Re: "German service cuts Net access" (to Santa Cruz)
At 12:07 AM 1/28/96 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote:
* the Germans recently arrested an American who landed in Germany somewhere, as part of a trip. It seems he had been involved with the production of Neo-Nazi material, somewhere out west. This was the last I heard about the story. Sorry, I'm going from carbon-based memory.
He was grabbed in Denmark and extradited to Germany so you'd have to avoid most of the EU. DCF
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
"DCF" == Duncan Frissell <frissell@panix.com> writes:
DCF> At 12:07 AM 1/28/96 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote:
* the Germans recently arrested an American who landed in Germany somewhere, as part of a trip. It seems he had been involved with the production of Neo-Nazi material, somewhere out west. This was the last I heard about the story. Sorry, I'm going from carbon-based memory.
DCF> He was grabbed in Denmark and extradited to Germany so you'd have DCF> to avoid most of the EU. It's illegal in Germany to publish material denying the holocaust. In the same moment this guy sent his book (?) per snail-mail from Canada to Germany he commited a crime here in Germany. I don't think it's astonishing that Denmark imprissoned this guy and transported him to Germany. It's a normal thing that one country imprisons a criminal another country is searching and the delivers him/her to the country in question. Have a nice day! Olmur - -- "If privacy is outlawed, only outlaws will have privacy" --- P. Zimmermann Please encipher your mail! Contact me, if you need assistance. finger -l mdeindl@eisbaer.bb.bawue.de for PGP-key Key-fingerprint: 51 EC A5 D2 13 93 8F 91 CB F7 6C C4 F8 B5 B6 7C -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2i Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface iQCVAwUBMQvfbw9NARnYm1I1AQHZ2AP+P1wVnwXCZFakJXQGEroX8S+BdRIU304o YDccXOC+rijZlAO8i8wuBL72M8WLEnXUQzCCKf+lvBJhR5qtQnpUZSQRgr/kedfs 6/cS/Y8BbwpjwPuzmFu+OtowgPM6b8GsSBNqrEOMnZ8oA3QacgYWj3RUoTSKJIJp kLp2ovjYxfY= =P9U7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
olmur@dwarf.bb.bawue.de writes:
It's illegal in Germany to publish material denying the holocaust. In the same moment this guy sent his book XXX per snail-mail from Canada to Germany he commited a crime here in Germany.
Hi. President M5 of Psychonia here. I'm afraid we've recently enacted legislation in the tiny nation of Psychonia that makes it illegal to parenthesize question marks in electronic mail messages, because such acts are a direct offense to some of the members of primitive hill tribes who live in remote portions of our land. I issue this warning not to set foot in Psychonia or any of the countries with whom we share extradition treaties, or you will be arrested and brought here for trial, conviction, and punishment. ______c_____________________________________________________________________ Mike M Nally * Tivoli Systems * Austin TX * I want more, I want more, m5@tivoli.com * m101@io.com * I want more, I want more ... <URL:http://www.io.com/~m101> *_______________________________
olmur@dwarf.bb.bawue.de writes:
Free speech ends where other people can reasonable claim that their feelings are badly hurt.
Ai yai yai. No, in fact free speech ends when people roll over and give up. ______c_____________________________________________________________________ Mike M Nally * Tivoli Systems * Austin TX * I want more, I want more, m5@tivoli.com * m101@io.com * I want more, I want more ... <URL:http://www.io.com/~m101> *_______________________________
On Sun, 28 Jan 1996 21:41 +0100 (MET), Olmur wrote:
It's illegal in Germany to publish material denying the holocaust. In the same moment this guy sent his book (?) per snail-mail from Canada to Germany he commited a crime here in Germany.
How pray tell is a person in Canada supposed to know that? I (in the US) certainly had no idea Germany had such a law. Are you saying that, if I ran a bookstore, and accepted international mail orders, I would have to screen every order to ensure I did not ship something offensive to the German government? And if I did fill such an order, and without ever having set foot in Germany, I could be arrested on my next trip to Europe, extradited to Germany, and imprisoned for doing something that is constitutionally protected in the US? Alternatively, what if I were to post to usenet a message denying the Holocaust, and one person in Germany retrieved that message. Would I then be subject to arrest and extradition to Germany? Mike Duvos wrote in another message:
It is interesting to note that there is no specific law prohibiting free speech for Holocaust Agnostics in Germany. The actual laws under which such cases are prosecuted are libel laws, which have been liberally interpreted to mean that one may not "libel" deceased Jews as a class or their memory in the minds of their surviving relatives.
