'Libertarian' cartoonist Ben Garrison goes Bolshevik!

[Herbie Walker 1991]

Hello everyone, I've been looking these forums since the 2012 election and I really love everything you guys do. Like many of you I became a fan of cartoonist Ben Garrison since he used his fantastic art to promote Dr. Paul and the message of Liberty as a whole.... But he's now joined forces with the dark side.

The following is a direct quote from his website, I can't post a link because I'm a guest, but just google search GrrrGraphics

Their memes of hate must not go mainstream. Facebook must wake up and block the hate before it gets established. Hate speech is not free speech. Hate speech is blind, one-dimensional blackness. It is not reasoned debate. It loudly shouts for the murder of human beings and Facebook is providing them a megaphone for that purpose.

He couldn't have it any wronger! So called hate speech and controversial speech is the freeest speech as it's the only speech that needs protecting! I'm sure Royals would have thought Thomas Jefferson was guilty of hate speech too, but I guess Ben would have had him thrown in a Gulag for daring to question authority!

He's also removed links to liberty sites from his website such as Info Wars and Rense, he replaced it with the website of an Australian Anti-Liberty group!?!?!

And all this because people on Reddit and 4chan made *PARODIES* of his cartoons????????

This is extremely disturbing, I hope that anyone who's promoted his work will cease to do so until he sides with liberty instead of fascism. And keep in mind he made a cartoon back in 2009 that depicted hate speech laws were part of the "big government bullsh*t train." Can you say sellout?

[kcchiefs6465]

A little misleading, wouldn't you say?

“This page wasn’t removed. We reviewed the page you reported for harassment. Since it did not violate our community standards, we did not remove it. Thanks for your report.”



This is the message I received after reporting a hate page on Facebook. Near the top of the hate page was a statement that encouraged the extermination of all Jews. Along with that statement was a photo of my face and the name Ben Garrison. Trolls had stolen my artwork and photos from my blog, my cartoon site as well as my fine art site and had concocted an entire page devoted to spewing libelous hate. The troll entity called the page ‘Ben Garrison Cartoons—the Official Site.’ The trolls had stamped the name ‘Ben Garrison’ onto as many hateful images as possible throughout the page. How does one stop such blatant libel? Where do these trolls come from? Is it even possible to track them down? Why do they do such terrible things? Why me?

http://grrrgraphics.wordpress.com/

His artwork is superb.

It was about this time that I started receiving hate mail. They pretended to be real people who were sickened by hacked-up cartoons. They assumed a piece of libelous art was mine simply because my name was pasted onto it. I figured out quickly this mail was probably from the trolls themselves—trying to elicit a reaction. Some of the troll mail was subtle. Some of it was not. I was called every foul name in the book. I learned never to reply to any troll mail whatsoever, but I did check out IP addresses. They came from all over the world, with a high concentration emanating from England, Denmark and Poland.

[milgram]

I agree it's disappointing that he's teamed up with this group.

But I still feel pretty bad for the guy. The "joke" is essentially that he's a Nazi. The edited cartoons (and other photoshops) often get a higher search result than his originals.

[NewRightLibertarian]

It's sad that he calls for more censorship from Facebook of free speech to stop his smear campaign. Obviously they're going to tear you down if you draw cartoons against the fed. He seems like he's backing down under the pressure.

[Unregistered]

I just wanted to point out that Ben isn't only going after parodies of his cartoons, he's promoting hate speech laws in general. He posted this from a "the Conversation" article on his facebook profile:

One of the biggest fears voiced by opponents of hate speech laws is that they have a chilling effect and stifle public debate on important issues. A 20-year study of media content finds no evidence of such a chilling effect.

The same paper did a similar study to 'prove' that Australi's gun control laws work...

Evidence from the US itself shows a strong relationship between individual states with lax gun laws and higher than average rates of gun violence but despite apparent public support for sensible gun control, progress at the US Federal level currently seems unlikely. In this regard it is worth looking at what other countries, faced by gun violence, have made of gun control.

The funny thing is, while he claims he's in no way an antisemitic, he promotes Rense, which contains articles that are pro-Hitler and deny the Holocaust, Rense Radio even hosts former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan David Duke and Dawn Black, the owner of Stormfront!

