—–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—–
[email protected] (Yale F. Edeiken) writes:
[rewrapped for 80 columns… please?]
>> “Duncan Coons” <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> > There has been not a single remark, a single statement, a single
>> > posting, that noted that Giwer was violating every principal that they
>> claim to hold
>> > so dear.
[…]
>
>> All this is rather silly. No one spoke up because no one took Giwer’s
>> threat of a law-suit seriously. Such a suit would not have the remotest
>> possibility of success, as you yourself (I believe) have pointed out.
>
> I suggest you review the histroy of the frivolous lawsuits brought
>by Willis Carto. Although none succeeded –or even had the chance of
>succeeding — the time and money they cost was substantial. They were a
>determined effort ot silence his opponents. Ask Greg Raven.
Or Dennis Erlich, Time Magazine, Grady Ward, etc. (The Scientology
cases). Or more to the point, Linda Thompson,
https://nizkor.org/hweb/people/t/thompson-linda/
>> Your analysis of the motives of at least some revisionists/deniers might
>> even be correct, and absent our ability to read minds we’ll never know;
>> but the incontrovertible truth remains that they are often subject to real
>> censorship, whereas their opponents are not. Anyone concerned with free
>> speech is therefore obliged to defend the rights of those whose views/lies
>> are subject to suppression, not those whose free-speech rights are secure
>> from interference. And in fact by defending the former we secure the
>> latter and, hopefully, make the principle universal.
This is true. It’s also true that the concern must be legitimate and
universal, and backed by critical thinking, or you end up looking like a
bunch of fucking hypocrites.
https://nizkor.org/hweb/people/z/zundel-ernst/censorship/
> Nizkor’s words are subject to the same such attacks and you are
>not willing to even make a statement as to their rights to be heard. I
>frankly think that the “suppression” of revisionazi statements is
>marginal. The cases of “real censorship” are few and feeble. One was no
>more than a sleazy ISP reneging on an agreement in a sleazy fashion.
>Other cases have been exagerated or even fabricated (the claim that Ewald
>Althans was tried for speaking his mind, for example).
>
> Further you have not been asked to do anything that would have
>taken more than 15 minutes. Compare that to the effort expended by
>Richard Green when the Zundel site had a minor problem.
The name’s Graves, seee http://www.stanford.edu/~ajg/project.html.
Actually, as I recall, Rich Green’s initial reaction was rather strong in
the other direction, so there is *something* to what Mr. Coons is saying.
But not much. Nizkor (at the time, Hilary) actually took less time to
respond to my guest book entry about my plans to mirror the ZSite than
Ingrid took to respond to my direct email asking if I could do so.
Hilary did not question my motives. Hilary did not tell me how bad a
person Zundel was. Hilary did not try to convince me to leave it alone.
Hilary did not say I was naive for believing that censorship is always
wrong. She simply said yes, we believe in freedom of speech.
So I know that anyone who says Nizkor is into censorship or hypocrisy is,
well, full of shit. Jamie, feel free to save this in Nizkor’s rich.graves
directory.
[Nizkor’s response, then my guest book entry — at that time, I hadn’t
even dropped in on alt.revisionism yet. I had no idea who they were, and
they had no idea who I was.]
| Date: Sun, 28 Jan 1996 14:34:49 -0800
| From: Hilary Ostrov
| Organization: myssiwyg*
| X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0b6a (Win95; I)
| MIME-Version: 1.0
| To: [email protected]
| CC: Ken McVay ,
| Jamie McCarthy
| Subject: Your Comments in the Nizkor Guest Book
| X-URL: http://www.almanac.bc.ca/guest-book.html
|
| Hello Rich,
|
| Thanks for your comments and encouragement in the Nizkor Guest Book.
| Indeed you are quite correct: we most definitely agree with your
| position that the best response is “meticulous documentation and
| refutation, not censorship”.
|
| And I certainly hope that others will follow your example of indicating
| a preference that people visit Nizkor – in fact, I find it quite sad
| that the media will show the way to the denial/racist sites, but neglect
| to point the way to Nizkor!
|
| This letter is cc’d to Nizkor Project Director, Ken McVay and
| Co-Webmaster, Jamie McCarthy.
|
| ____________________________
|
| Your tireless work is greatly appreciated.
|
| I was wondering if you had any comment on Deutsche Telekom’s decision to
| block access to webcom.com because of our “friend”
| Zuendel, though. From a quick look around this site, it appears that
| you’d be likely to agree with me that the best response is
| meticulous documentation and refutation, not censorship.
|
| To that end, I plan to mirror the “banned” site publicly, on as many
| sites as I can muster, until Deutsche Telekom gives up. I will of
| course point out that I’d much rather they visited your site.
|
| Rich Graves
| [email protected]
| http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~llurch/
| January 28, 1996
– -rich
[blue-ribbon disclaimer: it’s called sarcasm, son, SARCASM]
censor the internet! http://www.stanford.edu/~llurch/potw2/
boycott fadetoblack! http://www.fadetoblack.com/prquest.htm
—–BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE—–
Version: 2.6.2
iQBVAwUBMfU9aJNcNyVVy0jxAQFAagIAqs/4gJBAG5VUTiQ4fBBnmO+dyFrQHc7x
mwZlYsOBUgTs9H6WJctZE7cBSAoFbAy3l+OZMGsIKcTXValTQaRjAQ==
=VrVM
—–END PGP SIGNATURE—–
Path: news.voyager.net!aanews.merit.net!imci3!
newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.uoregon.edu!
tera.mcom.com!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Rich Graves)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: A Silence You Almost Can Hear
Date: 23 Jul 1996 14:07:51 -0700
Organization: Uncensored Internet, http://www.c2.org/uncensored/
Lines: 130
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: networking.stanford.edu
