Guardian Survey Shows Major Online Abuse for Hillary, Other Female Politicians
By Daily Bell Staff - June 29, 2016

From Julia Gillard to Hillary Clinton: online abuse of politicians around the world … Analysis of abuse of politicians in the US, UK and Australia sheds light on a problem often dismissed as par for the course. Former Australian prime minister Julia Gillard (left) and US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton have both been subjected to online abuse. -Guardian

The Guardian newspaper has reported on a survey by a Brisbane-based social media company, Max Kelsen, that shows both Julia Gillard and Hillary Clinton are recipients of major online abuse.

The newspaper also cautions that public figures are generally subject to more abuse than ever before.


US Clinton received abusive tweets at a rate almost twice that of Sanders. Of 4.27m tweets mentioning Clinton, 2.08% were found to be abusive, compared to 1.12% of 3m tweets mentioning Sanders.

Three-quarters of the abuse of either candidate was by men. Abuse of Clinton ramped up in recent weeks as her selection as the Democratic presidential candidate became more of a certainty.

… Former Australian prime minister Julia Gillard also received about twice as much abuse as Kevin Rudd, who she deposed as prime minister before he returned to depose her.

The article seems to be part of a larger editorial series entitled , “The Web We Want.” The Guardian shared information about the program in mid-March as follows:

As most people — and most women on Twitter — know, the Internet can be an ugly and abusive place. The Guardian, which receives more than 50,000 reader comments a day, is taking steps to help change that with “The Web We Want.”

… For the great bulk of our readers, and — yes — to respect the wellbeing of our staff too, we need to take a more proactive stance on what kind of material appears on the Guardian.”

A website named “OffGuardian,” apparently composed of disgruntled readers, reported on the program as follows:

“The web we want”? No, don’t think so…

The “we” in this sense is purely a gesture, or a rhetorical flourish toward democracy. The discussion that follows is neither democratic nor diverse. There are no shades of opinion on offer. No debates between those with different views on what the Web should be.

Oh sure, the different writers, persuaded or coerced into offering their variously begrudging support to this new campaign might notionally come from different backgrounds or ideologies, but their articles are – so far – diverse only in tone.

They are all almost identical in message. All hit the same few, eerily repetitive, talking points:  1. Freedom of speech is actually elitist  2. An unregulated internet will discriminate against women and minorities  3. Free speech should maybe not include “abuse”.

The Guardian seems to take the position that politicians like Hillary and Gillard are at least in part subjected to excess abuse because of their gender.

More likely, the Guardian, as OffGuardian suggests, is trying to justify sociopolitical censorship by leveraging claims that offensive comments aimed at minorities and women are commonplace.

In fact, both politicians are exceptionally controversial.

Just yesterday we offered a selected list of Hillary’s SCANDALS, which allegedly ranged from stealing White House Furniture to murdering Vince Foster.

In a series of articles, the Sydney Morning Herald reported on the Rise and Fall of Julia Gillard. It sorted through a variety of problems that Gillard had as Australian Prime Minister and lays much of the blame on her own management style and policies.

Perhaps  the most costly blunder was breaking her word on implementing a carbon tax.

Gillard had promised before the election that “there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead”, but the price of the alliance with the Greens was that there would indeed have to be a carbon tax. This broken promise was one of the greatest problems for the Gillard government … 

Conclusion: Of course discrimination exists and does affect women and minorities, among other select groups. But sometimes even the most raucous or punishing commentary may be rooted in the target’s own behavior. In this day and age that is certainly not politically correct to suggest.

You don’t have to play by the rules of the corrupt politicians, manipulative media, and brainwashed peers.

When you subscribe to The Daily Bell, you also get a free guide:

How to Craft a Two Year Plan to Reclaim 3 Specific Freedoms.

This guide will show you exactly how to plan your next two years to build the free life of your dreams. It’s not as hard as you think…

Identify. Plan. Execute.

Yes, deliver THE DAILY BELL to my inbox!


Biggest Currency Reboot in 100 Years?
In less than 3 months, the biggest reboot to the U.S. dollar in 100 years could sweep America.
It has to do with a quiet potential government agreement you’ve never heard about.

Tagged with:
  • Praetor

    What kind of abuse! Well, of course speaking. Insulting someone with offensive language.

    The question most be asked, who are the greater ‘abusers’, here. Those that speak ill of the living or those that violently, through their actions, abuse the living.

