From: Rich Graves <llurch@networking.stanford.edu>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 13:12:07 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Rabbi Hier Testimony
In-Reply-To: <01I3VYLGPR4W8Y4ZTJ@mbcl.rutgers.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.GUL.3.93.960423140624.10574P-100000@Networking.Stanford.EDU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Tue, 23 Apr 1996, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote:

>         People might want to take a look at Rabbi Hier (the founder of the
> Weisental Center)'s statements on "hate groups" and the Internet.

Why should they? They've already made up their minds.

> While he (unlike Biden) does recognize that outlawing bomb-making
> information would be unconstitutional, he doesn't appear to approve of
> anonymnity on the Internet

Where? He says:

"We need to keep in mind that the obscene or threatening phone caller has
neither his privacy nor his speech protected when he threatens a member of
the community via phone - why are those protections afforded if he
launches the same attack via the Internet?" 

I think Rabbi Heir is aware of the legal definitions of "obscene" and
"threatening." Assuming we agree on those definitions, I agree with the
above language. For example, I've received quite a lot of anonymous email
and phone calls that are threatening by the colloquial definition, but
which do not meet the legal definition of threatening or obscene attacks. 
I am personally interested in tracking these folks down, but I know better
than to try to make it a legal issue, and if I do succeed in tracking them
down, all that will be used against them is speech. 

On the other hand, if someone makes a clear and specific bomb threat
through an anonymous remailer, then I would hope that attempts would be
made to track him down. I would also hope that tracking him down would be
extremely difficult and resource-intensive, and that the remailer
operators would not actively help the trackers, because I strongly support
the anonymity option when it is used nonviolently -- even and especially
by people with whom I disagree. I feel I can have a much better
conversation with an enemy if he knows that his talking to me doesn't make
it easier for me to put a gun to his head. Openness is good.

> (nor, depending on how one interprets his statements, of encrypted
> communications without GAK). 

In such cases, I usually find it helpful to ask. Bcc'd to a couple of
affiliates in the hopes that they'll clarify. I seriously doubt that they
have any clue what Government Access to Keys means, though. 

> The first is to his (and the Weisenthal Center's) credit; the second is
> not. The URL is: 
> 
> http://www.wiesenthal.com/itn/hiertest.htm

My take is that Rabbie Hier is around the center of the SWC leadership.
Rabbi Cooper is more likely to support censorship; Eaton is much less;
Mark Weitzman is also in the center (of the SWC, not of the mainstream
Jewish/anti-"revisionist" community, which is very supportive of free
speech). On January 29th, the SF Chronicle (and probably other papers)
carried this piece from Weitzman:

 http://www.wiesenthal.com/itn/oped10.htm

In light of the fact that Michael Loomis's Zundelmirror continues to make
the charge that the Simon Wiesenthal Center was in favor of censoring
Zundel, a charge that not even Zundel has made, it's worth highlighting
this:

 "The recent decision made by the German government to block certain
 providers was made without any participation by the Center. We have never
 requested either the German government or Deutsche Telekom to take such
 drastic steps. To assume that we have the power to control the German
 government is to renew the myth of International Jewry pulling the
 strings of various governments. The reality is that the German
 government, as a legally constituted government of a recognized
 democracy, has every right to create its own laws. As long as those laws,
 and their method of adoption, fall into the generally accepted range
 associated with democracies, then any attempt by foreigners to alter
 those laws is an intrusion and smacks of cultural imperialism.... To
 disagree with the German government (as the Center does on the arbitrary
 nature of the actions by Deutsche Telekom and Compuserve - we believe
 that laws should be applied only to those breaking the law, not to entire
 systems) and to inform the German government of such disagreement, as we
 have done, is quite different from attempts to break the law by aiding
 Nazi propagandists under the banner of free speech." 

Of course, I disagree. I think it's vitally important to help Nazi
propagandists under the banner of free speech. As long as that's what
you're doing.

-rich