even be part of a conspiracy to embarrass HuffPost, and whose comments are deleted as soon as it becomes aware of them. This is based on the premise that HuffPost publishes all user comments as and when they are submitted, and only removes those that violate its CP-TOS after-the-fact (see Section 3).

The facts refute these claims.

In reality, many of the most persistent, egregious violations of HuffPost’s comment policies are perpetrated not by unknown “trolls” – but rather, by a group of long-term radical leftists, some of whom it has knowingly permitted to essentially “live” on the site for 8-18 hours a day. In fact, HuffPost has knowingly permitted several of its most egregious violators to rack up 40,000 - 70,000+ comments over a period of one to four years, and has actively protected their ability to engage in their pathological violations.

One user, "kevenseven" (see Section 6) is a prime example of this phenomenon. HuffPost management is well aware that he was interviewed in his home by the U.S. Secret Service for his threats and urgings of violence against its protectees on the site. Yet as in other cases of egregious violators, even though it "banned" him at least 10 times, it fully reinstated him each time under the same screen name, within hours or days. Furthermore, despite user complaints, HuffPost has allowed him to continue his pathological, egregious violations of its CP-TOS, for at least another 18 months. In his entire posting career on HuffPost (4 years), it has allowed him to rack up 25,000 comments under this screen name (and another estimated 25,000 under several self-acknowledged alternates).

This stands in stark contrast to the actions HuffPost takes against non-violating users, who dare to express conservative viewpoints, challenge or mock the rants of its protected, "resident" gang of radical leftists, or respond to their vicious, personal attacks (see Section 7). The evidence shows that HuffPost has routinely banned these users, with no reprieve --- some, after as few as six comments (see "DaBandStillStands" and "ABeautifulJesture" in Section 7).

Further, as is documented in great detail in this special report, HuffPost censored one user --- on a minute-to-minute basis --- who attempted to reveal the truth behind blood libels against the U.S. military being posted 24-7, by a "protected" radical leftist.

Also, as is documented in Section 3, since at least March 2008 (and to some extent since October 2007), HuffPost has been pre-moderating all user comments. This means that HuffPost reviews and either approves or rejects each comment, before it is published. Thus, HuffPost's excuse that it has no idea what types of comments are being posted and by whom, until after-the-fact, is revealed as false.

Combined, as described in the "Broken Window" theory of criminal law (1, 2), these acts can only serve (and clearly have served) to encourage other radical leftists to act in similar ways --- by telling them, in effect, that there is no limit to what they can get away with, whereas other users who dare to challenge them will be swiftly expelled. This "open-sesame" also extends, to some extent, into facilitating radical leftists' expressions of anti-Semitism documented here, now referred to as “the leftist-Islamist convergence” (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). While not all radical leftists are anti-Semites, the bulk of today's non-Islamist anti-Semites are, in fact, radical leftists. (More: See Section 5 in "Anti-Semitism 101")

In the final analysis, it is not even this "protected" gang of radical leftists that are primarily responsible for the fact that HuffPost's "news" comment threads are typically rife with general to egregious violations of its CP-TOS.

Rather, it is HuffPost's conscious actions and inactions, on both a momentary and long-term basis, that have allowed the persistent, chronic violations of its CP-TOS that creates the climate of hatred and conflict that it falsely claims it works vigilantly to prevent.

===========

(1) Select statements by Arianna Huffington regarding HuffPost's policies on user conduct

"If you're looking for the usual flame-throwing, name-calling, and simplistic attack dog rhetoric ... don't bother coming to the Huffington Post."
Newsweek, May 6, 2005

"(A) few ugly - and anonymously posted -- comments appear(ed) on HuffPost, which were removed as soon as we become aware of them..."
Portfolio, May 28, 2008

"We have a zero-tolerance policy when it comes to abusive or hateful language or comments – such comments are taken down as quickly as they come to the attention of our moderators. And we are constantly working to develop new technologies -- and backing them up with more and more 24/7 moderators -- which will allow us to more effectively filter out objectionable comments. But no system is perfect and offensive comments occasionally slip through."
The Huffington Post, March 20, 2008

===========

(2) Examples of comments by egregious violators whom HuffPost has knowingly enabled and protected, and allowed to remain commenting (under their original or slightly-modified screen names) for one to four years, and to the present day

(1) "Go blow your priest and let him blow you, you fucking pervert. Aren't you embarrassed that you exist? Aren't you ashamed that you call your innocent daughter a "little cunt", you sorry excuse for a human being? And you dare talk to us about your morality and scriptures? Take your scriptures and stuff them up your priest's ass next time you visit your Church for your orgies with kids, you sick pervert. [...] Go back and masturbate in your Church where your Christian morality begins and ends. You should be embarrassed you exist, you slithery creep."
- 11/7/2006

(2) "Are you done f*cking your mother, or are you just taking a break?"
- 9/15/2008

(3) "There goes my plan for becoming black, so I'm not mistakenly identified as a f*ck!ng Republican."
- 8/10/2009