[kcchiefs6465]

[nayjevin]

Good example of a situation where more freedom, transparency, and user control can solve the problem.

When I view google image results, I would like to be able to click a button that shows me results weighted toward sites that are trustworthy to users. Then I'd like to click a button that weights results toward sites that I and my friends trust. Then another button for what their friends trust too... then another button for what self-identified 'republicans' trust, and for self-identified 'privacy advocates' etc etc

[Acala]

If I had a business and some customer started ranting about exterminating the Jews, I would throw him out and prohibit him from ever coming back. That isn't censorship, that's private property. Facebook is also private property. Encouraging Facebook to ban hate speech is not censorship.

And cutting a link to infowars does not make you an enemy of liberty. It might just mean you are skeptical of ALL fearmongers.

[NewRightLibertarian]

If I had a business and some customer started ranting about exterminating the Jews, I would throw him out and prohibit him from ever coming back. That isn't censorship, that's private property. Facebook is also private property. Encouraging Facebook to ban hate speech is not censorship.

And cutting a link to infowars does not make you an enemy of liberty. It might just mean you are skeptical of ALL fearmongers.

The fact that he wants these entities to start policing free speech is the problem. Colluding with an ADL-style group is fighting back against this defamation all wrong. He should have reached out to the liberty community personally and attempted to clear his name that way since his cartoons are so popular with us. I am sure he could have gotten some high-profile interviews or profiles that way. Instead, it seems like he is looking for asses to kiss to prove that he's not a big bad anti-semite which is playing right into the hands of the trolls. Granted, it is a tough situation to be in and he makes fantastic work but I disagree strongly with what he seems to be advocating.

[Occam's Banana]

When I view google image results, [...] I'd like to click a button that weights results toward sites [... trusted by ...] self-identified 'privacy advocates'

o_O

[milgram]

OHPI now identifying individuals and talking about legal action

ohpi.org.au/4chans-pol-and-the-trouble-with-dean/

For some years now the political cartoonist Ben Garrison has been beset by Internet trolls. He created cartoons against big Government, and they were defaced. He created cartoons against the banks, and they were defaced. He warned that America was heading down the path to becoming a police state… and they too were defaced. Not only were the cartoons defaced, but the result in each and every case was a piece of antisemitic propaganda bearing Ben Garrison’s signature.

...

Anonymity online is largely a myth. A skilled enough expert can usually find someone in a relatively short amount of time. 4chan makes this easier by both prohibiting the use of proxies in its rules, and by blocking posting through the most common public proxies. Using a proxy to access 4chan is itself sufficient grounds to be banned. While some technical experts still populate 4chan, most users blindly rely on being kept anonymous by means of technology they don’t really understand, with limits they don’t really appreciate.

For the last few months OHPI has been monitoring both 4chan and a number of other internet locations where 4chan, and particularly /pol/ anons can be found. We’ve been watching, waiting, documenting, and tracing. This is all part of a larger effort examining the attacks on Ben Garrison, which crossed a line and began to look far too much like those early raids that first brought 4chan notoriety. That chapter didn’t end well, and as a result not only 4chan but the Internet itself became more tightly regulated.

OHPI is a technical organisation. We get the Internet. We have no issue with 4chan or Anonymous. Indeed we have worked with some parts of Anonymous for years and are regularly contacted about specific campaigns, particularly those involving online safety. What we do have an issue with are people who cross the line, break the law, and put everything at risk. People like Dean who is shown, along with some of the information we know about him, in the Ben Garrison cartoon above. Dean, seriously, a /pol/ regular with a fedora? It almost draws itself.

Those like Dean need to be held accountable and 4chan and /pol/ in particular, need to look after their own shop. An online space with a little more freedom is a good thing, but it’s up to the community itself to warn people like Dean off when they go too far. If they can’t, others, and the law, will need to fill the gap. If that has to happen it really would be a shame.

