From dmytrik@lglobal.com Fri Mar 8 07:12:36 1996 Xref: elastic can.community.asian:1916 can.general:37516 can.politics:50319 can.talk.guns:6581 misc.immigration.canada:779 soc.culture.canada:19597 tor.general:35046 Path: elastic!lethe!geac!reptiles.org!constantchange.on.ca!news1.io.org!winternet.com!mr.net!chi-news.cic.net!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!gatech!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!news.alt.net!newspost1.alt.net!usenet From: dmytrik@lglobal.com (Quirk) Newsgroups: can.talk.guns,tor.general,can.general,can.politics,soc.culture.canada,bc.general,ab.general,alt.politics.immigration,alt.discrimination,alt.law-enforcement,ott.general,misc.immigration.canada,can.community.asian,qc.general,ns.general,nb.genera Subject: Re: the 'N' word Date: Thu, 07 Mar 1996 22:46:05 GMT Organization: Idiosyntactix Tactical Hyperbole (tm) Toronto. Lines: 57 Message-ID: <313f4ce2.13510561@news.alt.net> References: <4gt370$i0i@news.sas.ab.ca> <1996Feb26.220811.5375@wpg.ramp.net> <4h5sma$5qn@dec3300.cuug.ab.ca> Reply-To: dmytrik@lglobal.com X-Newsreader: Forte Agent .99d/16.182 << posted & mailed >> On 29 Feb 1996 20:59:06 -0700, caprina@cuug.ab.ca wrote: + a derogatory word that never should have come in to existance at all! Hmmm .. derogatory words.... Like bitch or fag, like hebe or kike? Like sambo or wetback, wop, paddy, or nip? Maybe like redskin? or how about chink or gook or honky or gringo? What about slut or whore or bastard or asshole? Why stop at nigger? There is one word more offensive than any of these: censor. Words only reflect problems, not cause them, if you control words you end the debate. How then shall we solve the problems? Notice that derogatory terms are used often by writers and advocates to illustrate the problems by using the emotional punch these words have? To say that any words should never have existed at all is incredably simple minded. Words capture the emotions that created them, say the words, feel the emotional power these words have as you repeat them in you head. You can be stronger than the words, don't hide from them. Hiding them just adds to their mistique, it just adds to the stigma that these are words to hide, therefore the people these words offend have something to hide, embrace and thus disenpower these terms, and remember and examine the human emotions that brought them about. "Stick and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me!" -- You, in the wisdom of your childhood. ..... Dmytri Kleiner -- Quirk P.S. Oh, Nevermind. dmytrik@lglobal.com http://www.lglobal.com/~dmytrik "Gravity lets (c) 1996 Idiosyntactix (tm) Toronto you down" From dmytrik@lglobal.com Tue Mar 19 07:08:48 1996 Xref: elastic can.general:38940 news.admin.net-abuse.misc:39982 ont.general:32742 tor.arts:912 tor.general:37119 Path: elastic!lethe!geac!reptiles.org!constantchange.on.ca!news1.io.org!ki.net!winternet.com!news2.interlog.com!hookup!news.join.ad.jp!news.imnet.ad.jp!usenet.seri.re.kr!news.cais.net!news.ac.net!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!news.alt.net!newspost1.alt.net!usenet From: dmytrik@lglobal.com (Quirk) Newsgroups: tor.general,torfree.general,tor.arts,news.admin.net-abuse.misc,alt.censorship,can.general,ont.general Subject: Re: -- A Call For The Resignation Of Mike Anderson -- Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 00:09:34 GMT Organization: Idiosyntactix Tactical Hyperbole (tm) Toronto. Lines: 268 Message-ID: <314dfb38.6337411@news.alt.net> References: <312a26df.11262481@news.alt.net> <31407c51.3073603@news.alt.net> <3149b9a3.13019312@news.alt.net> <4idchn$cn1@news.eecs.nwu.edu> Reply-To: dmytrik@lglobal.com X-Newsreader: Forte Agent .99d/16.182 << posted & mailed >> On 16 Mar 1996 03:28:55 GMT, Robert Bonomi wrote: + >So they are NOT liable for violations that HAVE ACTUALLY occurred, but + >MAY BE liable for future actions that HAVE NOT occurred. Interesting + >reasoning. + Actually, in point of fact, they *may*indeed* have liability in the + original What exactly do you mean by "in point of fact", I get the feeling you mean "in your opinion", please present any facts. + act. It is _unquestionable_, that: Listen, you seem to have a marvelous talent for empty assertion, but WHY is it _unquestionable_ -- because you say so? + A) having been formed of the person's original actions, + B) failing to take any actions to prevent recurrence, + and + C) that _another_ action of the same type, by the same person, *did* + occur, + That in such a circumstance they *would* be held liable. "conspirator + before, during, and after the fact", for starters. Your _unquestionable_ statement, is unquestionably incoherent, and that is a fact. What are you trying to say? First you start with the assumption that their was any sort of breach of law -- there was not, this is merely TFN's pinhead lawyer's highly incompetent opinion. Secondly, if a crime was in fact committed, taking "actions to prevent recurrence" does not relieve you of liability for the original crime. If TFN is an accomplice in the original crime, then killing Bob's account does not remove ANY liability for the crime already committed. So if