What “community standards” did this comment breach?#11

This comment was censored by the Guardian. Which of the well-publicised CiF “community standards” did it breach?

snapshot of where it was:
Screen Shot 2015-07-07 at 14.17.06

Which of the Guardian’s “community standards” did it breach?

  • Does it “misrepresent the Guardian and its journalists”?
  • Is it “persistent trolling or mindless abuse”?
  • Is it “spam-like”? Or “obviously commercial”?
  • Is it “racism, sexism, homophobia or hate-speech”?
  • Is it “extremely offensive of threatening?”?
  • Is it “flame-wars based on ingrained partisanship or generalisations”?
  • Is it not “relevant”?

If none of the above – why was it taken down?

see our archive of censored comments. And if you see any egregious examples of the Guardian censoring its “free” comment sections – email us at [email protected], and send us screen caps if possible


If you enjoy OffG's content, please help us make our monthly fund-raising goal and keep the site alive.

For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of

oldest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Richard Wicks
Richard Wicks
Jan 17, 2018 1:24 AM

The mainstream establishment media is propaganda.

You know it, I know it, anybody with any critical thinking skills coupled with some basic knowledge knows this.

Stop acting as if the corporate media is balanced, fair, truthful, or even useful. Grow up.

Jan 17, 2018 11:33 AM
Reply to  Richard Wicks

For whom is this remark intended Richard?

Sloth Addams
Sloth Addams
Sep 2, 2017 5:01 PM

So, I’ve been trying REALLY HARD to reign in my verbal anger and stick to the Point, not to personally verbally abuse nazis and fools (though they deserve it), and doing a good job, I think, and part of that was being put in the “Pre-moderated” category on The Guardian News website. After I thought my probation had gone on long enough, I started adding “And Guardian, ENOUGH with the pre-moderation!” under my posts. Fair enough?
Well, NOT QUITE. I’ve been banned from ALL COMMENT now, because apparently REFERRING IN ANY WAY to the NON-SECRET FACT that The Guardian DOES use moderators is FORBIDDEN, AND CAUSE FOR BANNING BY… THE MODERATORS! WHAT. THE. ACTUAL. FK.
“There is NO SECRET POLICE! Referring to the secret police will get you ARRESTED! BY THE SECRET POLICE!”

Jan 18, 2018 9:25 AM
Reply to  Sloth Addams

C’mon, Sloth, you should know better than that. It’s all part of fascism. They LOVE exercising that kind of power. It makes them feel in control and mighty.

iusedtopost@the guardian
iusedtopost@the guardian
Mar 4, 2016 7:01 AM

I have had around 6 previous (and moderated) usernames with the Guardian over the last 3 years.

Each time I get moderated for I know not what. My opinions, for what they are worth, cover the spectrum but essentially defend Russia when in comparison to the murder and mayhem created by the West in the name of democracy ad freedom.

While my retorts can be competitive they are never in breach of any laws but they get removed at will and eventually I am moderated…usually after I publicise what the moderators are doing.

iusedtopost is my most recent moderated ID……nothing overly controversial in there out with the usual 4 letter expletives occasionally!

Essentially if you criticise any of the following you are on your way out;

Their anti all things Russia stance
Their all things pro America stance
Their all things pro EU stance
Their lets hug and love an illegal migrant stance
Israel anything/jewish anything/New Khazaria anything
Mentioning Freemasons and other occultists

Ad nauseum…..

Personally I am finished with it all. The day will come quite soon if they are all not extremely careful when the mushroom clouds appear all over Europe and the UK and people like Sean “of the dead” Walker are heard to be muttering……

“It wasn’t meant to be this way”

Jan 6, 2016 4:26 PM

Freedom of speech arrested, order wholesale car decals to raise your voice.

Nov 22, 2015 10:09 AM

Hi all.

I am seething because I have been placed on pre-moderation.

My crime was reminding the Guaridan that in an article by Gary Younge published on 12th Nov, (by sheer coincidence one day before the airs attacks) he defined French secularism as uniquely targetted against Muslims, forcing them to eat pork and drink wine.

The sort of atrocious kind of sentiment that should never be published, in my opinion, in the guise of analytical observation. Since then, I have also commented on how many articles since the Paris attacks, and which can be read as aoplogists for religious extremism, are closed for comments within an hour or so of opening. I find the pretence to be staging debate (“Facts are sacred, comment is free” they crow), coupled witht he fact that they are smothering it, morally reprehensible.

The pre-mod warning gives a link to the reasons why. I use my comments now to challenge the moderator to explain exactly which one of these conditions (trolling, personal abuse and so on). Answer? Pah.