-----------

(4) "A few of you may know that the Secret Service came to interrogate me for writing [on HuffPost] that the best way to achieve a makeover for Bush would be to cut off his head. They insisted that that was a threat. They put me thru it for an hour. […]"
- 5/25/2008

(5) "Take it from somebody who has experienced a Secret Service interview. They are as interested in Obama's security as they are in [Bush's...] If you want to experience a very uncomfortable hour, you should make a public threat against him [President Bush]. Guys who look like they have never smiled will make you miserable. [...]"
- 7/19/2008

(6) "Pssst. [user]. Look out the window. Those guys sitting in the late-model sedan at the end of the block? [...] They will be taking away your grubby little kids in a few days."
- 3/8/2009

----------

(7) "We should cut of the hands of the thieving bankers [...] We should dismember the hedge fund managers."
- 3/24/2009

(reply)
(8) "I will ship my machete, someone else can do the chopping"
- 3/24/2009

(reply)
(9) "We have a dozen swords in the house don't bother. My wife and I are history buffs and like to collect [... my] personal favorite is the gladius [...]"
- 3/24/2009

----------

(10) "Go torture rape some little boy [...] That's more your style."
- 6/10/2009

--------

(11) "Jews are evil. Israel runs the world. Lets kill 'em all and give the land back to Islam; result-perpetual peace. Seig Heil."
- 5/23/2008

(12) "Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right, Here I am, stuck in the middle with Jooooz [Jews]"
- 11/22/2008

(13) "HEIL HITLER"
- 3/19/09

(14) "There's a reason they [the Jews] have been the most problematic group for thousands of years."
- 1/04/2009

As noted in the dates, with the exception of comment (1)*, all of the above comments were posted after 3/1/08, when HuffPost began pre-moderating all user comments on its news threads --- as is documented in Section 3. Furthermore, all of these users' accounts are still active as of Oct. 2009 --- under their original or other (often only slightly-modified) screen names.
(*And as noted in Section 6, HuffPost has allowed the user who posted Comments (1)-(3), "HumeSkeptic," to post nearly 75,000 comments since 2005 --- under the same screen name.)

KEY: (1)-(3): "HumeSkeptic," nearly 75,000 comments since 2005; (4)-(6): "kevenseven," et al, more than 50,000 comments since 2005 (at least 15,000 of which occurred after HuffPost discovered he was interviewed by the Secret Service for his threats against President Bush); (7), (9), (13): "KQuark" et al, more than 27,000 comments since 2006; (10) "rich_misty," more than 40,000 comments since April 2008; (11): "pedrothemigrant"; (12): "JamesR.," more than 11,000 comments since 2007; (14) "Amennyc," more than 2,500 comments since 2007.

===========

(3) The proof that HuffPost has been pre-moderating user comments on its news threads since March 2008 (and to some extent, since October 2007)

The following is a summary of a detailed analysis and chronology of HuffPost's claims, vs. the reality, of its news thread comment moderation, here.

HuffPost began pre-moderating user comments on its news threads to some extent since October 2007. This date is significant in that it was barely one month after the Media Research Center published a report, "Huffington's House Of Horrors," detailing how HuffPost was becoming a locus of radical leftist hate speech, in contrast to its statements about itself, its moderation practices, etc.

In early March 2008, after several more incidents of egregious user-generated hate speech on HuffPost were exposed in the national media, it announced that it would be "pre-moderating" all user comments from then on. This means that the only comments that would appear on HuffPost are those that it reviewed, approved and decided to publish.

HuffPost began putting the following status bar at the top of every news and blog thread --- a practice it has maintained to this day --- indicating how many comments are "pending" its review at any given moment. Click to enlarge; the copy reads:

“Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to”

Ms. Huffington confirmed this in an interview, several months later, when asked what her biggest mistake was in regards to HuffPost --- and what she would have done differently (emphasis added):

"From the beginning, I would have established a policy of pre-moderating all comments on the site. We started with pre-moderation only on blog posts, since we felt it was important to provide a civil environment for our bloggers (i.e., one where critical comments would of course be allowed but no ad hominem attacks or name calling).

"Our comments on the news site were originally post-moderated (i.e., objectionable comments were removed only after our moderators were alerted).

"We eventually decided that it was worth the substantial effort and expense to have human pre-moderation on both blogs and news."

Yet as of November 2009, HuffPost's Comment Policy (1, 2) still falsely claim that "We post-moderate comments on news stories."

Additional, comprehensive evidence demonstrating that HuffPost has been pre-moderating user comments on its news threads since at least March 2008 is located here.


===========

(4) HuffPost's nonpartisan Comment Policy & Terms of Service

Since its inception, HuffPost has articulated a body of nonpartisan*, seemingly-reasonable comment policies and terms of service ("CP-TOS"), which are documented here.
(*HuffPost's CP-TOS explicitly claims, "We never censor comments based on political or ideological point of view.")

