howard@cyb-eng.UUCP (Howard Johnson) (04/17/85)
"Well, the true reason Europe cut off net.politics (together with net.misc and net.jokes) was high volume, low contents. However, just before Europe left these newsgroups I stumbled across a quote from a Don Black. At first I did not believe my eyes, so I grepped through all articles in our spool directory for the text 'Black', and true enough, a number of articles appeared." The high volume/low content of net.politics (and net.religion, I might add) is what prompted me long ago to unsubscribe to those newsgroups. Not only that, but we expire articles in those two newsgroups after 6 days so we have room for the rest of the news on our disk. I'm just glad our news feed is a local call.
gam@amdahl.UUCP (G A Moffett) (04/20/85)
> The problem is however not only my disgust, but there is also a legal > problem here. The discussion started with the conviction of a man in > Canada on the charge of inciting hatred to minority groups or something > like that (I can not reread it as we removed the newsgroup here). > .... Now speech like that > is not only not permitted in Canada, but also in many European > countries. But not only uttering is subject to punishment, but also > publishing and distributing, where a plea of not-guilty on the ground that > the contents of the stuff distributed was unknown might or might not be > honoured by a judge. So the problem is very clear. "Europe" (whoever that is) doesn't really have free speech as we know it in the US, so we should not expect them to recieve just anything posted to the net. While I don't blame "Europe" for cutting off the junk newsgroups (we expire net.politics after 8 to 10 days here), I can't help but think that the reasons given above indicate a problem with European (and Canadian) law, rather than the particular contents of net.politics cited. -- Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,sun}!amdahl!gam
brooks@lll-crg.ARPA (Eugene D. Brooks III) (04/20/85)
> things that might fall under that same law. Now speech like that > is not only not permitted in Canada, but also in many European > countries. But not only uttering is subject to punishment, but also > publishing and distributing, where a plea of not-guilty on the ground that > the contents of the stuff distributed was unknown might or might not be > honoured by a judge. Reading this article has made reflect on the fact that I am CENSORED glad to be a American! It is a privilege to tolerate a little speech that might be offensive to myself (or even a whole group of people!) for the sake of absolute free speech. To think that systems in Canada or Europe cut off net.politics because they were worried about the possibility of getting jailed for the contents send chills up my spine. I am glad I live here and not there as I could not tolerate my political opinions being censored by the current government in power.
srm@nsc.UUCP (Richard Mateosian) (04/21/85)
In article <265@turing.UUCP> dik@mcvax.UUCP (Dik T. Winter) writes: >Now speech like that is not only not permitted in Canada, but also in >many European countries. >Leaving net.politics in disgust, and voting now for moderated newsgroups. >dik t. winter, cwi, amsterdam, nederland Is there to be a separate moderator for each country (or smaller unit), or is the moderator to apply the union of all the censorship laws of all the places reached by USENET? -- Richard Mateosian {allegra,cbosgd,decwrl,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!srm nsc!srm@decwrl.ARPA
sigma@usl.UUCP (Spiros T.) (04/22/85)
>So the problem is very clear. "Europe" (whoever that is) doesn't >really have free speech as we know it in the US, so we should not >expect them to recieve just anything posted to the net. > >While I don't blame "Europe" for cutting off the junk newsgroups >(we expire net.politics after 8 to 10 days here), I can't help but >think that the reasons given above indicate a problem with European >(and Canadian) law, rather than the particular contents of >net.politics cited. >-- >Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,sun}!amdahl!gam Free Speech? Ever been to a European University, Gordon? Of course, there are no fraternity rushes or anything of the sort of things that happen in US universities... Just much deeper realization of what's going on around the school, the country, Europe, (NOT "Europe")... As for libel-type writings, regarding minorities, etc, it is that "law" that protects KKK and "The Arm, the XXX and the YYY of the Lord" Neo-Nazi style organizations... Of course, all "laws" are made this way... -- Spiros -- USL Computer Science Dept. -- {ut-sally,akgub}!usl!sigma
clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) (04/23/85)
In article <531@lll-crg.ARPA> brooks@lll-crg.ARPA (Eugene D. Brooks III) writes: >Reading this article has made reflect on the fact that I am CENSORED glad >to be a American! It is a privilege to tolerate a little speech that might >be offensive to myself (or even a whole group of people!) for the sake of >absolute free speech. To think that systems in Canada or Europe cut off >net.politics because they were worried about the possibility of getting >jailed for the contents send chills up my spine. I am glad I live here >and not there as I could not tolerate my political opinions being censored >by the current government in power. As far as I am aware our part of Canada has not unsubscribed to net.politics. Please be careful before you jump to conclusions about the Keegstra and Zundel trials. Their prosecutions were not because the Government in power didn't like what they were saying. In fact, the material that they were publishing/uttering was only indirectly related to the Government. In one case, the charges were brought by a citizen, not the Government. They were prosecuted under two different laws - one prohibiting false utterances that are likely to cause a danger to society, and the other for willfully uttering statements, known to be lies by the utterer, specifically intended to incite hatred against some identifiable group. They were convicted by juries of citizens, not Government or judicial officials. They were publishing claims that the Holocaust didn't happen, and that it was invented by the Jews to extort billions of dollars for Israel and as part of their "plan for world domination". We don't need such crap - and neither do you. We are a relatively small country, dominated in many ways by what happens to the south. One of the least desirable imports is hatred. We get enough from your KKK. For a country that produced a McCarthy, and executed the Rosenbergs, you're being allfully holier-than-thou. -- Chris Lewis, Computer X (CANADA) Ltd. UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis BELL: (416)-475-1300 ext. 321
chris@aquila.UUCP (chris) (04/24/85)
Speak for yourself, Chris Lewis. Not all us Canadians are so paranoid about the "south", nor are we all happy with the restrictions our government places upon us. Sure the U.S. of A. has problems, but just think; do you think a "Watergate"-like conspiracy could ever be UNCOVERED in this country??!! Our governments have seen fit to classify almost everthing they do; the new "freedom of information" act from Ottawa is so restrictive it might as well not have been passed to raise our expectations! The Zundel case was disgusting, to be sure, but I also find it distasteful that he will be going to jail and/or deported for writing something that I am FORBIDDEN to READ!!! There are many books that can not be imported into this "free" country; Penthouse's distributor was CHARGED with distributing obscene material re: an issue with simulated bondage photos; the federal government passed a law (since rescinded after the National Citizen's Coalition publicized it and a public outrow ensued) making it ILLEGAL for ANYONE other than registered political parties to ADVERTISE POLITICAL OPINIONS DURING AN ELECTION!!! I had to laugh -- although I could also have cried -- when John Turner called this "the free-est country in the world!". Our new constitution is a minor step forward; it appears that the courts will be interpreting it in a VERY conservative manner - can't break with tradition, you know. One last thing. Lewis mentioned the KKK as a typical "American" hate that could seep across the border. Thinking about this made me wonder: does he know that only 120 years ago slavery was abolished in America?? Can you imagine any other country in the world making such a change to its society -- look how far they have gone! Meanwhile, a few Pakistanis and East Indians and Hispanics have formed visible communities in Toronto in the last 2 years, and suddenly we find we're not really ready to point fingers at others! There, I feel better now. " Keep the net free. " Chris Retterath, Toronto, CANADA - sometimes not so proud! "Is Canada a banana republic without bananas?"
chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) (04/24/85)
In article <531@lll-crg.ARPA> brooks@lll-crg.ARPA (Eugene D. Brooks III) writes: >Reading this article has made reflect on the fact that I am CENSORED glad >to be a American! It is a privilege to tolerate a little speech that might >be offensive to myself (or even a whole group of people!) for the sake of >absolute free speech. To think that systems in Canada or Europe cut off >net.politics because they were worried about the possibility of getting >jailed for the contents send chills up my spine. I am glad I live here >and not there as I could not tolerate my political opinions being censored >by the current government in power. I suggest you tell that to Larry Flynt. I suggest you tell that to the draft evaders who are currently being prosecuted as examples because they publicly promoted draft evasion instead of privately evading the draft. I suggest you tell that to the people who force 'adult' magazines out of stores, 'adult' films out of theaters, and evolution out of biology texts. I suggest you think VERY carefully what the 'freedoms' you enjoy in the US are versus what they are supposed to be. -- :From the closet of anxieties of: Chuq Von Rospach {cbosgd,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA Remember me, for that which I must do shall ring out upon the heavens and my name shall be renounced by the tongues of all mankind! - J. Iscariot
alf@ttds.UUCP (Thomas Sj|land) (04/24/85)
Writes Gordin Moffett: > So the problem is very clear. "Europe" (whoever that is) doesn't > really have free speech as we know it in the US, so we should not > expect them to recieve just anything posted to the net. We do have free speech over here. From a democratic point of view it seems dubious to censor even obvious desinformers like Don Black et consortes. The historical reasons to react strongly against people like these seem obvious though. To give these guys the credit of destroying the debate between sensible people seems to me to make them happy unnecessarily. The reason people here support the idea of cutting net.politics seems to be "high volume/low content" not the fact that some idiot posts a load of senseless junk to the whole world. > I can't help but > think that the reasons given above indicate a problem with European > (and Canadian) law, rather than the particular contents of > net.politics cited. Well, European law is not one thing. In Sweden e.g. it is illegal to wear a political uniform and also to publish racist propaganda, while it is very difficult to stop even obvious enemies of the democratic ideals to the right and to the left from publishing. So while it would be illegal to form a regular fascist party here, there does exist a few small but insistive groups who publish what is often called crypto-fascist material glorifying nazi ideas similar to the stuff Black seems to have read to much of. It is currently under debate whether this is good or not. I do not know whether the law in other democratic countries in Europe is different. Eastern Europe is another story, of course. While the eastern european communists hate and fear fascism and claim that the US government is similar to Hitler's they obviously despise democracy and their propaganda is often clearly anti-semitic. Interestingly I read today that Neues Deutschland in East-Berlin (and the communist chinese news agency New China) did NOT mention any other people killed in Ravensbruck than the political prisoners. Neither gypsies nor jews were mentioned by these media when they reported about the 40-year anniversary of the freeing of this concentration camp. New China is the sole informer of 1/4 of the worlds population. --
clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) (04/24/85)
Chris Retterath flamed me upon a comment I made in net.followup. My primary comment is that he totally missed the point of my posting. My primary point is that the U.S. does not have "total free speech" either - and does not justify the "holier than thou" remarks that prompted my original posting. As a few examples of U.S. un-freedom-of-speech consider: 1) McCarthy 2) The GENUS II edition of Trivial Pursuit is banned in the U.S. for the question: How many months "gone" was Nancy Reagan when she walked down the isle? (answer: 2 or 3 (I expect a visit from the NSA/CIA any time now)) 3) The U.S. Government chooses to destabilize democratically elected governments of other countries just because the U.S. Government doesn't like their brand of politics. The original poster also forgot about such things as the libel/slander laws, and the laws about falsely yelling "fire". > Speak for yourself, Chris Lewis. Not all us Canadians are so paranoid > about the "south", nor are we all happy with the restrictions our government > places upon us. ... I'm not paranoid nor am I happy with the restrictions that our Government places upon us. For example, I am against the Canadian content regulations for TV and radio. My comment was, again, NOT implying that we are any better. Usually, I have a great deal of respect for U.S. policy - at least they (usually) have "good intentions". The U.S. has an enormous influence on us (and other parts of the world). Probably most of it good. But it doesn't prevent us from being selective. And we should be. > Sure the U.S. of A. has problems, but just think; do you think > a "Watergate"-like conspiracy could ever be UNCOVERED in this country??!! Yes. Several have (eg: the Gerda Munsinger(sp?) affair or RCMP barn-burning). Many times these have served to bring down governments. Fast. Far less trauma than the Watergate debacle. > Our governments have seen fit to classify almost