From: Rich Graves <llurch@networking.stanford.edu>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 07:55:42 +0800
To: Lucky Green <shamrock@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: [NOISY] Your own Zundelsite in five minutes or less
In-Reply-To: <v02120d04ad34c75729c7@[192.0.2.1]>
Message-ID: <Pine.ULT.3.91.960130233201.27647G-100000@Networking.Stanford.EDU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


[Actually this is getting relevant again, Perry]

On Tue, 30 Jan 1996, Lucky Green wrote:

> At 23:07 1/30/96, Rich Graves wrote:
> [...]
> >> We won't have won until they restore the routes to Webcom.
> >
> >Here I have trouble with the word "we," and what we're trying to
> >accomplish.
> >
> >Censorship has clearly lost. Germany is simply not going to block
> >stanford.edu, cmu.edu, mit.edu, upenn.edu, aol.com, and so on, not to
> >mention AFS.
> 
> But they succeeded in blocking Webcom. Until the block is removed, we
> haven't won. Do 'we' agree that the block should be removed?

Absitively, posilutely yes.

But it's going to be a political/bureaucratic decision made by people
without Net access or knowledge, which means it will take time. I don't 
think any more provocation is necessary. Right now, the press even in 
Germany is inclined to see us as the good guys. Every reader of 
alt.censorship, soc.culture.german. alt.revisionism, and a number of 
other groups has known how to access Zundel's writings from inside 
Germany for two days. I submit that no further penetration is necessary.
 
> >I do not believe that the battle to get people to read and care about
> >Zundel himself is ours.
> 
> Amen. I just wished that the people who's names mark some of the milestones
> in the fights for our rights (i.e, Miranda, as in Miranda Rights) were
> people whose causes I can support. Having seen concentration camps, I can
> not possibly sympathize with Mr. Zündel's views. But he still has a right
> to free speech. If he loses it, we lose it. It all comes down to this:
> 
> 
>                 First they came for the Communists,
>                   and I didn't speak up,
>...
>                 by Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945.

Yup.

But Zundel and other Nazis now quote this too, which I find rather
offensive.  It's a battle over who owns the symbols, in part. OK, probably
nobody should own symbols or rhetorical devices. 

> >I do not want to allow the Nazis to associate themselves with "us."
> >Please see article <DM0Fsn.5GC@freenet.carleton.ca> for a little on what
> >they're trying to claim credit for. Note they are calling for mirror
> >sites nearly three days after they popped up, with no involvement on
> >their part whatsoever.
> 
> I can imagine what they wrote. "The world is supporting our cause...." No,
> I do not support their cause. I despise their cause. And I still support
> their rights.

No, it's much worse.

They are calling on their followers to establish "censorship-free zones"
at major universities. They don't even acknowledge that this was done days
ago. And they know --- one of the guys who is now calling for mirror 
sites, and totally shunning me, is the person who uploaded Zundel's files 
to my server.

They are calling major newspapers in several countries, and Time 
Magazine, proclaiming their "censorship-free zone" strategy.

They are more organized and media-savvy than I am. They are professional 
liars; "we" are not.

I do not expect these news outlets to bother to, or know how to, check
whether mirror sites had already popped up before these "demands." I do
not expect these news outlets to find out and publicize the fact that it 
was a couple of cypherpunks who detest Mr. Zundel who came up with the 
idea the afternoon of January 27th, and handed it to Zundel the next day.

-rich