TFN ever was liable for anything (which I doubt), they are still liable. This is why ISPs "take the position that they are a common carrier" and are NOT responsible for the legality of messages passing through their system -- the people who POST the articles are. So the FACTS ARE, Mr. Bonomi, that TFN only BECAME liable WHEN they ABANDONED the common carrier defense by taking editorial prerogative and axing Bob's account. + There are about three _possible_ ways to prevent a recurrence: Recurrence of what? The only thing established here is that Bob posted a message, nothing else. Why are you seeking to prevent the recurrence of article posting -- that's what usenet is for. + 1) remove the offender Ummm -- please give me the court case in which the "offender" was convicted or stop using the term "offender". All we've established is that Bob is a usenet "Poster". So you, dear Robie are also an offender, no? + 2) "review" -everything- that that person posts -before- letting it go + public Which person? Since by reviewing ANY posts, you are no longer a common carrier and have now cast yourself as a publisher, you would have to review the messages that every user posts and verify that they conform to even the vaguest and most obscure of law. I wonder if the TFN has the qualifications and resources to carry this out? + 3) deny that person 'posting' privileges. Again -- which persons? Deny everybody's posting privileges? Good Idea. That would work -- trash usenet. Your vision is remarkable + The manpower requirements, and costs associated therewith, of #2 render it + impractical. True enough, sir. + #3 has the problem of having to block the -other- ways a person *might* + get a posting out. e.g. no outgoing e-mail. no gopher, no web-browsing, + no telnet, and probably no FTP. ends up being pretty much a 'functional + equivalent of #1, by the time you get done plugging -all- the possible + holes. Why bother, when there is an =equivalent= process that is much + simpler, -and- sure to be effective? That's correct, can all the users. Close down the ISP, this is the only solution as you have not illustrated how your "offender" is any different than the rest of the users, except in that his article has displeased some delusionary lawyer who has no judicial authority (or, in this case, understanding for that matter). + -only- #1 is *guaranteed* to eliminate the liability. Hear, hear! Close down the ISPs! Only by removing everyone's access can we assure ourselves that they will not be liable. Brilliant. + >I merely pointed out that if you believe as TFN claims, that Bob's + >action but them in a position of legal liability, then axing his + >account does not rid them of the liability and furthermore not + >contacting the authorities could be construed as aiding and abetting + >-- but that's if you believe they where EVER liable as TFN claims -- + >which I do not accept. + + There _is_ a potential liability to TFN, from the original acts. They + *do* have a number of 'colorable' (to use the legal term) defenses + available, however. The best defense -- common carrier -- is all that they need. + And, it _is_ true that closing the account does -not- relieve them of + that liability. Correct. + What closing the account does is eliminate FUTURE liability. In the + event of a 'repeat', and where they had PRIOR FACTUAL KNOWLEDGE that + the individual was likely to do this, and they provided the 'means', + then that *would* be "aiding and abetting". In such an event, none + of the defenses available with regard to the original action would + be available. The above is true it does relieve of FUTURE liability FOR THAT ONE USER, but now that they have made themselves into a publisher, they have ASSUMED liability for EVERY OTHER members posts. SO I would say, there potential liability is now far greater. + Side note: When information comes to your attention _after_the_fact_ + about a criminal act, failure to pass that information on to the + 'authorities', _in_and_of_itself_, does *not* constitute aiding and + abetting. Oh -- so therefore Bob did not, as they claim, put them in any sort of danger right? What side of the issue are you on? + An -overt- act of commission or omission is _also_ required. + In order for this 'non-report' to be an overt act of omission, it + would have to be established that the party had the general practice + of reporting any and all suspected violations of law to the authorities. + *IF*, and *only* if, that can be established, can I agree with the above, this further illustrates that TFN should have done NOTHING. TFN claims that Bob committed an ILLEGAL act, only the authorities can determine that to be the case. So TFN is saying that they have the right to censor ANY article THEY BELIEVE to be illegal, regardless of how ludicrous that belief is. + Additional note: One might want to consider the *potential* risk that + TFN was being exposed to. Assume they did -nothing-, and that a + repeat event *did* occur. A regular usenet contributor, posting yet another usenet article? Shocking. Shivers. You continue to operate under the assumption that Bob's post WAS ILLEGAL -- you do not know this. + 