Don Black points out, fairly enough, that there is no unanimity of opinion on his Stormfront mailing list. Subject: Policy on "spies"--Stormfront moderator Sent: 1/13/96 6:36 AM Received: 1/15/96 10:18 AM From: Stormfront-l, email@example.com To: firstname.lastname@example.org From: email@example.com (Don Black) Date: Sat Jan 13 1995 Subj: Policy on "spies"--Stormfront moderator At 03:19 AM 1/6/96 GMT, Milton wrote: >Stormfront must remain a forum for the free exchange of ideas by LOYAL >individuals, so this is the only viable option. Any situation which >causes our comrades to refrain from free discourse weakens Stormfront's >objectives. This is exactly what worries me--too much "free discourse." Everyone here should understand that this is not a "secure" list, that there's nothing I can do to change that, and that, as Slick Willie has pointed out, "words have consequences." No one should say anything here, or on any other mailing list, or in a room full of "comrades" they know personally, that they can't afford to have posted on Usenet, read in a court of law, printed on the front page of the New York Times, or reproduced in a book that stays around for twenty years. I've had all of these things happen to me, when private, casual conversations with people I knew *personally* turned out to be not so private. I can only think of nine people on this list whom I've ever met in person, along with a few others I know by reputation outside the Net, and I'm even less trusting of anyone I know *only* as an e-mail address. You should be too. The objective of this list, as I see it, is to provide an alternative to newsgroups--to provide a place where White Nationalists can discuss issues of importance without the distractions, and where they can develop some sense of community (albeit with caveats). I accomplish this by moderating posted messages, but I have no way to ensure that all those *listening* share our objectives. I would like for this list to serve as a recruiting tool and not just become a "clique of good buddies" [Randolph MacKenzie]. I've therefore left subscriptions open--Listserv automatically handles the three to ten subscription requests a day (along with an approximately equal number of unsubscription requests) without much intervention by me. I could, of course, easily delete the two or three people I know or strongly suspect are "spies." They could almost as easily then resubscribe under an alias, as Neil O'Connor pointed out. Ken McVay briefly subscribed a few months ago using an anon remailer (which I only knew about because of a mistake he made, causing messages to bounce back directly to Stormfront from Nizkor). He could just as easily do the same thing again, without the bumbling, and I wouldn't know the difference. We have several subscribers using anon accounts, two of whom have posted regularly. But I could ban anon subscriptions, of course, then the "spies" would have to use an alias. If their domain names made that too obvious, they could open telnet accounts with freenets or elsewhere. And those with AOL accounts, like Jamie McCarthy, can use up to five different usernames. Jamie could become. . . "AryanJam@aol.com". . . or maybe "Mack88". . . we could have a contest to pick a Movement-sounding name for him--one we'd never suspect :-). Then we have all the other "spies" I don't have a clue about. The local ADL here in "New Yoik with Palm Trees" (aka West Palm Beach) has been complaining a lot about me lately, so I presume they're represented somewhere on the subscription list. And we can't forget the Simon Wiesenthal Center, which has openly called for Net censorship from the beginning. I keep expecting to wake up some morning to see Rabbi Hier on the Today Show quoting some of the more "hateful" messages here to demonstrate "'ze danger of Nazis on 'ze Internet." Then there's the probability that we're also being monitored by various secret police agencies, including the FBI and BATF, and including those from jurisdictions outside the U.S. Considering the agendas of these groups, Nizkor's archiving of our messages seems rather benign. All this said, though, McVay still irritates me. I particularly dislike his piling up quotes from various posters and attributing a unanimity of opinion to everyone here. He did this with Ron Schoedel recently, throwing in various posts, including Ghenhis's now infamous "hustling newsgroups" quote, to "demonstrate" how Ron was "exploiting" the country-western newsgroup. And I noticed he just did it in the rec.music.white-power discussion, this time invoking my name, and attributing various opinions expressed here to me, and associating me with the push for the new newsgroup. I haven't even posted to that thread yet. >From the beginning, I've considered requiring subscribers to this list agree to the same statement I require for new members to my BBS, since this is an extension of the BBS: This electronic BBS is a private system and is protected by the provisions of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986. No person is authorized to access this system for the purpose of gathering information for any government or police agency or any private investigative organization. The views expressed on this board do not necessarily represent the views of the system operator or Stormfront, Inc. Nothing on this board should be construed as attempting to encourage or incite violence or other illegal activity. This board operates pursuant to rights enumerated in, but not necessarily limited to, the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. I have *not* done this primarily because I don't want to create the illusion among subscribers that their posts are really protected by this agreement. It might dampen the efforts of some of the more regulated government agencies, but I suspect Jewish groups will feel they're above the law, or they'll look for a loophole, or they'll figure no U.S. Attorney would prosecute them. One of the "loopholes," what constitutes a "private investigative agency," could be partially closed by specifying "including but not limited to" various of our opponents' organizations. Another downside, though, is that this would create an external illusion of a "secret, conspiratorial" group, which our foes could then claim to have "infiltrated." Anyway, I've thought about this a lot, and I have some mixed feelings. Since I provide this list for subscribers, I'll let the subscribers decide this question. If there's a clear consensus to implement this policy, but with the clear understanding that its effects will be largely symbolic, I'll do it. Otherwise I'll leave things as they are. Let me hear from you. Racial regards, Don ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To: Multiple recipients of the Stormfront Mailing List Host: firstname.lastname@example.org (Don Black) To unsubscribe, send e-mail to 'email@example.com' with the line 'unsubscribe Stormfront-L' in the message BODY. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----- Processed with Listserv v2.77 for Wildcat v4
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012
This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and
to combat hatred.
Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.
As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may
include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and
provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist
and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012