[48777] in Cypherpunks
Re: [NOISY] Your own Zundelsite in five minutes or less
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rich Graves)
Wed Jan 31 02:47:12 1996
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 23:45:16 -0800 (PST)
From: Rich Graves <llurch@networking.stanford.edu>
To: Lucky Green <shamrock@netcom.com>
Cc: "Declan B. McCullagh" <declan+@CMU.EDU>, cypherpunks@toad.com
In-Reply-To: <v02120d04ad34c75729c7@[192.0.2.1]>
[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.
>=20
> 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=20
think any more provocation is necessary. Right now, the press even in=20
Germany is inclined to see us as the good guys. Every reader of=20
alt.censorship, soc.culture.german. alt.revisionism, and a number of=20
other groups has known how to access Zundel's writings from inside=20
Germany for two days. I submit that no further penetration is necessary.
=20
> >I do not believe that the battle to get people to read and care about
> >Zundel himself is ours.
>=20
> Amen. I just wished that the people who's names mark some of the mileston=
es
> 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. Z=FCndel's views. But he still has a rig=
ht
> to free speech. If he loses it, we lose it. It all comes down to this:
>=20
>=20
> 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.=20
> >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.
>=20
> 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=20
sites, and totally shunning me, is the person who uploaded Zundel's files=
=20
to my server.
They are calling major newspapers in several countries, and Time=20
Magazine, proclaiming their "censorship-free zone" strategy.
They are more organized and media-savvy than I am. They are professional=20
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=20
was a couple of cypherpunks who detest Mr. Zundel who came up with the=20
idea the afternoon of January 27th, and handed it to Zundel the next day.
-rich