    There has been created a society of ‘pansies’, ‘sissies’ and wussies. George Orwell, wouldn’t be surprised. Sticks and Stones.

    They should be glad its only offensive speech, because when the speaking stops. The next stage of abuse begins!!!

  • robertsgt40

    If either the UK or US had the rule of law, there would be no need for “online abuse”. They would either be in jail or out of power or both. Being female has nothing to do with it.

  • Dimitri Ledkovsky

    It’s a street reaction – “they asked for it”. Especially Hillary. Today I found myself in an off the cuff comparison of Hillary and Elizabeth Warren to Lenin and Trotsky, all crowd haranguers.

  • Sam Fox

    If the truth about people is told, that is not abuse, it’s information. I wonder if the Guardian has or will report on the women Billy goat abused that Hillbeast abused in turn as she tried to protect & cover for her very sick husband.

    Reporting on the long list of Hillbeast abuses of women, power, email scandal, lies & her standing by with her thumb up her nose when she KNEW Benghazi needed reinforcing… Hillary Rotten Clonkton LET those men die. Isn’t her inactivity regarding her NOT giving the people in Benghazi that resulted in American deaths & her abuse of power as SoS a greater abuse?

    How about the Willy Wonk Money For Favors Factory, the Clinton foundation? Did the Guardian cover that?

    Looks to me that the Guardian IS trying for control of speech on the net. ‘Progressives’ always start small.

    I’ve been down to AlterNet for my fair share of abuse. Many lib prog replies there are abusive & I have had a share of their abuse. Same for most ‘progressive’ Dem sites.

    I don’t cry about it. I just consider the small minds at the source & go on.

    We do NOT need an internet version of the old ‘Fairness’ Doctrine.


  • FedUP15232

    So Hillary gets a lot of abuse on the web. Are you suggesting that she doesn’t deserve it? I’ve often thought about where politicians fall on the evolutionary scale. It’s clear that most politicians are right in there somewhere around child molesters. But, for a time, I was undecided about the order. Eventually, I realized the following: While child molesters commit unspeakable, atrocious acts against innocent children, politicians commit unspeakable, atrocious acts against entire nations. And many, like Clinton, want to inflict these acts on the entire world. Clearly politicians fall substantially below child molesters on the evolutionary scale.
    I would argue that it is not only logical, but totally appropriate, to heap as much contempt as possible upon those who are utterly contemptible.

    • The point of the article was that the Guardian was blaming the abuse she received on her gender. To make it clear, we wrote in the conclusion, “But sometimes even the most raucous or punishing commentary may be rooted in the target’s own behavior.”

  • mary

    Are we supposed to feel sorry for this psychopath over 2% of her tweets???? Who cares about tweets? She should be on the receiving end of millions of rotten tomatoes. This is a ridiculous propaganda piece.

  • nameless

    This fits with the collectivism agenda. Censure the Internet. No freedom of speech for anyone. Everything we say is a hate crime. That’s the reason why the Guardian published their nonsense. It was manufactured out of thin air and is totally baseless. Simply to promote the collectivist agenda. Its a dominant social theme planet wide..

    I don’t see women being abused on the Internet. I don’t see women being marginalized at all. I see women being treated quite well compared to men. And when a man does show disrespect for a woman on the Internet, other males rush in to collar him and protect her. Same as we see happen on the street.

    Most men like women. Respect them as well. I see men treating women on the Internet as though they have thinner skins than men, so most men (myself included) go out of their way to be fair and kind.

    The Guardian is publishing made up bull**** deliberately. I’m Pis***.

    • nameless

      I’d like to add:

      Control of the Internet is due to be transferred from the USA elsewhere this year, after a one year delay was announced by the powers that be following their aborted Greece (birthplace of democracy) takedown last year. Expect this collectivist crap to escalate rapidly this summer.

      They’re gonna body-slam us with it to shut us up.

      By the way, great stuff today Daily Bell. Celebrate!

  • Robert Eisenbart

    These are political candidates and in fact Clinton has been in politics for decades. Stop with the BOO HOOing about how they are treated. In Clinton’s case, she has more than twice Sander’s dirty laundry so why not twice the negative responses. OH I get it because she is a woman!? Bull plop! Stop with the gender nonsense. It’s old, stale, and most of us (men and women) take offense that you would still play the gender card.