These CP-TOS are fairly standard among prominent websites, and generally relate to the following:

• Don't post comments that are unrelated to the topic of the article
  
  
• Don't attack others on a personal (ad hominem) basis
  
  
• Don't use slurs based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or other factors
  
  
• Don't threaten others, or do or urge anyone else to do anything that would constitute a violation of the law
  

HuffPost claims that it censors users who violate these rules and, if they persist, they risk being banned by their IP address (the unique identifier code assigned to each Internet user, meaning that HuffPost will block them from re-registering or accessing new accounts on the same computer).


===========

(5) The reality: The three "castes" of HuffPost users, and how the site deals with each

Despite its stated policy of non-partisan comment moderation and user discipline, HuffPost has essentially established three distinct "castes" of users --- against whom it applies its CP-TOS on a fundamentally different basis:

Uppermost caste: Radical leftists

Middle caste: "Others"

Lowest caste: Republicans, conservatives and libertarians

The following describes each "caste" of users, and how HuffPost has dealt with it over the past several years, and to the present day.

Uppermost caste: Radical leftists

This is all documented in Section 6. HuffPost permits users in this caste to egregiously and continuously violate its CP-TOS at will. They remain largely uncensored, and enjoy the ability to post comments on HuffPost's top news threads* in real- time, with little to no censorship or moderation.
(*where the overwhelming majority of user and moderator attention is focused at any given moment)

Most commonly, these users' violations center around their use of the following --- most of which are (supposedly) serious breaches of HuffPost's CP-TOS:

• Vicious, often vulgar personal attacks against users with whom they disagree*, often employing slurs based on race, sexual orientation (typically homophobic), religion (typically anti-Christian and anti-Semitic), etc.
  
  
• Vulgar attacks and libels against political "enemies" (e.g. calling Sarah Palin a "whore," "trailer park trash," "white trash," a "tramp," and her children equally horrible names, etc.; see "The MirrorMirror Test" in Section 8)
  
  
• Urgings of violence/threats against others, including HuffPost users and their children, etc. --- and even notable public figures and protectees of the U.S. Secret Service
  
  
• Celebrating the death or illness of public figures whom they consider to be "enemies"
  
  
• "Hijacking" and filling HuffPost's top "news" threads with off-topic content, including: ongoing intra-user battles; stalking users; disclosing actual/suspected identities of current/former anonymous users ("outing" them); personal discussions; flirting/"hookups"; discussions of sexual exploits, etc. Most disturbingly, HuffPost allows these comments to be posted on "news" threads dealing with serious and tragic situations, such as deaths of U.S. soldiers, etc.
  

HuffPost not only permits violations by these users to occur every day, it has knowingly allowed some of them to essentially "live" on the site for 8-18 or more hours a day, during which they routinely post 100-500 comments (up to one comment ever two minutes for 18 hour straight). HuffPost has allowed several of these users to rack up tens of thousands of comments under the same screen names.

Collectively, these users generate a significant minority of all user comments --- which translate into page-views, upon which all or most of HuffPost's advertising revenues are reportedly based. In fact, the egregious "violators" profiled in Section 6 alone have generated --- at a minimum --- an estimated 270,000 comments. Add to these the estimated 30 or so other radical leftists whom HuffPost has allowed to spend much or the bulk of their waking hours on the top "news" thread of the moment, and one begins to understand how much these users' obsessive posting may be "worth," in terms of generating "traffic" numbers.

HuffPost has knowingly protected these users in a number of ways:

(1) By reviewing, approving and deciding to publish their violating comments on a minute-by-minute-basis, day after day, month after month

(2) By fully reinstating their accounts after they have been (temporarily) "banned" (usually for 24-72 hours only, which they're notified of via email).

(3) By censoring and/or quickly removing the comments submitted by other users that challenge or mock those posted by this "protected" caste.

(4) By refusing to take substantive, permanent action against them, even after receiving multiple complaint emails from non-violating users, containing detailed documentation.

(5) By notifying the violators via email of other users' complaints, and "asking" them to stop their behavior --- which they not only refuse to do, they openly mock HuffPost for chastising them.

(6) By banning non-violating users who dare to challenge or mock these users, or respond to their vicious personal attacks, in kind.

These users have claimed that despite HuffPost's stated policy of nonpartisan comment moderation, they "own" the site, and determine who is welcome to comment there --- and who isn't, who they then order to leave.

Middle caste: “Others"

These are infrequent users who neither hold nor argue for any strong political beliefs, do not violate its policies (at least to any great degree), and do not spend a lot of time at HuffPost. It generally leaves these users alone --- or, it may ban them. It is totally unpredictable.

Lowest caste: Republicans, conservatives and libertarians

This is documented in Sections 7 & 8. These users express their political and ideological beliefs with passion. HuffPost's radical leftists almost uniformly refer to them as "trolls," routinely respond to their political comments with vulgar personal attacks, and openly petition the site to ban them.