[Donny]

Ben Garrison's ADL-esque associate is now talking about how they're working with Goldman Sachs to go after a "troll" who had Goldman Sachs in his name. I'm sure this has nothing to do with the fact that said troll debated him on his blatant hypocrisy

Regardless of how bad the trolling was, this is going too far. You can't be a libertarian if you're siding with Liberty's biggest enemies: the Big Banks and people who want to restrict our right to freedom of speech.

[qoute]Now, to the Goldman Sachs impersonator... can we make you famous? And can you try not to get taken down (again) too soon? We have the old stuff documented, but we're working on a report on you and your Facebook network for Goldman Sachs. Many in your network aren't even trying to be Anonymous - that takes all the fun our of it. With the bank's resources backing the effort this is going to be full of lulz. Well, lulz for some. You must give Ben credit for putting a bank to good use - you know how he feels about them.[/quote]

When I try to post a link it doesn't go through, but that's a direct quote from Andrew Oboler, he posted a proof image as well. It came from 4chan.

[Ben Garrison]

It has gone well beyond juvenile trolling on 4chan. Altered Ben Garrison cartoons are appearing everywhere. Their goal is to ruin my reputation and my business for fun and sport. I ignored the trolls for two years and did they get bored and go away? No. They stole my copyrighted cartoons, my photos and posted altered cartoons on a fake Facebook page using my name. My photo appeared next to quotes calling for the mass extermination of human beings. The page had thousands of followers. It took me weeks to get the page removed, then another one popped up in its place. Nazi trolls do NOT own Facebook. There are stated community standards there. When hate pages are removed it's not because I'm destroying their 'free speech.' They are perfectly free to get up on a soapbox and praise Hitler in public if they like. They are free to start their own web sites. Andrew Anglin, a white supremacist and Nazi, has done just that and he has uploaded insulting pages about me. He labels it 'satire' to avoid libel charges. He also labels the cartoons and images with tags specifically written so that my name will be combined with all sorts of horribleness during internet searches. This is designed to ruin my reputation. And for what reason? I did nothing to the man. I never even knew who Anglin was until a few months ago. I did nothing to offend any of these chuckleheads. All I wanted to do is draw some libertarian, pro-Ron Paul and anti-Federal Reserve cartoons. I guess in America you aren't allowed to criticize the Fed without some sort of consequence. Well, I have experienced plenty of consequences. I have received hate mail for nearly 5 years. Ask yourselves, is libel and copyright infringement REALLY 'free' speech? Not for me, it isn't. I've had to pay a hefty price for anonymous chuckleheads stealing my cartoons and changing them into hate. Does free speech entitle one to engage in vicious libel? Does the 2nd amendment entitle someone to use a gun to murder a random person? They have devoted a LOT of time to destroy me. It has cost me many thousands of dollars in lawyer fees. When I tried to push back, I got called a crybaby, a hypocrite, sanctimonious and 'easily trollable.' As if it was all my fault. Anonymous trolls never take responsibility for their bullying and libel. Never. Many weird stories have been invented--especially on 4chan. Bear in mind whatever you see on /pol can't be taken seriously--it is a pathetic snake pit of stupid lies and hate.

[nayjevin]

Welcome Ben. I don't think reasonable people have true dislike for you, even when they disagree with your course of defensive action. If they do they are in the wrong. Please reach out to our forums for any help you need.

If you're really Ben Garrison.

[Root]

Welcome Ben. Your art is awesome.

[William Tell]

Welcome Ben.

[heavenlyboy34]

They stole my copyrighted cartoons, my photos and posted altered cartoons on a fake Facebook page using my name.

FYI, copying is not "theft". (not to derail the thread, just splitting hairs. IP is a hot issue around here. )

Welcome, anyways. I'm not familiar with your work, but like what I see so far.