everthing they do; the new > "freedom of information" act from Ottawa is so restrictive it might as well > not have been passed to raise our expectations! Many wouldn't exactly agree with this last assertion. > The Zundel case was > disgusting, to be sure, but I also find it distasteful that he will be going > to jail and/or deported for writing something that I am FORBIDDEN to READ!!! "Forbidden to read" - aw come on! There is no law that prevents me from reading his trash. Importation of it is not banned. Besides, if you had been following "can.politics" you'd find that I don't like the laws he was prosecuted under anyways. He should have been sued silly under civil libel/slander laws extended to protect groups. > There are many books that can not be imported into this "free" country; > Penthouse's distributor was CHARGED with distributing obscene material re: > an issue with simulated bondage photos; I don't agree with these laws either. I am a "free-speecher" and disagree with censorship of something that merely contains "sex", "violence" or "politically unpalatable viewpoints". However, I partially agree with the intent (as do most Canadian women I'm sure) where sufficiently virulent anti-somebody material (as many consider severe enough bondage depictions) offends that "somebody" a lot. > the federal government passed a law > (since rescinded after the National Citizen's Coalition publicized it and > a public outrow ensued) making it ILLEGAL for ANYONE other than registered > political parties to ADVERTISE POLITICAL OPINIONS DURING AN ELECTION!!! Right - it isn't in force is it? And the U.S. has religious groups attempting to buy TV networks to eliminate "biased reporting" and "targetting" politicians. The former cannot happen here because of the CRTC (probably the only thing the CRTC is any good for). > does he know that only 120 years ago slavery was abolished in America?? Yes. Relatively shortly before that Britain abolished it too (and, as far as I am aware, Canada never did have slavery per-se. We may have had some similar injustices (eg: the Japanese during WW II), but at least they were short-term and eventually, our Government has even gotten around to apologize (yes, I know, insufficient, but it's better than nothing and the question isn't over yet)) How come we don't have a native-origin KKK? > East Indians and Hispanics have formed visible communities in Toronto > in the last 2 years, and suddenly we find we're not really ready to point > fingers at others! To our shame, yes. However, at least it is neither "organized" nor an export. Again, I was objecting to the "holier than thou" attitude; I was not attempting to claim that we are any much better. If a Zundel clone started spewing substantial quantities of such stuff down net.politics we would cut it off too. Not because it is illegal here, but because we won't allow our voluntary donation of computer time/storage/bandwidth to the network be perverted in such a way. Nor do we want fingers pointed at us saying that we implicitly support such trash by forwarding it. I say "we" because I am absolutely certain that the majority of people at our site would agree (especially the management). Downstream sites' administrators and I discuss restricting newsgroups for various reasons. One of our downstream sites doesn't get all the newsgroups because of lack of storage at their site. Guess which ones were first to go? We have not yet found it neccessary to restrict any of the feed for "content" reasons. Not even Retterath's posting was close to sufficient :-). Then again, if a newsgroup got virulent enough (nothing I have yet seen has come close - but Keegstra's ranting certainly does), I would cut it off unilaterally. If a downstream site (or, more probably, individual) doesn't like it - tough - they can find another feed for that newsgroup. We are under no legal obligation to provide ANY feed. But we will provide feeds so that we can receive one ourselves. Zundel and Keegstra - are you on the net? Be warned - we'd cut you off! If anybody wants to respond, please lets move it over to net.flame or respond directly by mail. -- Chris Lewis, Computer X (CANADA) Ltd. UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis BELL: (416)-475-1300 ext. 321
liss@psyche.DEC (Frederick R. Liss 237-3649) (04/24/85)
I can't imagine an article inflammatory enough to cause Europe to drop a news group. As an American, I find it difficult to understand in some countries there are subjects one cannot discuss in puplic under penalty of the law. Since I missed the original article could someone send me a copy by net mail? Regards, Fred --- Frederick R. Liss UUCP ...decvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-psyche!liss Digital Equipment Corp. ARPA liss%psyche.DEC@decwrl.ARPA 333 South St. Shrewsbury MA, 01545 Mail Stop SHR1-4/D21 Posted: Wed 24-Apr-1985 14:14 To: RHEA::DECWRL::"net.followup"
neal@denelvx.UUCP (Neal Weidenhofer) (04/26/85)
> As for libel-type writings, regarding minorities, etc, it is that "law" > that protects KKK and "The Arm, the XXX and the YYY of the Lord" Neo-Nazi > style organizations... Of course, all "laws" are made this way... > > -- Spiros > -- USL Computer Science Dept. > -- {ut-sally,akgub}!usl!sigma I don't recall anyone mentioning libel in this connection before. "When obscenity was made illegal, it became obscene to criticize the emperor." Regards, Neal Weidenhofer "The law is for protection Denelcor, Inc. of the people" <hao|csu-cs|brl-bmd>!denelcor!neal
clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) (04/27/85)
I would like to make two apologies about/clarifications of
some comments I made in my last posting to this news group.