HuffPost routinely censors and blocks these users' comments --- often on a minute-to-minute-basis --- especially when they attempt to respond to the incendiary attacks leveled against them by the site's radical leftists.

HuffPost also routinely bans these users --- in some cases, within minutes of their first comments --- even though they've violated none of its policies, or at least nowhere near the degree to which it permits its resident radical leftists to. HuffPost does this either (a) of its own volition, or (b) per the open request of its resident radical leftists --- who then celebrate the special status they enjoy on the site.

Unlike HuffPost's resident radical leftists, these users typically do not "live" on the site: they post their thoughts, engage in discourse, and leave.

===========

(6) Five examples of users whom HuffPost has knowingly protected, and allowed to egregiously violate its CP-TOS at will, for one to four years

Due to the sheer volume of comments that HuffPst has allowed these users to post, over such a long period of time, the documentation required for each user is quite lengthy. For convenience, we provide initial overviews beneath each user's name, and links to (a) summaries of their posting histories, and then, to (b) detailed analyses.

Collectively, the following will suffice in terms of giving the reader a clear overall picture of how HuffPost really operates, as opposed to its public statements to the contrary.

(a) "KevenSeven"

Since 2005, HuffPost has permitted this user to post an estimated 50,000+ comments, mostly under the same or similar, self-admitted screen names. Although he doesn't "live" on HuffPost, he routinely spends 8 or more continuous hours there.

In addition to persistent, egregious violations of HuffPost's policies, he is notorious for threatening other users' children, and is "famous" on the site for being interviewed in his home by the U.S. Secret Service for his threats and urgings of violence against its protectees on the site. HuffPost knows this --- primarily because it reviewed, approved and decided to publish his bragging about this encounter, and because it received numerous complaint emails about him.

The only action HuffPost has taken against him, however, has been to temporarily "ban," then quickly reinstated him, under his original screen name. It has done this a minimum of ten times --- three times in October 2009 alone. Since 2007, HuffPost also routinely banned users who dare to speak out against him (see "BreakingnewsJustintime," "BradPittsburgh," "Superbus" and "PAJeff" in Section 7).

See summary here, and detailed analysis here.

(b) "HumeSkeptic"

Since 2005, HuffPost has permitted him to post nearly 75,000 comments under the same screen name. He essentially "lives" at the site from 8-12 hours a day, nearly every day.

His trademarks are viciously attacking any user who disagrees with his opinions, often with extreme vulgarity; anti-U.S. military and anti-Israeli propaganda; and the use of religious and racial slurs. HuffPost routinely bans users who dare to speak out against him.

He makes no secret of the fact that he has direct, friendly communication with HuffPost management. He's even publicly posted emails to him from HuffPost in which it apologized to him for technical glitches that prevented comments from him that it had "approved" from appearing. He has also been able to convince HuffPost to reinstate several of the most notorious violators that it had (temporarily) "banned" --- including "kevenseven," described above.

See summary here, and detailed analysis here.

(c) "Rich_Misty"

Since April 2008, HuffPost has allowed this user to post more than 40,000 comments, and to basically "live" on the site, up to 24 hours a day, during which he's posted up to 300 or more comments. This user's primary pathology is anti-U.S. military, anti-conservative/Republican, anti-Christian and anti-Israel propaganda.

HuffPost has allowed him to continuously, viciously attack any user who dares disagree with him, primarily with accusations that they engage in or otherwise support the sexual torture/murder of children. This occurs on all of HuffPost's top news threads, regardless of the topic, all in violation of its (supposed) CP-TOS.

Most egregiously, HuffPost continuously enabled and protected his ability to post blood libels against the U.S. military using phony pictures, while suppressing another user's ability to expose these photos as fakes. Huff-Watch produced a special report on this episode, with extensive documentation:
HuffPost's Protection Of Blood Libels Against The U.S. Military

Even after "rich_misty" openly requested that HuffPost ban him, it would not do so. It did, however, continue to routinely ban other non-violating users who dared to speak out against him, and other "protected" radical leftists.

(d) "BlueStateMan"

Since 2005, HuffPost has permitted this user to post an estimated 50,000+ comments, mostly under the same screen name. Although he doesn't "live" on HuffPost, he routinely spends 10 or more continuous hours there. At his peak, he has posted 500 comments in 24 hours (average one every 3 minutes, straight through).

In addition to general violations of its CP-TOS, HuffPost has permitted this (self-professedly) suicidal user to openly threaten other users --- and viciously denounce its moderators for daring to censor him in any way. HuffPost routinely bans users who dare to challenge, mock or speak out against him (to his express delight). He is notorious for his vulgar, off-topic, pathological attacks on other users, his anti-Semitic propaganda, and more.

Although HuffPost has "banned" him several times in 2009, it has also (a) routinely reinstated him under the same screen name, or (b) allowed him to establish new accounts under similar screen names, with which he resumes his same activities.

See summary here, and detailed analysis here.