Chris East
Chris East
Nov 4, 2017 7:03 PM
Reply to  variation32

The Guardian has always been pro-Zionist since its Manchester days. It came out into the open with its anti-semitic accusations against Corbyn’s Labour.

Jul 18, 2015 5:38 PM

that was fast, deleted less than 10 min. after posting in the guardian…

there’r lots of points raised by posters in this minor thread, plenty misconeptions,
hope this helps !

on this case,
cia/mi6 shenanigans in china well documented, they are up to their eyeballs from the tam destabilisation to tibet, xinjiang, hk, civil and labor unrests.
its highly plausible that these *charity
group has been caught, or perceived to engage in monkey bussiness like fanning mongol independence movement or inciting jihad against the han infidels.

cia/mi6 have been using jihadists mercs since the day of afghan war, later in kosovo, macedonia, libya, syria, chechyna, xinjiang…..

on animal abuses,
*the current record holders are ukus,
exhibit a – gasing hundreds of cats , dogs belonged to the chagosians to force them to vacate the isle for an murkkan base.

exhibit b – imported 5000 animals to the bikini island for radiation test after setting off dozens of nuke bombs.
these just for starters,

on human rights abuses,
*the current record holders are ukus,
re, diego garcia, bikini island, okinawa, jeju, christma island etc ….these are just kids stuffs tho when compared to the crimes in indonesia, nam , laos, cambodia, iraq, yugo, afpak, …

on un-peace loving countries,
the current record holders are ukus,
do i need to trot out the evidences ?

El Magnifico
El Magnifico
Jul 16, 2015 2:22 PM

I have recently been “pre-moderated” by the Guardian PC Bolsheviks. Why don’t they simply call it, censorship. This is how they spin it:

“If your account has been placed in pre-moderation, any comments you post won’t appear on the site immediately, but will be reviewed by a moderator first. When you post a comment, a message will indicate that your comment is awaiting moderation.”

Since my comments contained no offensive language and no abuse whatsoever, the reason for censorship, apparently, was because some zealot at Cif disliked a contradictory opinion. Of course, nobody desiring open debate could possibly consent to having their comments filtered and pre-censored, so I’m dropping the account; good riddance, too.

The hilarious part is the Guardian label, Comment is Free.

Nov 20, 2016 4:13 AM
Reply to  El Magnifico

CiF actually stands for Censorship is Frantic

Jul 7, 2015 7:37 PM

Love the name Spellingcat!
Well done for trying to challenge the guardian censorship of comments that don’t fit their neo-con agenda.
The comments page just reads like GCHQ and NSA have taken over. The rigid uncritical acceptance of all things american as right is very scripted. George Bush never got such unconditional support

Jul 7, 2015 8:56 PM
Reply to  Guest

Thank you.. I wanted something close to ‘belling cat’, but ‘spelling cat’ with a subliminal ‘rat’, was the best i could come up with..
(particularly since i am now up to 5 new emails/profiles, ive had to re-create in 18 months). Its funny, ive never been banned or moderated for abuse.. Its when i take time to carefully deconstruct an authors article, showing it for what it is, is when i get into trouble.

Jul 7, 2015 3:48 PM

Haha… I logged on here, hoping to vent…
I didnt expect offguardian to beat me to it!
Thank you for bringing my comment (and now my BLOCKED guardian account…not the first time) to attention.
Any advice?

Jul 7, 2015 4:33 PM
Reply to  spellingcat

Hi there. Glad you found us. Best advice is – keep going back for more because that’s exactly what they are hoping you won’t do.

…and make caps of all your comments. 🙂

Brad Benson
Brad Benson
Jul 13, 2015 12:21 AM
Reply to  spellingcat

They censored my comments to Shaun Walker’s latest lying screed. Walker wrote an article in which he questioned the motives of a former opponent of Putin who now has come out in support of the rebels in Eastern Ukraine. Mr. Walker just couldn’t comprehend it, since we all know what a terrible bastard Putin is. So I make a two line comment about Walker’s previous bullshit story about how he followed and accompanied a Russian Column across the Ukrainian Border and now I’m banned for life. Does Shaun Walker’s mama own the Guardian?

Jul 13, 2015 7:56 AM
Reply to  Brad Benson

That same day, Shaun was writing his story about Cheese. At the height of Russia’s rouble crisis late last year, in one day S.W had either authored or coauthored 4 articles to do with Russia. but all from different locations spread across the Federation. Shaun must be some kind of ‘Super Spook’.