If in fact this is merely a judicial interpretation of an apparently unrelated law, it just plain ridiculous to expect people in other countries to be aware of it. If this is really what Germany wants, then it sounds like time to totally cut Germany off from the internet, simply in self preservation. No one can reasonably be expected to research even the clearly-written laws worldwide that might conceivably apply in such cases, much less far-fetched judicial interpretations of such laws. Olmur continued:
I don't think it's astonishing that Denmark imprissoned this guy and transported him to Germany. It's a normal thing that one country imprisons a criminal another country is searching and the delivers him/her to the country in question.
I, on the other hand, find this QUITE astonishing. His actions were legal in both Canada and Denmark (probably everywhere in the world except Germany), and he did nothing in Germany. Of course, I find the US actions in kidnapping people in other countries quite indefensible also, but at least in those cases the persons involved clearly knew they were violating at least US law, and in most cases were violating their local laws as well.
Are you saying that, if I ran a bookstore, and accepted international mail orders, I would have to screen every order to ensure I did not ship something offensive to the German government? And if I did fill such an order, and without ever having set foot in Germany, I could be arrested on my next trip to Europe, extradited to Germany, and imprisoned for doing something that is constitutionally protected in the US?
When I worked for Walnut Creek CDROM they had to remove "Castle Wolfenstein" from one of their CDs because they wouldn't have been able to ship to Germany if they didn't. -- Sameer Parekh Voice: 510-601-9777x3 Community ConneXion, Inc. FAX: 510-601-9734 The Internet Privacy Provider Dialin: 510-658-6376 http://www.c2.org/ (or login as "guest") sameer@c2.org
Are you saying that, if I ran a bookstore, and accepted international mail orders, I would have to screen every order to ensure I did not ship something offensive to the German government?
urrr. yes? anyone doing international shipping has to comply with customs regulations anyway. this isn't really any different. (except when telecom or broadcast media become involved.) (excuse me while I see if I can ship smallpox to germany.) --
Very little crypto relevance in the following... lull@acm.org (John Lull) writes:
On Sun, 28 Jan 1996 21:41 +0100 (MET), Olmur wrote:
It's illegal in Germany to publish material denying the holocaust. In the same moment this guy sent his book (?) per snail-mail from Canada to Germany he commited a crime here in Germany.
How pray tell is a person in Canada supposed to know that? I (in the US) certainly had no idea Germany had such a law.
Ignorance of the law is not a defense. How is a reasonable person supposed to know that it's illegal to take >$10K in cash out of the country without some paperwork? Yet one can be jailed for that. :-)
Are you saying that, if I ran a bookstore, and accepted international mail orders, I would have to screen every order to ensure I did not ship something offensive to the German government? And if I did fill such an order, and without ever having set foot in Germany, I could be arrested on my next trip to Europe, extradited to Germany, and imprisoned for doing something that is constitutionally protected in the US?
I recall that the former Soviet Union had a similar "long arm" interpretation of its laws against anti-Soviet libel: if you ran a bookstore in the U.S. that solds anti-Soviet materials and then came to visit the U.S.S.R., you could in principle be arrested, tried, and convicted.
Alternatively, what if I were to post to usenet a message denying the Holocaust, and one person in Germany retrieved that message. Would I then be subject to arrest and extradition to Germany?
Certainly, if you posted an anti-Soviet article to Usenet from the U.S., and it reached the former Soviet Union, you would be guilty of anti-Soviet libel.
If this is really what Germany wants, then it sounds like time to totally cut Germany off from the internet, simply in self preservation.
I'm sure this is what the German government and many German people really want. But, would you also argue that the former Soviet Union should not have been allowed on Internet because some of the information that would enter it via the internet would have been illegal there? I read that Singapore is similarly trying to restrict its citizens' access to the net. I think it would be more honorable to provide Germans with tools to access the information they want, even it violates their laws that we consider to be unjust. --- Dr. Dimitri Vulis Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
On Sun, 28 Jan 1996 22:18:28 -0500 (EST), Dr. Vulis wrote:
Very little crypto relevance in the following...
Agreed. I'll not be posting further on this topic here. If you'd care to pursue this E-mail, I have no objection.
lull@acm.org (John Lull) writes:
If this is really what Germany wants, then it sounds like time to totally cut Germany off from the internet, simply in self preservation.
I'm sure this is what the German government and many German people really want.
If so, then they have the power to make that decision, and to (largely) enforce it. By doing so, however, they would (and should) lose all the benefits of the internet as well.
But, would you also argue that the former Soviet Union should not have been allowed on Internet because some of the information that would enter it via the internet would have been illegal there? I read that Singapore is similarly trying to restrict its citizens' access to the net.
I would argue that ANY country which actively tries to restrict information providers in other countries through these "long arm of the law" tactics, ought to be banished from the internet. If France wants to outlaw postings in English, I have no legitimate right to complain -- so long as they limit it to postings from France. If they were to begin arresting those from England, or Canada, or the US, however, for posting in English, they would have gone too far. Attempting to limit what comes into your country via filtering, restrictions on your own carriers, prosecution of your own citizens or other residents of your country for violations of your own laws, etc. is one thing. Trying to apply your laws to those in other countries, however, is quite another.