Addendum, 2010: Under the new screen name it has been permitting him to use, "DocStrangelove," HuffPost has made "BlueStateMan" a de facto moderator, a role he clearly relishes. While obsessing over and attacking other users, and spreading his hateful propaganda --- and posting as many as 650 comments over 24 straight hours --- he has been empowered to warn non-violating users who stand up to him that they're about to be banned. Invariably, within a few minutes, that's exactly what happens.

(e) "KQuark"

Active continuously since 2006. HuffPost has allowed him to post an estimated 25,000 comments. In March 2009, HuffPost permitted him (a) to post comments openly urging the murder of notable public figures, then claim he has the weapons with which to fulfill this ambition (here), and (b) to post a "HEIL HITLER" graphic in response to another user's anti-Semitic rant (here). Barely a week later, he even bragged on another blogsite that no matter what he does on HuffPost, it won't ban him (which correlates to our documentation of "rich_misty," described above).

Even though HuffPost did eventually "ban" him, it has allowed him to continue posting under his self-admitted alternative screen name ("KQuark"), and does so to this day (currently at more than 12,000 comments). Most recently, he admitted on another site that HuffPost rejects (before the fact) or removes (after the fact) 50% of his comments --- further validating the fact that HuffPost has been not only pre-moderating user comments, it has chosen to keep him active, even after his notorious history on the site.

6.1: SPECIAL FOCUS ON ANTI-SEMITIC USERS THAT HUFFPOST HAS PROTECTED

"lefty83" and "black series": We caught this two-fer in November-December 2010, as part of our effort to identify HuffPost's top advertisers, and notify them of what they are facilitating there. In this case, Chase is (presumably unknowingly) paying for HuffPost's ability to facilitate and protect vile, anti-Semites. First, there was "lefty83," whom HuffPost approved to call Jews as "hook-nosed bastards," and "black series" to claim that Israel and its "fiends"... "deserved" the wildfire that killed dozens of Jews, in December 2010. In both cases, HuffPost later surgically removed these comments, but left both anti-Semites free to continue posting... while at the same time, it was banning non-violating users who dare to stand up to its most egregious violators. Documented here.

"CaptainQueeg"
On January 27, 2010, in response to HuffPost's decision to twist a crime story to focus on an irrelevant Jewish aspect, it permitted a radical leftist, "CaptainQueeg," to explain that he's "Getting sick and tired of all of the Heebe's in this world." In the days prior, it also permitted him to explicitly urge others to commit violence against Supreme Court justices and Republicans. Yet rather than banning him, as it does with non-violating non-leftists, HuffPost surgically removed these comments and left him free to continue commenting. Documented here.

"pedrothemigrant"
As noted in Comment (11) in Section 2, HuffPost reviewed, approved and published this user's explicit call to genocide: "Jews are evil. Israel runs the world. Lets kill 'em all and give the land back to Islam; result-perpetual peace. Seig Heil." Yet instead of immediately and permanently banning this user (as HuffPost claims it has the power to do), it merely removed this comment, but left him/her free to continue commenting --- which he/she did. As of November 2009, this user's account is still active. Documented here.

"poco767c" (2009-present)
HuffPost has allowed "poco767c," an egregious violator, to remain active under the same user name since August 2008, during which time it has permitted him to post nearly 17,000 comments. In July 2009, HuffPost permitted him to post numerous "comments" filled with graphic swastikas. Yet when another user, "Mir Observer" (a Huff-Watch operative), called him out on this, HuffPost swiftly banned "Mir Observer" --- but left "Poco767c" free to continue commenting, as it has to this day. Documented here.

"woodpecker4" (2010)
In mid-February 2010, a Huff-Watch operative observed that HuffPost was permitting a user, "woodpecker4," to "spam" (repeatedly post) anti-Semitic comments on all its top news threads (regardless of the topic), claiming that that Sec. of State Clinton is "a Zionist warmonger...who takes her orders from AIPAC... and wants to fight wars for Israel." On February 15, our operative established a new account as "RedRedRooster," in order to confront "woodpecker4." Among other comments, "RedRedRooster" asked him to provide proof of his conspiracy theories. HuffPost banned "RedRedRooster" within minutes of this request --- but left "woodpecker4" free to continue spamming his anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, which is exactly what he did. Documented here.

Also see 5/26/09: The "Jacob2217" Test in Section 8, below, to show how HuffPost protects users to post anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, yet when a pro-Israel user attempted to refute them, he was banned.

6.2: OTHERS: GENERALLY EGREGIOUS VIOLATORS

Jan. 2011 addition: "Kokand"
HuffPost has chronically enabled and protected this user, who claims to be former U.S. Navy Special Forces, to repeatedly post comments stating:
(a) That certain energy executives should have their "brains blown out" with guns, and that he has the willingness, weapons and training to do it.
(b) That "every Tea Party member should be executed"
Further, HuffPost has permitted him to threaten other users that they are going to be banned from the site, for daring to complain about or mock him --- and within minutes or hours, this is exactly what's happened. This is not a random, infrequent user, either; HuffPost has permitted him to essentially "live" on its site, posting up to 200 comments in 10 hours (one comment every three minutes for ten hours straight). See full documentation here.