1) I unintentionally implied that Keegstra had
been convicted under s.281.? for his statements.
He has not yet been convicted (nor am I sure
that he will be). I was reminded of this fact
by Dave Sherman (dave@lsuc).My flames are primarily
directed at the statements (lessons to his
students) that he is alleged to have made.
2) Regarding the Trivial Pursuit question: Thinking
back on it, I am no longer sure that I have
the answer quoted correctly from the game.
(it may have even been "none"). However, my
statements on the contents of the question
itself, and of the banning of the game for that
question still stand. (at the time of the
sending of this item, I have had no feedback
whatsoever on this point).
I apologize for any pain or distress that these may have
caused to anyone. In my own defense, I would like to
point out that the latter remarks were not intended to
damage anyone's reputation, but rather to use these
as demonstration of the fact that the U.S. does not
have total freedom of speech as some would contend.
I still stand by this latter position.
In addition, just in case, I wish to assure you that
these opinions are not intended to reflect opinions or
the position of my employer or fellow employees.
You'll have to ask them what they think.
--
Help save Canadian Beavers from being Sterilized!
Chris Lewis, Computer X (CANADA) Ltd.
UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis
BELL: (416)-475-1300 ext. 321dhenson@islenet.UUCP (Donald D. Henson) (05/12/85)
> I can't imagine an article inflammatory enough to cause Europe to drop a > news group. As an American, I find it difficult to understand in some > countries there are subjects one cannot discuss in puplic under penalty > of the law. Since I missed the original article could someone send me a > . . . Ever try discussing sex in explicit terms in this country (USA)?
jhull@spp2.UUCP (Jeff Hull) (05/13/85)
In article <1108@islenet.UUCP> dhenson@islenet.UUCP (Donald D. Henson) writes: >> I can't imagine an article inflammatory enough to cause Europe to drop a >> news group. As an American, I find it difficult to understand in some >> countries there are subjects one cannot discuss in puplic under penalty >> of the law. Since I missed the original article could someone send me a > >> . . . > >Ever try discussing sex in explicit terms in this country (USA)? -- Blessed Be, Jeff Hull {decvax,hplabs,ihnp4,scdrdcf,ucbvax} 13817 Yukon Ave. trwrb!trwspp!spp2!jhull Hawthorne, CA 90250 34o3'15" N by 118o14'28" W
jhull@spp2.UUCP (Jeff Hull) (05/13/85)
Let's have 3 cheers for vi! I finally got bit. My article is, herewith, re-posted below. In article <1108@islenet.UUCP> dhenson@islenet.UUCP (Donald D. Henson) writes: >> As an American, I find it difficult to understand in some >> countries there are subjects one cannot discuss in puplic under penalty >> of the law. >> . . . > >Ever try discussing sex in explicit terms in this country (USA)? Why, yes, I have. & continue to do so regularly & frequently. If, by "explicit," you mean gutter slang, I have noticed that polite people generally avoid such, but there are on-going discussions of all forms of sexual behavior in many public forums in the US. Media forums range from The Journal of the American Psychological Association through Psychology Today through Playboy & Penthouse through Hustler through Screw through Gent, Adam, Gallery to stuff I refuse to even know the name of. Much of which is discouraged, but none of which is banned. Why would you want to mislead people by suggesting otherwise? -- Blessed Be, Jeff Hull {decvax,hplabs,ihnp4,scdrdcf,ucbvax} 13817 Yukon Ave. trwrb!trwspp!spp2!jhull Hawthorne, CA 90250 34o3'15" N by 118o14'28" W