I think it would be more honorable to provide Germans with tools to access the information they want, even it violates their laws that we consider to be unjust.
Developing tools to access information is worthwhile. But successfull attacks on those providing information makes access tools worthless. If the information simply isn't there, all the nice access tools in the world can't create it.
lull@acm.org (John Lull) writes:
On Sun, 28 Jan 1996 22:18:28 -0500 (EST), Dr. Vulis wrote:
Very little crypto relevance in the following...
Agreed. I'll not be posting further on this topic here. If you'd care to pursue this E-mail, I have no objection.
This should be my last comment to the list in this thread...
lull@acm.org (John Lull) writes:
If this is really what Germany wants, then it sounds like time to totally cut Germany off from the internet, simply in self preservation.
I'm sure this is what the German government and many German people really w
If so, then they have the power to make that decision, and to (largely) enforce it. By doing so, however, they would (and should) lose all the benefits of the internet as well.
Even if 99% of Germans don't wish to be on the net, and 1% do, it would be an honorable thing to help that 1%; e.g. by providing the tools to circumvent their laws that we consider to be unjust. IMO, It's not fair to blame each and every inhabitant of a country for the actions of their government, even if it's democratically elected.
Developing tools to access information is worthwhile. But successfull attacks on those providing information makes access tools worthless. If the information simply isn't there, all the nice access tools in the world can't create it.
So, develop the tools to make the (illegal) flow of information easier and the prosecution more difficult. E.g., the former Soviet Union couldn't stop its people from listening to Western propaganda on short-wave radio, although it was illegal, and more repressive governments did confiscate all short-wave radios in the past. --- Dr. Dimitri Vulis Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
"John" Lull <lull@acm.org> writes:
John> On Sun, 28 Jan 1996 21:41 +0100 (MET), Olmur wrote:
It's illegal in Germany to publish material denying the holocaust. In the same moment this guy sent his book (?) per snail-mail from Canada to Germany he commited a crime here in Germany.
John> How pray tell is a person in Canada supposed to know that? I John> (in the US) certainly had no idea Germany had such a law. Not knowing a law doesn't mean that I'm not liable for breaking it. John> Are you saying that, if I ran a bookstore, and accepted John> international mail orders, I would have to screen every order to John> ensure I did not ship something offensive to the German John> government? Denying the holocaust is not 'something offensive to the German government' but something that hurts the feeling of the people whose relatives were murdered by the Nazis. Free speech ends where other people can reasonable claim that their feelings are badly hurt. John> And if I did fill such an order, and without ever having set John> foot in Germany, I could be arrested on my next trip to Europe, John> extradited to Germany, and imprisoned for doing something that John> is constitutionally protected in the US? Is it constitutionally protected in US to knowingly hurt other people's feelings and to trample on graves????? John> Alternatively, what if I were to post to usenet a message John> denying the Holocaust, and one person in Germany retrieved that John> message. Would I then be subject to arrest and extradition to John> Germany? Interesting question. I assume from a formal standpointyou were, but practically it might not be possible to proof that you sent the message. John> Mike Duvos wrote in another message:
It is interesting to note that there is no specific law prohibiting free speech for Holocaust Agnostics in Germany. The actual laws under which such cases are prosecuted are libel laws, which have been liberally interpreted to mean that one may not "libel" deceased Jews as a class or their memory in the minds of their surviving relatives.
John> If in fact this is merely a judicial interpretation of an John> apparently unrelated law, it just plain ridiculous to expect John> people in other countries to be aware of it. Mike's information is old. Meanwhile it's explicitely forbidden to deny the holocaust. John> If this is really what Germany wants, then it sounds like time John> to totally cut Germany off from the internet, simply in self John> preservation. No one can reasonably be expected to research John> even the clearly-written laws worldwide that might conceivably John> apply in such cases, much less far-fetched judicial John> interpretations of such laws. As said above: the law is explicite. When I trade with another country of course I have to obey this country's laws. I mean if I visit US I have to obey US-law. If I know it or not. If you visit Germany, you have to obey German law. If you know it or not. The same is with trade. John> Olmur continued:
I don't think it's astonishing that Denmark imprissoned this guy and transported him to Germany. It's a normal thing that one country imprisons a criminal another country is searching and the delivers him/her to the country in question.