"LookToTheLeft"
From February-December 2009, HuffPost has allowed this radical leftist user to spend the bulk of his waking hours on the site, and to post a minimum of 20,000 total comments. His comments mainly consist of vulgar, explicit slurs regarding homosexuality, and vicious, obscene personal attacks against other users. They also consist of his attacks on HuffPost moderators for daring to censor him in any way, and expressions of how much he'd like to inflict physical violence on them, and on his political "enemies." By his own estimate, though, it's removed or refused to publish between four and ten thousand of his comments. HuffPost notified him it was banning him, once --- for 24 hours --- after which it fully reinstated his account, including his prized "fan" base. Soon thereafter, it banned him for a week, after which it once again fully reinstated his account. As in all other cases, during this time, HuffPost was also banning* users who dared to express dissenting political views, or stood up to him (*permanently, and without any notice or reprieve). Documented here.

"Paul Peete"
Peete is a combination official HuffPost blogger and commenter on its news threads. starting in September 2008, HuffPost permitted Peete to repeatedly post conspiracy theories agaisnt the U.S. military, and what amounted to implicit urgings of violence against American soldiers. Several users emailed HuffPost to complain; it didn't even bother replying --- but kept enabling and protecting him (as it has to this day). Since then, HuffPost has allowed him to boast of how many non-violating users ("trolls") he personally had gotten banned, to "hijack" its "news" comment threads to discuss personal (even sexual) matters, and to continue pathologically violating its (supposed) Comment Policy & Terms of Service. Documented here.

"Rampage"
Active under several screen names since 2006, he is one of HuffPost's longer-term, protected radical leftists. It has permitted him to arrange a fistfight between himself and another user, who he threatened to beat so badly that he'd require hospitalization, to repeatedly post graphic, vulgar homophobic attacks, and obsess over other users. To date, it has permitted him to post at least 60,000 comments under his various, self-admitted screen names --- and 30,000 that we have documented since May 2009. Update: in April 2010, HuffPost made "Rampage" (now as "OnTopicOffTopic") a "super-moderator," giving him the ability to delete the comments by other users, purely according to his own "judgment." Documented here.

"Typo-Knig"
Unlike many of HuffPost's protected radical leftists whom HuffPost allows to egregiously violates its policies, "Typo-Knig" openly admits that he posts "vile, hate-filled shit" --- and did so, publicly, in the form of a thank-you to the site for consistently approving and publishing such "comments" by him. He also noted that such a task "can't be easy" on them. HuffPost apparently had enough, though, because it "banned" him for three weeks in April 2010, but then fully reinstated him, to the joy of his "friends," after which he resumed his exact same behavior. Documented here.

Many more available.

===========

(7) Twenty examples of non-violating users whom HuffPost has banned for daring to express dissenting opinions, challenging or mocking the site's protected caste of egregious violators, or responding to their vicious attacks, in kind

The following is but a sampling of the approximately 100 instances in our archives from 2007 to the present day that indicate the speed with which HuffPost can, and does, ban users --- when it wants to do so. In all such cases, the user did not violate its CP-TOS, or at least nowhere near the degree to which it allows its "protected" caste of radical leftists to violate them, on a daily basis.

Because the documentation shows that HuffPost has banned these users after as few as six comments, most of these articles are considerably shorter than those in Section 6.

"Nocturnal Soleil" (2010)
On a news thread focused on the Chilean earthquake, in which at least 200 people were killed, several of HuffPost's most notorious, pathological violators were mocking the situation and the victims, supposedly gross violations of its comment policy. A Huff-Watcher established a new account as "Nocturnal Soleil" and called these violators out for their actions. Within seven minutes, HuffPost banned this user --- an act that caused these violators to erupt in delight. Documented here.

"RedRedRooster" (2010)
In mid-February 2010, a Huff-Watch operative observed that HuffPost was permitting a user, "woodpecker4," to "spam" (repeatedly post) anti-Semitic comments on all its top news threads (regardless of the topic), claiming that that Sec. of State Clinton is "a Zionist warmonger...who takes her orders from AIPAC... and wants to fight wars for Israel." On February 15, our operative established a new account as "RedRedRooster," in order to confront "woodpecker4." Among other comments, "RedRedRooster" asked him to provide proof of his conspiracy theories. HuffPost banned "RedRedRooster" within minutes of this request --- but left "woodpecker4" free to continue spamming his anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, which is exactly what he did. Documented here.