'Contributory' liability is clear-cut. How? + And, if it gets to the attention of the 'authorities', there is a _real_ + probability of _confiscation_ of the TFN equipment that 'enabled' the + criminal act. Not if they stick to the common carrier defense, then only the posters equipment would be confiscated. + Somehow, I doubt that they would survive _that_. They would. + And, given that their charter is 'to provide services to the community', + as it were, if someone is in engaging in acts that imperil their + ability to _continue_ to do that, they are -compelled- to take action. You seem to have a strong knowledge of legal terminology, but your point of view and assumptions in this matter are severely twisted, please consider the following; ... If you start making every link in the chain into one of the publishers then every single link in the chain can be leaned on with threats of legal liability and bullied into taking editorial prerogative, this will eventual bring in moderators and editors and usenet will be dead, the internet will be just another censored medium for the mass media corporate empire where your article will have to be approved by an ever narrowing circle of information providers. Is this your vision of the future of usenet? No thanks. Usenet is revolutionary BECAUSE it makes the USER the PUBLISHER (that's where the name 'usenet' comes from) thus it opens the media up to the grass roots, to the voices of advocacy and the arts, to thinkers and writers who do not have the corporate information machine behind them, to people who could not otherwise get their message out. The concept that the user is the ONLY publisher on usenet is the key to the future of a vibrant and uncensored internet. Any Private ISP that does not understand this is digging it's own grave, as they can not compete with the big boys in the mass media kingpin game. Once the telecom interests have moved in to the market, they will crush the ISPs, the only ones that will survive are the ones that will come to be know as "Alternative ISP" (AISPs?) and who cater to a progressive and radical membership that would not be welcomed by the major service providers. Any FreeNet board of directors that does not understand this is committing an act of hostility against the very people they are funded to support and must be relieved of their authorities immediately. ..... Dmytri Kleiner -- Quirk P.S. Oh, Nevermind. dmytrik@lglobal.com http://www.lglobal.com/~dmytrik "Gravity lets (c) 1996 Idiosyntactix (tm) Toronto you down" From proteios@indirect.com Sat Apr 27 08:03:43 1996 Xref: elastic misc.news.internet.discuss:468 talk.politics.crypto:4083 talk.politics.libertarian:58059 Path: elastic!lethe!abyss!news2.compulink.com!news.compulink.com!news2.toronto.istar.net!news3.ottawa.istar.net!istar.net!news1.vancouver.istar.net!news.vancouver.istar.net!west.news.istar.net!van-bc!unixg.ubc.ca!info.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!newshub.csu.net!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!globe.indirect.com!s67.phxslip4.indirect.com!user From: proteios@indirect.com (El Tiburon) Newsgroups: misc.news.internet.discuss,alt.censorship,az.internet,talk.politics.crypto,talk.politics.libertarian Subject: -=[IUC Alert! *Update* CDA Court Challenge]=- Date: 21 Apr 1996 15:27:13 GMT Organization: Internet Users Consortium Lines: 305 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: s67.phxslip4.indirect.com *______________________________________________ * VISIT the NEW Internet Users Consortium mirror site: * http://www.nilenet.com/~peads *______________________________________________ *Thanks to your growing support, the number of people accessing *the IUC website increased to our servers stretching point. So *we've set up a mirror site on another server. This new site *specializes in our ever-growing IUC position, proposals and *objectives. Visit the site and ensure that it represents you- *the Internet User! Show your dedicated support to the *Future Freedom of the Internet. If you have any points of *contention, additional ideas to establish the position of *Internet Freedom, ideas for improving the website or just *want to give us continued support, please drop by. *Keep the content of the Internet in the hands of the people who use the Internet - You and I - the Internet Users!* *The URL is: *http://www.nilenet.com/~peads *______________________________________________ SUBSCRIPTION REQUESTS for NorthStar: To: proteios@iuc.org (See bottom of Alert) ALERT 4/21/96 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- The CDA Challenge, Update #8 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- By Declan McCullagh / declan@well.com / Redistribute freely ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- In this update: BYU/CMU's Olsen testifies that "-L18" won't harm the Net Judges realize Olsen is a weasel Chief Judge Sloviter's incisive questions Who is Donna Rice? A DoJ attorney can't stop laughing... Closing arguments now set for May 10 April 18, 1996 PHILADELPHIA -- The U.S. Department of Justice doesn't like the way the Communications Decency Act is written. During the the testimony