John> I, on the other hand, find this QUITE astonishing. His actions John> were legal in both Canada and Denmark (probably everywhere in John> the world except Germany), and he did nothing in Germany. He imported illegal stuff into Germany. If I import weapons to US without a licence I might be imprisoned on my next visit there, too. Due to our history publishing NAZI-propaganda is forbidden in Germany. The big majority in Germany agrees with this view, that NAZI-propaganda doesn't fall under 'free speech'. Some neo-NAZIs publish their books in other countries and then illegally transfer them to Germany. BTW, many European countries forbid publishing NAZI-propaganda. And as far as I know Denmark plans to change their law, too. John> Of course, I find the US actions in kidnapping people in other John> countries quite indefensible also, but at least in those cases John> the persons involved clearly knew they were violating at least John> US law, and in most cases were violating their local laws as John> well. How do you know that they know? How do you know that the guy in question didn't know? Olmur - -- "If privacy is outlawed, only outlaws will have privacy" --- P. Zimmermann Please encipher your mail! Contact me, if you need assistance. finger -l mdeindl@eisbaer.bb.bawue.de for PGP-key Key-fingerprint: 51 EC A5 D2 13 93 8F 91 CB F7 6C C4 F8 B5 B6 7C -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2i Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface iQCVAwUBMQxwqA9NARnYm1I1AQGEaQQAodckRyq428q6UyPwBRAc7cmhMzCtJdio iFk7/MZG25C4IPVk//hNTpp5vCFggKkLSsl1yqKgz51pBeXvR2OqjDLqXstygfJE tDNKSEgCbeSNATM5Tgb08ZorZLXU/NBwJjmNWDjBGjgemwJy7Y1ncRpD1XfxxrDp ZI7B1WEaqTA= =4Zta -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
olmur@dwarf.bb.bawue.de (Olmur) writes:
Free speech ends where other people can reasonable claim that their feelings are badly hurt.
Excuse me? That line is definitely .sig file fodder.
Is it constitutionally protected in US to knowingly hurt other people's feelings and to trample on graves?????
Of course it is. What a silly question. My feelings get hurt on Usenet almost every day and you don't see me whining about it.
Mike's information is old. Meanwhile it's explicitely forbidden to deny the holocaust.
I'm so pleased to hear you have updated your laws with this new progressive "hurt feelings" doctrine. Obviously "PC" translates quite well into the German language.
Due to our history publishing NAZI-propaganda is forbidden in Germany. The big majority in Germany agrees with this view, that NAZI-propaganda doesn't fall under 'free speech'.
Much as the Third Reich took the view that anti-Nazi speech wasn't protected. Your country hasn't changed its authoritarian perspective on freedom of personal expression. All it has done is put a different set of publicly supported items on the official censorship list. Didn't the Germans learn anything from World War II? -- Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ mpd@netcom.com $ via Finger. $
mpd@netcom.com (Mike Duvos) writes:
olmur@dwarf.bb.bawue.de (Olmur) writes:
Free speech ends where other people can reasonable claim that their feelings are badly hurt.
Excuse me? That line is definitely .sig file fodder.
Olmur, you've hurt my feeleings. Go away. :-)
Is it constitutionally protected in US to knowingly hurt other people's feelings and to trample on graves?????
Of course it is. What a silly question. My feelings get hurt on Usenet almost every day and you don't see me whining about it.
Physically trampling on graves may be against some sort of laws. Inciting others to trample on graves is speech.
Due to our history publishing NAZI-propaganda is forbidden in Germany. The big majority in Germany agrees with this view, that NAZI-propaganda doesn't fall under 'free speech'.
Much as the Third Reich took the view that anti-Nazi speech wasn't protected. Your country hasn't changed its authoritarian perspective on freedom of personal expression. All it has done is put a different set of publicly supported items on the official censorship list.
Didn't the Germans learn anything from World War II?
Evidently not. It would be an honorable thing to help Germans (who may well be a minotiry) break the laws that we consider to be unjust. --- Dr. Dimitri Vulis Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
Is it constitutionally protected in US to knowingly hurt other people's feelings and to trample on graves?????
Yes. Free speech for the nonoffensive is not free speech at all. BTW, I am Jewish. -- Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, karromde@nyx.cs.du.edu; http://www.cs.jhu.edu/~arromdee) "Snow?" "It's sort of like white, lumpy, rain." --Gilligan's Island
arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
Is it constitutionally protected in US to knowingly hurt other people's feelings and to trample on graves?????
Yes. Free speech for the nonoffensive is not free speech at all.
A couple of years ago I'd probably howl about the hypocricy of one of Serdar's chief censors daring to utter the words "free speech" in public, but this time I simply laughed for a few minutes. Thanks, Ken. ObCP: I've been encouraging the descandants of Serdar to make use of cpunk remailers. --- Dr. Dimitri Vulis Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
participants (9)
-
arromdee＠jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu -
dlv＠bwalk.dm.com -
Duncan Frissell -
Felix Lee -
lull＠acm.org -
m5＠dev.tivoli.com -
mpd＠netcom.com -
olmur＠dwarf.bb.bawue.de -
sameer