Previous Next Index Thread
Previous Next Index Thread
Sent from: abrupt@phantom.com (Abrupt NYC)
> Sent from: chip@playboy.com (Chip Rowe)
>
> Re: white power/Nazi group. Am I alone in finding this campaign to vote no
> on this newsgroup disturbing? The way to battle ideas that we find offensive
> or repulsive is with *more* speech, not to shut people out, no matter how
> moronic they are.
Good point. At least, this seems to be one of the strong points of the
Net, that everything is, in a sense, public. (And what isn't public isn't
"dangerous", in the sense being discussed here.) Also, net.ideas are
subject to the market dynamics of attention. Paco once wrote something
along these lines, that it's *attention* that ultimately makes or breaks
a meme -- not whether or not it's "allowed".
And that's probably as far as we should go on the subject. If Usenet
works by public vote, then a campaign to vote against this proposal is
not at all a First Amendment issue. I mean, they're not asking the
*government* to ban the group. [Probably cuz they know the feds are too
busy busting safe sex discussions.]
<--------------------------------------^-------------------------------------->
abrupt@phantom.com
http://phantom.com/~abrupt/
^
"And the Web is a Female in embrio.
None could break the Web, no wings of
fire, So twisted the cords, & so knotted
The meshes, twisted like to the human brain."
--William Blake
----
> Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 08:29:18 -0500 (EST)
> Sent-from: Wiley Wiggins <weevil@charm.net>
I gotta agree here, If a handful of bucktoothed suspender clad dorks
wanna prattle about their crappy music, let 'em. You don't defeat an Idea
by banning it, You let everybody see it and let it expose it's own stupidity.
(If only the same steps had been taken with a certian religion I won't
name at the time of its inception...)
Wiley Wiggins: Yo Momma
e-mail weevil@charm.net
anathema enterprises
2002-A Guadalupe St. #227
Austin, TX 78705
----
> Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 10:14:50 -0500 (EST)
> Sent-from: Michael Osier <mosier@gnu.uvm.edu>
as for voting no on a group based on its proposed content, that is
rough...but there have been a lot of issues about the proposal
itself...to create a new group requires demonstration of need, and the
following of some simple protocols...the proponents of this group have
ignored any requests to demonstrate need, and performed many "illegal"
actions, which _should_ nullify the vote...
for more information, see the newsgroup "news.groups"...be warned, this
is a relatively high traffic group...
Og
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Osier = mosier@moose.uvm.edu | "It's these little things
http://mole.uvm.edu/~mosier/ | they can pull you under
BS Biochemical Science | live your life filled with
University of Vermont | joy and thunder..."
CIT Microcomputer Consultant - Og | - R.E.M.
my messages represent myself, and do not represent UVM in any way,
shape, or manner; implied or direct...
----
> Date: Mon, 18 Mar 96 09:48:00 PST
> Sent-from: "Chad Joseph Mc. Evoy ALUMNO" <CHADJO@corp.udg.mx>
I'm with chip. The way to combat really bad ideas is let them out into the
open where everyone can see them in all their asinine (SP?) splendor.
Chad in Mexico
----
> Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 17:56:53 -0600
> Sent-from: eggplant@inlink.com (eggplant)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Re: white power/Nazi group. Am I alone in finding this campaign to vote no
>on this newsgroup disturbing? The way to battle ideas that we find offensive
>or repulsive is with *more* speech, not to shut people out, no matter how
>moronic they are. The First Amendment usually ends up protecting scum and
>shitheads, basically, which is why so many people seem to agree with it in
>principle but not in practice.
>
>chip
Aren't you so glad that it covers you? And by the way, I hope you are
alone in voting no. Just because the newsgroup exists, doesn't mean you
have to go there. Sorta like alt.you.need.an.education The First Amendment
does cover some shitheads and such, but just because you disagree with what
they preach doen't mean they have any less rights to say it. Should we now
block The Nation of Islams posts just because they may be anti-american and
they sometimes seem a little anti-white. No. Shouldn't block any group from
existing. Would you block alt.anarchism, or alt.sex because they hurt
someones morals or disagree with some peoples beliefs? I think not.
I don't believe in white-power, or any real sort of religion, should I then
refuse to let them say there peace? No.
Usenet is kinda like the radio or tv or, more precisely, a book. If you
don't like what you see or hear or read, you just put it down, turn it of,
change the channel, or exist the usenet group and go to another. You don't
ask for it's banishment or revoke it's right to exist because you don't
like it.
I hope there aren't a whole lot of people like you, because you are just
the people the govt likes to see. People who are willing to say "That's
okay I don't mind you banning certain groups because they preach a message
of hate." and next thing you know, they've taken away your abortion usenet
group because it offends your sensibilities.
Think about what you said for awhile. I hope you change your mind.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBMU335YWnykIBM1nhAQEKGwf7BdJvbaBOgaJyd0KvX5I2utPuTjGYpxNE
iXzYIHnYTzhmQ0Y3uDPKzaljLNJAqY5xSQThQkSUy+u1phI4r3CpH4zTffKa8g6z
l/2FTKPsAcjXSRuFhIlws5HoBCZaKyv4HbI35ZDcvUotzSiXF+lyGSPZZVIkY55V
UDordjLIFNBKEOnm68zngtKk31egNllchmRrTB4arOeaBJZSLPVJj2I5etLpULUI
lhLnsdC9vMQg9r0+XW15B5L3y26E63bkekKthaJOxMyy2CnE3hoNTJ7speYxWCJD
BuiPosz9xriisjV2nnzVnVzBpy1M9hb5htDyKxNBhC3PM+W51XygXg==
=vfZn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
"... In Germany they first came for the Communists and I
didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came
for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak
up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for
Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me-and by that time no one was left to
speak up..." Pastor Martin Niemoller
**************************************
* Matthew Murphy ------------ eggplant@inlink.com
* http://www.inlink.com/~eggplant
* The Web page is under construciton at this time though..
* Please don't mind the mess....
**************************************
finger eggplant@inlink.com for my PGP key.
----
> Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 10:25:18 GMT
> Sent-From: charles@anatomy.ucl.ac.uk (Charles King)
There is an important difference between denying neo-nazis a specific
forum and denying them the right to speak. They can speak, if they
want, by posting to any of the thousands of Usenet groups already
available. In most of these groups they can be sure of finding people
who will robustly attack their ideas and provide counter-arguments.
A group devoted to neo-nazism would, however, be frequented by only
two types of people: nazis who want to indulge in hate-mongering
without being attacked, and the occasional brave soul who would dare
to venture in and lay bare their lies (and probably suffer the usual
mail-bombs and hate attacks). The group would be little more than a
flame forum.
No. If these nazis have something to say, let them say it in the proper
place, in one of the open political forums. I see no need to grant them
a special location in which their hate can fester. In voting against
this group (and the final decision will be made by due democratic
process), we are not infringing their rights as no-one will be prevented
>from speaking their mind simply because this group does not exist.
Instead, we are asserting our democratic right to decide on the
structure of our community and the balance that is vital to safeguard
those rights.
Nazis must have the right to speak, but they have no right to avoid
being challenged and exposed for what they are.
Charles King