that ended April 15 in Philadelphia's Federal court, we've started to see the DoJ's legal strategy emerge -- and it includes attempts to redefine the CDA. The DoJ's star witness was the amazingly prudish Dan "I'm offended by four-letter words" Olsen, who said that his plan to have service providers card users and tag 'em as adults or minors is a fabulous way to go. But this shifts the burden of protecting kids from smut onto ISPs, a proposal that Congress rejected when they included "good faith" defenses in the law. Olsen, who will fit in just fine when he takes a job this summer as an administrator at censorhappy Carnegie Mellon University, also kept pushing the other half of his plan that would require all "patently offensive" online content be tagged "-L18." On Monday, the DoJ's very own attack-ferret Jason Baron asked Olsen: "Your proposal would not have an adverse effect on the Net as a whole? Olsen deadpanned: "Absolutely not!" This isn't surprising. To Olsen, the Internet is just a bunch of geeks who want to keep everyone else out of their own little world. When U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals Chief Judge Dolores Sloviter asked him if his "-L18" system would develop side-by-side with PICS, Olsen replied: "If technical people were left to themselves, it would be likely to happen. I don't think this is true here. Internet people don't like other people telling them what to do. They're afraid of the FCC. They don't want anyone else messing in their pond." +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ JUDGES REALIZE OLSEN IS A WEASEL +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ Even the judges could tell that Olsen is a weasel. The three judges hearing our challenge to the CDA were unsympathetic to the Brigham Young University computer scientist and pinned him down for almost an hour as he tried to slime away from direct questions. Judge Stewart Dalzell is the most net-savvy judge on the panel and the only one with young kids, so I'm guessing they're helping him to grok the Net. He asked Olsen what would happen if U.S. citizens automatically cache overseas material, including "indecent" files. Again Olsen tried to weasel away from the hypothetical, but Dalzell would have none of it: "You assumed away my question." The DoJ witness grumpily admitted: "I'd turn the cache off." Some of Dalzell's questions were stellar: "Assume a chat group is talking about the CDA -- students from 13 to 18. In the course of the chat, an 18-year-old is exasperated and types in 'Fuck the CDA.' Is it your proposal that he should tag that '-L18?'" Not hesitating, Olsen said: "Yes." On the fight-censorship mailing list I maintain, Mark Stein writes: Judge Dalzell was paraphrasing closely from Cohen v. California, a seminal case in which the Supreme Court overturned the conviction of a man who was arrested for wearing a jacket with "Fuck The Draft" painted on the back. This Olsen fellow's a government witness, you say? Sounds like he's working for us. Some of Dalzell's other questions were equally fab: "If in one issue of the Economist the word 'fuck' appears, the library [putting it online] would have to go through the entire text of the issue?" Olsen replied: "Somebody would have to make this screening. Somebody would have to make this judgement." (Later he invented the idea of libraries banding together to pool resources to make these decisions. I could feel the hackles of the American Library Association folks rising. I swear, Olsen makes up these mind-fucks on the fly.) Remember Judge Buckwalter? I wrote about him in my first CDA Update, saying that he was the least comfortable with our cybersuit: In an incomprehensible decision last month, Judge Ronald Buckwalter granted us only a _partial_ restraining order preventing the Feds from enforcing the CDA. Now he's justifying his original mistake by taking a critical stance during this hearing... Buckwalter has come around. Last Friday his comments indicated he was starting to understand the issue. His questions to Olsen on Monday showed that he finally "gets it": Q: If the creator of the material doesn't buy into your system, it creates a big problem... Does this mean plaintiff's proposal makes more sense? A: No. There are different types of proposals... Q: On your declaration, determining which are adults, you don't address economic claims? A: I only address if it's technically possible. +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ CHIEF JUDGE SLOVITER'S INCISIVE QUESTIONS +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ Chief Judge Sloviter's questions were the most incisive -- like Dalzell, she admitted to doing a bit of out-of-court net surfing. She asked Olsen if "children would be blocked from accessing parts of museum collections?" Olsen admitted they would. Some other questions from Sloviter: Q: Would [your -L18 proposal] contain the seeds that the government can do the blocking? Once everything is tagged as -L18, would that facilitate any one entity saying this material should not go out on the Internet? A: Possibly. Q: Can you think of any time in our history where we have blocked material in