"Mir Observer" (2009)
HuffPost has allowed "poco767c," an egregious violator, to remain active under the same user name since August 2008, during which time it has permitted him to post nearly 17,000 comments. In July 2009, HuffPost permitted him to post numerous "comments" filled with graphic swastikas. Yet when another user, "Mir Observer" (a Huff-Watch operative), called him out on this, HuffPost swiftly banned "Mir Observer" --- but left "Poco767c" free to continue commenting, as it has to this day. Documented here.

[NOTE: More banned users from 2010 are being formatted now; some were ejected after as few as three comments --- for daring to challenge HuffPost's protected radical leftists. For now, the following accounts demonstrate that since 2007, HuffPost has banned users who dare to stand up to the worst-of-the-worst of its pathological violators --- or who merely voice a conservative viewpoint.]

"NewFragranceForMen" (July 2010)
HuffPost banned this non-violating conservative after 81 comments. See the last profile of this user here, followed by the banned screen (featuring ad by Toyota) here. What, exactly, did this user do to deserve banning? Nothing. At the same time, HuffPost was enabling, protecting and emboldening the most egregious radical leftist violators of its policies such as "foxinretreat" --- whom it repeatedly permitted to openly call for the murder of Rep. John Boehner, VP Cheney, etc., while banning users who dared speak out. Documented here.

"DaBandStillStands" (2009)
HuffPost banned this user within 3 minutes, after 6 (total) non-violating comments. Apparently, his/her "offense" was that he/she questioned the validity of a terror detainee who claimed abuse at the hands of the U.S. military. Documented here.

"DavidInHartford" (2009)
This user dared to attempt to expose the truth behind the blood libels against the U.S. military that HuffPost was allowing one of its "protected" radical leftists, "rich_misty" (described above) to propagate non-stop --- along with a continuous series of egregious violations of its policies. After repeatedly censoring "DavidInHartford" on a minute-to-minute basis, HuffPost then banned him. Documented in detail, here.

"SAS2005" (2009)
This was another victim of HuffPost's protection of "rich_misty" (above). Summary: Amidst "rich_misty's" nonstop libels about conservatives' and U.S. soldiers' supposed desire to sexually torture and murder children, "SAS2005" suggested that he needs help. Within hours, or at most one day, HuffPost banned "SAS2005" --- but left "rich_misty" free to continue his pathological violations of its policies. Documented here.

"Barry Says" (2009)
A similar situation to "SAS2005" (above), this user made the mistake of daring to challenge "rich_misty," and was banned shortly thereafter. Documented here.

"WilliamG" (2009)
A similar situation to "SAS2005" (above), this user made the mistake of daring to challenge "rich_misty," and was banned shortly thereafter. Documented here.

"Bravia Justicia" (2009)
This user gently objected to other users turning a top news thread about the deaths of American soldiers into "music night," in which they engulfed the thread with links to their favorite music. HuffPost permitted the offending users --- mostly long-term, protected violators --- to lash out at "Bravia Justicia," and put it to a "vote." Soon after this exchange, HuffPost banned "Bravia Justicia," but left the violators free to continue. Documented here.

"stillwise" (2009)
Another victim of HuffPost's protection of "rich_misty" (above). Summary: "stillwise" made an on-topic comment, "Obama closed down PROFITABLE dealerships that had been in the GM "family" for as many as 60+ years. How unfair. How heartless." To which HuffPost reviewed, approved and published "rich_misty's" response: "Go torture rape some little boy... That's more your style." Shortly after this exchange, HuffPost banned "stillwise" --- but left "rich_misty" free to continue his pathological violations of its policies. Documented here.

"BreakingnewsJustintime" (2008)
In the spring of 2008, HuffPost permitted "kevenseven" to brag that he'd been interviewed, in his home, by the U.S. Secret Service, for threats he made against its protectees on the site. It then permitted him to begin posting comments using the agents' actual names, and insulting them, personally --- all on its top "news" threads. Another user, "BreakingnewsJustintime," suggested that perhaps this isn't the wisest thing to do, given his history with the Secret Service. "Kevenseven" called the user a "fool" and, within minutes, HuffPost had banned the user --- but left "kevenseven" free to continue. Documented here.

"ABeautifulJesture" (2008)
This user got dared to express a conservative viewpoint, with humor and rhymes. HuffPost banned him/her after 6 comments. Documented here.

"FeignedIndifference" (2009)
This user dared to express a conservative viewpoint. HuffPost banned him/her after 414 non-violating comments (the last 30 or so of which are documented). Documented here.

"BradPittsburgh" (2008)
This user dared to voice opposition to ad hominem attacks being employed by a "friend" of the notorious "kevenseven" (above), who then launched a profane attack against "BradPittsburgh." Guess which user HuffPost chose to ban? Documented here.

"MirObserver" (2009)
(Cross-posted from Section 6) This user dared to oppose another user's posting of graphic swastikas ("Poco767c," one of HuffPost's most vicious, protected policy violators). HuffPost fast-banned "MirObserver" --- but allowed "Poco" to continue along (up to 17,000 comments as of November 2009). Documented here.