[Ben Garrison]

I've never had an issue with anybody using my cartoons for free as long as they weren't altered and my name remained on them. (Many fellow bloggers have asked for permission first and I always appreciated that). I've never charged a dime for my cartoons and they have been a consistent money-losing operation considering my time and materials, website costs (and now fees for a lawyer). My goal was never to make money from them or even get 'famous.' My goal was to help people become more aware of our profoundly flawed and corrupt system of money as well as help out Ron Paul. Dr. Paul was the only presidential candidate to whom I actually donated money, but more importantly I wanted to donate my time and talent to the cause. What I object to are the trolls who alter my libertarian cartoons into anti-semitic and racist hate memes. They also paste my name onto all kinds of racist garbage in order to destroy my reputation. They do this for the 'lulz,' which in their minds trumps any morals or ethics. They don't care who they hurt as long as they get their sick satisfaction. I am obviously for free speech, but that doesn't mean people can use a bullhorn and yell 'fire' in a crowded theater. That's sort of equivalent to what is currently happening on social media with their hate pages, impersonation on Twitter and so forth...only they're able to avoid consequences due to their relative anonymity. Thanks to everyone who understands the situation! --Ben Garrison

[Petar]

A cartoonist like Ben threatens the entire modern zeitgeist with his message, and it should come as no surprise that the worst, neo-nazi/FBI co-intel assets have set forth to libel this man in the most horrible way possible...

[Acala]

I've never had an issue with anybody using my cartoons for free as long as they weren't altered and my name remained on them. (Many fellow bloggers have asked for permission first and I always appreciated that). I've never charged a dime for my cartoons and they have been a consistent money-losing operation considering my time and materials, website costs (and now fees for a lawyer). My goal was never to make money from them or even get 'famous.' My goal was to help people become more aware of our profoundly flawed and corrupt system of money as well as help out Ron Paul. Dr. Paul was the only presidential candidate to whom I actually donated money, but more importantly I wanted to donate my time and talent to the cause. What I object to are the trolls who alter my libertarian cartoons into anti-semitic and racist hate memes. They also paste my name onto all kinds of racist garbage in order to destroy my reputation. They do this for the 'lulz,' which in their minds trumps any morals or ethics. They don't care who they hurt as long as they get their sick satisfaction. I am obviously for free speech, but that doesn't mean people can use a bullhorn and yell 'fire' in a crowded theater. That's sort of equivalent to what is currently happening on social media with their hate pages, impersonation on Twitter and so forth...only they're able to avoid consequences due to their relative anonymity. Thanks to everyone who understands the situation! --Ben Garrison

Social media is private property. The First Amendment does not apply as it is purely a limit on GOVERNMENT action, not private action. Some folks here don't understand that. Whether or not copyright is good law also doesn't matter as a private property owner - such as Facebook - can CHOOSE to police content in any manner it likes. It is perfectly appropriate, and consistent with concepts of liberty, for Mr. Garrison and Facebook (or any other private property owner) to take steps to eradicate spurious, malicious, hateful, misleading content from private property. And I hope they succeed.

[otherone]

This is not a Free Speech issue:

Forgery

The crime of forgery generally refers to the making of a fake document, the changing of an existing document, or the making of a signature without authorization.

Elements of Forgery

Forgery involves a false document, signature, or other imitation of an object of value used with the intent to deceive another. Those who commit forgery are often charged with the crime of fraud. Documents that can be the object of forgery include contracts, identification cards, and legal certificates. Most states require that forgery be done with the intent to commit fraud or theft/larceny.

The most common form of forgery is signing someone else's name to a check, but objects, data and documents can also be forged. Legal contracts, historical papers, art objects, diplomas, licenses, certificates and identification cards can be forged. Currency and consumer goods can also be forged, but that crime is usually referred to as counterfeiting.

Forgery Requires Deception

In most jurisdictions, the crime of forgery is not charged unless the forgery is done with intent to deceive or the attempt to commit fraud or larceny. For instance, works of arts can be copied or replicated without any crime being committed unless someone attempted to sell or represent the copies as originals. Then the copies would become illegal forgeries.

Forgery can also involve the creation of fake or fraudulent documents. For example, it can involve photocopying a person’s signature and then artificially placing it on a document without their knowledge or consent.

Perhaps the most famous case of forgery in the twentieth century took place in 1983 with the "discovery" of the Hitler diaries. The diaries supposedly contained passages written by German dictator Adolf Hitler between 1932 and 1945.

- See more at: http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal....7kpEdCFO.dpuf

[acptulsa]

Nazi trolls do NOT own Facebook. There are stated community standards there. When hate pages are removed it's not because I'm destroying their 'free speech.'