advance? A: Yes, every editor in every newspaper does this every day. Q: But in an organized manner? A: Every editor in every newspaper does this every day. The EFF's Mike Godwin says: That Sloviter asked this question is incredibly important -- it shows that she recognizes that compliance with the Communications Decency Act would amount to a complex system of prior restraints. Even among those who disagree strongly about the scope of the First Amendment, there is little disagreement about the general prohibition of prior restraints on publication -- the only generally acknowledged exception to this prohibition is the "national security" exception (publication of troop movements during time of war and the like). In previous obscenity/indecency cases, it has long been established that prior restraints on publication are impermissible. The strangest point of the day came after Olsen testified that a PICS-style third-party rating system would "slow the flow." (This was a snide reference to Vanderbilt Professor Donna Hoffman's testimony about how uninterrupted "flow" was important while web-surfing.) Sloviter then asked him how an adult would show -L18 tagged materials to a mature child. Olsen replied that a "teacher or parent could log on." Sloviter parried: "Wouldn't that slow the flow?" At this point, Olsen began to discharge a series of short, staccato bursts of high-pitched giggles, sounding like a rabbit being tortured to death. Damnedest thing I ever saw. The audience stared in horror. Basically, the DoJ fucked up with this witness. Olsen was such a censorhappy nut and so delighted with his "-L18" scheme that the court realized it went too far -- that it was obviously unconstitutional. In other words, he was our best witness. +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ WHO IS DONNA RICE? A DOJ ATTORNEY CAN'T STOP LAUGHING... +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ I would have loved to have been in Washington, DC when Grey Flannel Suit -- AKA AFSADAFOSICCI* Howard Schmidt -- was deposed on April 1. Imagine an entire business day filled with nothing but talk of cyberporn, with everyone trying to be serious and lawyerly. Some representative samples, from page 244 of Grey Flannel's deposition: A: The next one, the same [screen] with panties.jpg reflects the image that appears on the screen after clicking on Panties. A: The next one, the same [screen] with boobs.jpg reflects the image that appears on the screen after clicking on Boobs. A: And the next one is cunnilingus.jpg, which reflects the image that comes onto the screen by clicking on Cunnilingus. But my fave part was when former party girl and ex-No Excuses jeans model Donna Rice-Hughes was mentioned. In the past year, Rice-Hughes has leveraged her fame from the Gary Hart presidential campaign into a budding career as a morality crusader at the anti-porn group "Enough is Enough!" Read on for an excerpt from page 282 of Grey Flannel's deposition... Q: Are you acquainted with Kathleen Cleaver? A: No, I'm not. Q: Have you ever heard that name? A: It does not ring a bell, no. Q: Are you acquainted with Bruce Taylor? A: Not that I'm aware of, no. Q: Are you acquainted with Donna Rice? A: The name Donna Rice rings a bell it seems, but I don't know from what. [The ACLU attorneys and Pat Russotto from the DoJ can't stop laughing.] DoJ's Tony Coppolino: "I'll explain later." ACLU's Margorie Heins: "It's a honest answer." ACLU's Chris Hansen: "Even Pat couldn't remain serious through that." DoJ's Tony Coppolino, trying again: "I'll explain later!" * AFSADAFOSICCI = Air Force Special Agent, Director of the Air Force Office of Special Investigations, Computer Crime Investigations +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ CLOSING ARGUMENTS NOW SET FOR MAY 10 +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ The closing arguments for our case now are scheduled for May 10, with April 29 as the deadline for submitting our findings of fact and conclusions of law -- a lengthy collection of documents that will include everything we believe we've proved in our case. (Closing arguments were pushed up to early May since we didn't feel a need to call any rebuttal witnesses. After all, we had Olsen!) Our attorneys and the DoJ each will present two hours of closing arguments on May 10, though the timeframe is flexible. The three-judge panel likely will issue a decision three or four weeks later, and appeals will go directly to the Supreme Court. What will the Philly court decide? Bruce Taylor, the president of the National Law Center for Children and Families, told me that he's "confident" the court will uphold the indecency portions of the CDA. However, the former Federal prosecutor said he's "worried that the court may accept some of the technical or infeasibility arguments" against the law. I'm sure we'll talk more about it on May 9, when I'll be on a panel at the University of Pennsylvania with Taylor and Cathy Cleaver. Fortunately, one of the strongest aspects of our case is that we're correct. Stay tuned for more reports. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- We're back in court on May 10 for closing arguments. Quote of the Day: "We teach them proper principles and let them govern themselves." -Prophet Joseph Smith NorthStar keeps you informed and on the lookout for the invasive legislation the government enforces. If you want to stay informed about this and other key Internet issues, subscribe to NorthStar. NorthStar is the bi-weekly e-zine of the Internet Users Consortium that gives you the story from the perspectives of those who feel the full brunt of government abuse. Corporate media devalues us in its pro-government portrayal of every news tidbit. What's left out is how current legislation effects you and me - The Internet Users. -------------------- SUBSCRIPTION REQUESTS for NorthStar: To: proteios@iuc.org Subject: leave blank Body of message: subscribe NorthStar your email Regular subscription to NorthStar is in html. Please specify if you want the *ascii* version. NorthStar Archives can be found at: http://www.iuc.org/www/proteios/northstar.html From elastic!lethe!geac!onramp.ca!news2.insinc.net!news.solect.com!news.sprintlink.net!new-news.sprintlink.net!newsreader.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-stk-200.sprintlink.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!ixnews1.ix.netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!tor-nn1.netcom.ca!freedom Sun Jul 14 19:57:44 1996 Xref: elastic can.general:50743 can.politics:78173 ont.general:46309 tor.general:48631 Path: elastic!lethe!geac!onramp.ca!news2.insinc.net!news.solect.com!news.sprintlink.net!new-news.sprintlink.net!newsreader.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-stk-200.sprintlink.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!ixnews1.ix.netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!tor-nn1.netcom.ca!freedom From: freedom@netcom.ca (Marc Lemire) Newsgroups: can.politics,alt.revisionism,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.fan.ernst-zundel,can.general,tor.general,ont.general Subject: [Press Release] Freedom-Site suffers censorship from Pathway Communications Date: Fri, 12 Jul 96 11:00:33 GMT Organization: Digital Freedom Lines: 117 Message-ID: <4s5b5c$1s5@tor-nn1-hb0.netcom.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: trt-on1-01.netcom.ca X-NETCOM-Date: Fri Jul 12 6:58:52 AM EDT 1996 X-Newsreader: News Xpress 2.0 Beta #1 Controversial "Freedom-Site" gets censored by Pathway Communications ->> An Information Release from Marc Lemire <<- Internet: freedom@netcom.ca Digital Freedom BBS node 1: (416) 462-3327 http://www.ftcnet.com/~freedom Digital Freedom BBS node 2: (416) 465-4767 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - Canada's most controversial Internet World Wide Web Site, the "Freedom-Site" was unceremoniously kicked off of a Toronto based Internet provider after almost a year of uninterrupted service. Marc Lemire, the Webmaster of the Freedom-Site, discovered that his Internet account was closed down when he tried to log onto his provider on June 28, 1996. Upon discovering that his account was not properly working he promptly telephoned his provider, Pathway Communications to investigate. After getting the "run around" for about 20 minutes he was finally connected to the acting manager of Pathway Communications who informed Mr. Lemire of his companies decision to ban his Internet Website and E-Mail accounts due to the content of his website. Pathway Communications never informed Mr. Lemire of their plan to ban his access. ->They never spoke with Mr. Lemire regarding the content of his website and/or messages. ->They never gave Mr. Lemire the chance to remove the "offending" material. ->Even though they had Mr. Lemire's private home phone number, they didn't even bother to pick up the phone and tell him they have cut him off. ->They have yet to return Mr. Lemire's website data files which they promised to do in a telephone conversation on June 28, 1996. ->As of July 12, 1996 they have not refunded his account fees which are billed on a monthly basis through his credit card. During the conversation between Mr. Lemire and the employee of Pathway Communications, Mr. Lemire expressed his anger at them shutting down his Internet account due to the content of it. He also requested both his website data files and E-Mail that was being held on their servers be returned to him. The employee of Pathway Communications promised to upload the website material to Mr. Lemire's BBS (24 hour dial in computer service), which to this day has not been done. The waiting E-Mail was deleted and anyone who writes to his old account will get a message stating that this user no longer exists on their system. Of everything discussed during the phone call, the most perverse and odd thing this employee from Pathway Communications said was that they "support his right to Freedom Of Speech". Imagine that! Also during the same phone call, the representative from Pathway Communications claimed that some of the material on the Freedom-Site was against Canada's Hate Law. When Mr. Lemire called him on to point to one document on the site that was hateful, the employee was speechless. In a letter dated June 27, 1996 (attached) the president of Pathway