"SydneyLovesHerDaddy" (2008)
This user dared to express a conservative viewpoint, and got up to 36 comments before HuffPost banned him/her. Documented here.

"Superbus" (2008)
This user dared to express a conservative opinion with which "kevenseven" (above disagreed). HuffPost approved "kevenseven" to tell the user, "someone should drill your damned skull." HuffPost then chose to ban "Superbus," and leave "kevenseven" free to continue his pathological violations of its policies. Documented here.

"PAJeff" (2007)
Another non-violating user who dared to challenge "kevenseven" and his friends. Guess who HuffPost decided to ban? (Bonus: HuffPost also permitted one of "kevenseven's" friends to create another account, "JeffiesMom," to allege their incestuous exploits --- all on HuffPost's top "news" page.) Documented here.

"HuguesdePayens" (2009)
On August 10, 2009, this user dared to mock "HumeSkeptic" for his racial slurs (see Comment #3 in Section 2). HuffPost promptly removed all comments from this user, but left "HumeSkeptic" free to continue. Documented here, and in "HumeSkeptic" - Detail.

"1_20_2013" (2009)
Another user who dared to mock "HumeSkeptic" for the same racial slur as above --- plus his ongoing claims that he regularly travels to and urinates on Ronald Reagan's grave. HuffPost promptly banned this user, but left "HumeSkeptic" free to continue. Documented here, and in "HumeSkeptic" - Detail.

Note: We have obtained physical proof of many more instances of HuffPost censoring and banning non-violating users, either of its own volition or at the explicit request of its "protected caste" of radical leftists, stretching back to late 2007. Some of these incidents, to be candid, make the above look "G"-rated. This material will be published here, should the above not prove sufficient to eliminate any doubt as to the facts, as are described in this article and elsewhere on Huff-Watch.

The above provides a snapshot into the reality of HuffPost's user moderation practices --- and why its top "news" threads so often look like a leftist-dominated fusion of "The Jerry Springer Show," "World Federation Wrestling," the old CNN show "Crossfire," with anti-Semitic elements from Stormfront.

The difference is that while (most of) those venues at least make an effort to maintain some sort of order, as the documentation in this article shows, HuffPost has chosen to protect, enable and embolden its most egregious violators, while censoring and banning non-violating users who speak out against, challenge or mock them.

To further punctuate this fact, see Section 8, below.


===========

(8) Three tests that Huff-Watch has run that further prove the fact that HuffPost censors and bans certain users on a discriminatory, moment-to-moment basis --- while leaving its most egregious violators free to continue

Periodically throughout 2009 and 2010, Huff-Watch and its operatives have conducted several tests, to determine and document answers to the following questions:

What would happen to a new user who posted carbon-copies of outrageous ad hominem attacks that HuffPost allowed its radical leftists to --- but changed the "target"?

What would happen if this were applied to racial slurs that HuffPost's radical leftists hurl at prominent conservatives --- but changed the "approved" anti-white slurs to anti-black ones?

What would happen if this were applied to religious slurs --- but changed "approved" anti-Semitic and anti-Christian slurs, to identical ones... against Muslims?

The result of these tests was: Whereas HuffPost had approved the original comments and allowed them to remain published, and often permitted the user to remain active, when the "test user" posted the inverse, HuffPost:

(a) Would not allow the comments to be published, or only posted a few of them, and/or

(b) Removed the comments and banned the user, within minutes, or hours at most

Here are three of the tests we've run:

7/26/09: The "MirrorMirror" Test
Despite its Comment Policy's prohibition of comments containing vulgar, racist, personal attacks, HuffPost has made it a practice of reviewing, approving and deciding to publish such comments when they're directed at Sarah Palin and her children. This test was conducted to determine what HuffPost would do if another user copied and pasted these exact comments that HuffPost approved and published regarding Sarah Palin --- but reworded them to target Michelle Obama.

5/26/09: The "Jacob2217" Test
When HuffPost published a news story alleging that Venezuela and Bolivia are supplying uranium to Iran for its nuclear program, we anticipated that as in so many other cases, a torrent of comments containing Israel hatred and anti-Semitism would appear on the thread. A Huff-Watch operative conducted a test to determine if HuffPost would permit detailed, fact-based responses to the libels that were being hurled at Israel.

5/21/09: The "NewUser2" Test
Despite its Comment Policy's prohibition of comments containing vulgar, racist, personal attacks, close observers of HuffPost know that user comments containing prolific anti-Christian, anti-Catholic, and anti-Semitic libels and hatred are quite common on its "news" threads. They also know that comments such as these, but directed at Islam, are de facto prohibited. When HuffPost published a new story concerning an attempted bombing of a New York synagogue, a Huff-Watch operative conducted this test, to determine if it would allow carbon copies of anti-Christian comments to be posted --- but reworded to assail Islam.

Also see "Mir Observer" and "RedRedRooster" from Section 7, above, for more examples of HuffPost's decisions to protect anti-Semitic users, by banning those who speak out against them.