You're absolutely right.

He labels it 'satire' to avoid libel charges.

That won't necessarily work. Don't let it stop you from seeking redress in a civil court.

I guess in America you aren't allowed to criticize the Fed without some sort of consequence.

Absolutely. I'm sorry you got targeted. Obviously someone thought you were doing one hell of a job.

Does free speech entitle one to engage in vicious libel?

If you're in a position of political power, yes. You are not. So, no, it doesn't.

I hope you are able to get yourself some competent and sincere legal help.

[S.Shorland]

I wouldn't take it either,Mr Garrison.On the plus side,it shows how important you're considered as a thought framer.I doubt many of these 'trolls' are motivated by 'lulz'.Statists are very often filled with thinly veiled hate.

[milgram]

Looks like Ben is trying to take legal action:

http://garrisongraphics.blogspot.com...d-message.html

http://www.gofundme.com/helpbengarrison

Justice is expensive and we need help in our battle against Internet trolls. While hate speech is legal in the U.S., libel, defamation and copyright infringement are not. I've been attacked by trolls for five years now--ever since I began drawing anti-Federal Reserve and anti-police state cartoons. They've also attacked my wife and my son. A cyber investigator has tracked down a few of the perpetrators and we have the evidence, but we need help with legal fees to pursue a case. We need to send a message to the troll community that sometimes their cyber bullying has consequences. If you can donate a few bucks to the cause, it would be much appreciated. I will continue to update the progress on my blog. --Ben Garrison

[GunnyFreedom]

It's sad that he calls for more censorship from Facebook of free speech to stop his smear campaign. Obviously they're going to tear you down if you draw cartoons against the fed. He seems like he's backing down under the pressure.

If someone was putting MY face and name on this kind of hateful garbage then I would push to have it removed for slander. Free speech doesn't give people the right to slander someone.

[GunnyFreedom]

I've never had an issue with anybody using my cartoons for free as long as they weren't altered and my name remained on them. (Many fellow bloggers have asked for permission first and I always appreciated that). I've never charged a dime for my cartoons and they have been a consistent money-losing operation considering my time and materials, website costs (and now fees for a lawyer). My goal was never to make money from them or even get 'famous.' My goal was to help people become more aware of our profoundly flawed and corrupt system of money as well as help out Ron Paul. Dr. Paul was the only presidential candidate to whom I actually donated money, but more importantly I wanted to donate my time and talent to the cause. What I object to are the trolls who alter my libertarian cartoons into anti-semitic and racist hate memes. They also paste my name onto all kinds of racist garbage in order to destroy my reputation. They do this for the 'lulz,' which in their minds trumps any morals or ethics. They don't care who they hurt as long as they get their sick satisfaction. I am obviously for free speech, but that doesn't mean people can use a bullhorn and yell 'fire' in a crowded theater. That's sort of equivalent to what is currently happening on social media with their hate pages, impersonation on Twitter and so forth...only they're able to avoid consequences due to their relative anonymity. Thanks to everyone who understands the situation! --Ben Garrison

Don't stop fighting, you are in a righteous cause. Free speech is not license to slander and defame. I hope you make them cry.

[osan]

If I had a business and some customer started ranting about exterminating the Jews, I would throw him out and prohibit him from ever coming back. That isn't censorship, that's private property. Facebook is also private property. Encouraging Facebook to ban hate speech is not censorship.

Wow... talk about a grand, flaming logic FAIL... holy hell.

You are taking two separate issues and joining them at the hip.

The first issue is that of private property. In this regard your logic stands. FB is private property (if we accept that it was not a fedgov project, which it may well be - in which case taxpayer monies were used, making it very public property), but it is PUBLICLY TRADED, which actually puts it in an odd status because there are many owners and ownership changes hands every day. Does the board retain the right to speak unilaterally and universally? That is a matter which may be up for some debate - but this is orthogonal to the central issue of your logic. For that purpose we can agree FB is private property and grant that the owners are within their rights to ban "hate speech" (grief, I despise that idiotic term).