Communications, Mr. Ashok Kalle, said as follows; "This letter is to inform you that your account with Pathway Communications has been terminated pursuant to section 2 of the General Conditions of Use". Section 2 of the General Conditions of Use as noted above is partially reprinted below. "The user's access to the Internet may be revoked, and his/her account cancelled at any time, without notice or assigning any reason if, in the opinion company or its officers, the user has been in violation of these terms. In such event, no payments or refunds whatsoever, will be due or payable by the company to the user including any fees for forthcoming months which have been paid in advance by the user, but not exhausted." After receiving this letter from Pathway Communications, Mr. Lemire has undertaken an information campaign and approached several civil rights/freedom of speech groups seeking advice and assistance. -->>Contact Information<<-- You can contact Pathway Communications for their side of the story or to protest thier dismal outlook on freedom of speech at (416) 214-6235 or fax at (416) 214-6238. Their office address is 1 Yonge Street, Suite 2205, Toronto, Ontario M5E 1E5, Canada. On the Internet they can be reached at http://www.pathcom.com or via Internet E-Mail at info@pathcom.com Marc Lemire can be reached via the Internet write to freedom@netcom.ca. -->>What the Freedom-Site is:<<-- The Freedom-Site is a collection of 7 controversial Canadian groups. These seven groups include the Heritage Front, Canadian Patriots Network, Digital Freedom BBS, Canadian Free Speech League, Canadian Association for Free Expression, Citizens for Foreign Aid Reform and the Euro-Christian Defence League. The Freedom-Site was started in late January 1996 and has received over 11,000 visitors. THE FREEDOM-SITE IN EXILE!: http://www.ftcnet.com/~freedom ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Digital Freedom BBS: (416) 462-3327, (416) 465-4767 NOW GET A FREEDOM CD-ROM FOR ONLY $30 - WRITE: cd-rom@df.org Snail-Mail: 152 Carlton Street, Suite 545, Toronto, Ontario, M5A 2K0 From elastic!lethe!geac!gts!torfree!news.flora.ottawa.on.ca!news.achilles.net!n4ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!van.istar!west.istar!strat.enernet.com!cuugnet!news.cadvision.com!agte67.cadvision.com!user Thu Jan 2 10:44:29 1997 Xref: elastic can.general:68574 can.politics:112945 ont.general:67020 soc.culture.canada:38902 tor.general:65001 Path: elastic!lethe!geac!gts!torfree!news.flora.ottawa.on.ca!news.achilles.net!n4ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!van.istar!west.istar!strat.enernet.com!cuugnet!news.cadvision.com!agte67.cadvision.com!user From: slepokuo@cadvision.com (Orest Slepokura) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.discrimination,alt.censorship,alt.activism,soc.culture.canada,ont.general,tor.general,can.general,can.politics Subject: K.K. Campbell:BAN NOTHING, Question everything Date: 29 Dec 1996 03:27:38 GMT Organization: CADVision Development Corp. Lines: 156 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: agte67.cadvision.com X-Newsreader: Yet Another NewsWatcher 2.0b30 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ eye WEEKLY May 25 1995 Toronto's arts newspaper .....free every Thursday ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ EYENET EYENET BAN NOTHING Question everything by K.K. CAMPBELL I was on CBC Newsworld's Faceoff two Tuesdays ago (May 16). Topic: censorship on the net. My opponent was Bernie Farber of the Canadian Jewish Congress. Take a wild guess which side I took ... The forces of censorship are amassing and, I hate to say it, if Canada maintains its traditions, we're doomed. The term net.cop will have a more real meaning than it does today. Our saving grace might be the U.S. If the U.S. abides by its own tradition of banning very little speech, Canucks will always be able to get an account in the U.S. and thus maintain our voices. While the net.illiterate assholes on Parliament Hill play Emperor For A Day, citizens will telnet across the border and publish whatever they want, from American computers. Here are the main three points I tried to make on the show: DIGITAL BOOK BURNERS Farber and his ilk are the moral descendants of book burners. But because books and printed matter have much stronger legal protections, The Modern Inquisition finds it easier to target CPUs and sysadmins. Right now, the panic-mongers in government and the media blame just about every social ill on the net. But the main theme today is bombs: "You can learn how to make bombs from reading the net! This evil must stop!" It's somewhat true. There is a file called The Terrorist's Handbook which circulates cyberspace. (It has a real wanky "WareZ d00d" feel to it and I wouldn't trust it for a second.) There's also The Anarchist's Cookbook making the rounds, which details everything from blowing up suspension bridges to cooking LSD in your kitchen. (Regard it with the same suspicion.) Sure enough, when I arrived at CBC studios, I saw that Farber had a printout of one of these text files. It was a good thing I had walked over to the World's Biggest Bookstore on my lunch hour and bought a copy of The Anarchist's Cookbook for $34.75. Information on bomb building. Right off the shelf. "Ah, but that costs money," the pro-censorship forces would counter. "You can copy it off the net for free. Anticipating that objection, I strolled over to the Metro Reference Library last Saturday. There, on the main floor, sat a horrible collection of terrorist information: the Encyclopedia Britannica. I grabbed volume 21 (right off the shelf), flipped to page 323 and read the section on explosives. I photocopied it for about a buck and strolled back out with the detailed description of how to make an ammonium nitrate fuel oil bomb -- exactly like that used in the Oklahoma City bombing. I hope Allan Rock and the feds attend to this outrage immediately and write legislation to regulate these damn libraries. FIGHT SPEECH WITH SPEECH, NOT COPS Farber kept suggesting that Nazis and hatemongers are using the net as a propaganda tool. This is uninformed opinion of the first order. The net is terrible as a "propaganda tool" because it's a two-way medium. Newsgroups are interactive. Racists are forced to answer questions. When Farber says, "Millions of people see what these people write," complete the image for him: "Millions of people see these people ridiculed and humiliated in intellectual debate over and over again." That is pretty ineffective propaganda. In the finest of anarchist traditions, the net.community naturally produces people who rebut every hate-mongering pamphlet that denies the Holocaust happened. Canada's Ken McVay is one famous example. He's built an enormous reservoir of historical documents that permanently shred the revisionist pamphlets. Every time the same old pamphlets are uploaded to cyberspace, someone quickly tags on the real story. "And that's the beauty of the Internet: once it's refuted in an honest and academic fashion, you can't run away from it," McVay says. "The most intellectual among them (revisionists) are stupid and completely inept when it comes to historical research. And, of course, they are liars. That being the case, why on Earth would anyone want to shut them up or force them underground? I want to know who I'm dealing with. I want to know where they are. And I want to know how their minds work." It's dramatic to watch. No need for Thought Cops. As Deborah Lipstadt writes in Denying The Holocaust: "The main shortcoming of legal restraints is that they transform the deniers into martyrs on the altar of free speech." CENSORSHIP SUPPORTS THE STATUS QUO Throughout history, censorship has only worked to uphold the status quo. It keeps the strong strong and the weak weak. In 1871, Prussia's "personal honor" laws were intended to prevent insults against groups, such as Jews. Not surprisingly, the courts never upheld them for Jews, but rigorously used them to prevent criticism of Prussians, clerics and the military -- the status quo. At the turn of the century, France never charged the anti-Semitic enemies of Captain Alfred Dreyfuss. Of course, when Emile Zola wrote his famous tract "J'Accuse," he was charged with libel against the clergy and had to flee to England. In 1965, the British Race Relations Act was passed to combat racism. The first people charged under it? Black Power leaders, labor leaders, no-nuke activists. Britain's National Front thrives. In 1974, Britain's National Union of Students passed a resolution against "openly racist and fascist organizations." It was designed specifically to prevent anti- Semitism. A year later, it was invoked to prevent Israeli/Zionist speakers from touring. The National Front was delighted. Think all this is ancient history? How about Canada's infamous 1992 Supreme Court decision in "Butler vs. the Queen"? It was hailed by pro-censorship feminists like Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon as being a great step forward for women in the "battle" against sexual images. Two-and-a-half years later, we find that it has been used by the authorities to seize and confiscate material from well over half of all the feminist bookstores across the country. In fact, Customs actually seized two of Dworkin's own books. It was also used against gays and lesbians. "Traditional" sexual material was never touched. When are people who work for change going to learn that when they support censorship, they are building their own gallows? If they want to change society, why are they working to transfer still greater powers to the state? If they believe in change, they simply cannot support censorship. The Master's tools will never dismantle the Master's house. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Retransmit freely in cyberspace Author holds standard copyright http://www.interlog.com/eye Mailing list available eyeNET archive --> http://www.interlog.com/eye/News/Eyenet/Eyenet.html eye@interlog.com "...Break the Gutenberg Lock..." 416-971-8421 -- ****************************************************************** What sort of truth is it that needs protection? - Auberon Waugh * * The London Daily Telegraph, May 9, 1992 * *******************************************************************