Where you go horribly and unarguably wrong here is where you make the arcing leap from private property, to banning is therefore <> censorship. FAIL FAIL FAIL. It is a tremendous non-sequitur that is demonstrably false in the deal. It IS censorship.

Therefore, the nature of your failure lies in the presumption that censorship is a universal bad. Being assumed, and given that FB is privately held, it MUST follow that their bans on "hate speech" is not censorship. Were it otherwise, there would exist a fundamental contradiction in the fabric of the universe of the human mind between private property and censorship. If censorship is an absolute no-no, then even private property owners cannot engage in it. If they cannot engage in it, then their rights to their own property are not actually rights at all, but rather privileges, and there goes the entire "liberty movement" down the sausage hole.

But censorship is perfectly valid in a private setting. When that is realized and it becomes part of the body of assumed premises, then the universe returns to "normal" once again.

FB is indeed entitled to ban anything they please, but in so doing they are in point of fact censoring the speech of its members. Make no mistake on that point. They are entitled to do so in the same way the owners of a private library may require a manner of silence from all who go there to make use of the facilities. I may censor anyone I please when they step into my home. Their choice is to remain and toe my line, or leave.

So let us recap: public censorship = fundamental no-no. Private censorship = fundamental right. FB exercises private censorship and is therefore centrally within its rights, even if it reveals them as the imbeciles that they are in this respect.

QED.

[MRK]

It has gone well beyond juvenile trolling on 4chan. Altered Ben Garrison cartoons are appearing everywhere. Their goal is to ruin my reputation and my business for fun and sport. I ignored the trolls for two years and did they get bored and go away? No. They stole my copyrighted cartoons, my photos and posted altered cartoons on a fake Facebook page using my name. My photo appeared next to quotes calling for the mass extermination of human beings. The page had thousands of followers. It took me weeks to get the page removed, then another one popped up in its place. Nazi trolls do NOT own Facebook. There are stated community standards there. When hate pages are removed it's not because I'm destroying their 'free speech.' They are perfectly free to get up on a soapbox and praise Hitler in public if they like. They are free to start their own web sites. Andrew Anglin, a white supremacist and Nazi, has done just that and he has uploaded insulting pages about me. He labels it 'satire' to avoid libel charges. He also labels the cartoons and images with tags specifically written so that my name will be combined with all sorts of horribleness during internet searches. This is designed to ruin my reputation. And for what reason? I did nothing to the man. I never even knew who Anglin was until a few months ago. I did nothing to offend any of these chuckleheads. All I wanted to do is draw some libertarian, pro-Ron Paul and anti-Federal Reserve cartoons. I guess in America you aren't allowed to criticize the Fed without some sort of consequence. Well, I have experienced plenty of consequences. I have received hate mail for nearly 5 years. Ask yourselves, is libel and copyright infringement REALLY 'free' speech? Not for me, it isn't. I've had to pay a hefty price for anonymous chuckleheads stealing my cartoons and changing them into hate. Does free speech entitle one to engage in vicious libel? Does the 2nd amendment entitle someone to use a gun to murder a random person? They have devoted a LOT of time to destroy me. It has cost me many thousands of dollars in lawyer fees. When I tried to push back, I got called a crybaby, a hypocrite, sanctimonious and 'easily trollable.' As if it was all my fault. Anonymous trolls never take responsibility for their bullying and libel. Never. Many weird stories have been invented--especially on 4chan. Bear in mind whatever you see on /pol can't be taken seriously--it is a pathetic snake pit of stupid lies and hate.

Ben, you're letting them win. Just let it go, bro. Remember how you handle bullies - you ignore them. Never, ever feed the 4chan fire.

[Acala]

Wow... talk about a grand, flaming logic FAIL... holy hell.

Having parsed through your exciting rhetoric, it is clear that what you are saying is not that I have made a logical error but rather that I have made a definitional error by limiting the word "censorship" to cover only government action. I agree with your criticism. Censorship has a broader meaning than I gave it.

But, of course, your post entirely misses the point of mine.

[Henry Rogue]

Wow, what they did to Ben is horrendous. This isn't about IP laws, this is about slander and defamation of character.