CDR: And you thought Nazi agitprop was controversial?
[A veteran free speech activist in Cambridge, Mass. sent me this. Any offers of mirroring should go to the list, where I assume they'll be duly forwarded. I wonder how long the HTML files in question here would last on a Geocities/etc account. --Declan] --- Hi Declan, I know you're aware of the case of Curley v. NAMBLA, which has very serious First Amendment implications. Jeffrey Curley was a 10-year-old who was murdered in Cambridge, Massachusetts, in October of 1997. The parents are alleging that the murderers were driven by NAMBLA literature in general and specifically by the contents of NAMBLA's web site. After the suit was filed in May of this year, the current NAMBLA web site was taken down. Frisoli, the Curley lawyer, has been making very outrageous and false statements about what was on the web site. Because the media has no access to the site, no one can contradict him. A vicious media war is now being waged against the ACLU and other free-expression advocates for defending freedom of expression in this case. Few reporters seem even interested in finding out the contents of NAMBLA literature or the contents of the web site as of 10/97. But even if a fair-minded reporter did have this interest, he or she would be out of luck. Printed material from NAMBLA is difficult to find. Members of NAMBLA will speak to the press only under conditions of strict anonymity because they fear for their lives. And the web site is not accessible. I am not a NAMBLA member, but I believe that the First Amendment applies to them. I have obtained the web files as of 10/97. I don't wish to put them up myself for a variety of reasons. First of all, my ISP might make me take them down. Also, I am involved in another case which I don't want tarred with the NAMBLA brush. There is no court injunction against the publication of the materials. But a site outside the US might be best in any case. Anyway, if you can help me find someone to take the files and put them up, please let me know.
(I'm cc'ing this to the cypherpunks list as well) The easy solution to this is to put up a web page with information *about* the NAMBLA site, and instructions on how to request that the site be delivered anonymously--as a gzip, zip, or stuffit archive. If one has access to a web server that allows cgi, this is fairly trivial to do with two way anonymity. Another solution would be to create a newsgroup like alt.websites.censored.binary and post the archive there every two or three days, and just link that from the web site. While I am not willing to take the heat for posting the NAMBLA site on my server (for fear of getting my connectivity yanked) I am willing to assist in working out a system where this information can be made available to those who wish it without having to deal with the public scrutiny.
[A veteran free speech activist in Cambridge, Mass. sent me this. Any offers of mirroring should go to the list, where I assume they'll be duly forwarded. I wonder how long the HTML files in question here would last on a Geocities/etc account. --Declan]
---
Hi Declan,
I know you're aware of the case of Curley v. NAMBLA, which has very serious First Amendment implications. Jeffrey Curley was a 10-year-old who was murdered in Cambridge, Massachusetts, in October of 1997. The parents are alleging that the murderers were driven by NAMBLA literature in general and specifically by the contents of NAMBLA's web site. After the suit was filed in May of this year, the current NAMBLA web site was taken down.
Frisoli, the Curley lawyer, has been making very outrageous and false statements about what was on the web site. Because the media has no access to the site, no one can contradict him. A vicious media war is now being waged against the ACLU and other free-expression advocates for defending freedom of expression in this case. Few reporters seem even interested in finding out the contents of NAMBLA literature or the contents of the web site as of 10/97. But even if a fair-minded reporter did have this interest, he or she would be out of luck. Printed material from NAMBLA is difficult to find. Members of NAMBLA will speak to the press only under conditions of strict anonymity because they fear for their lives. And the web site is not accessible.
I am not a NAMBLA member, but I believe that the First Amendment applies to them. I have obtained the web files as of 10/97. I don't wish to put them up myself for a variety of reasons. First of all, my ISP might make me take them down. Also, I am involved in another case which I don't want tarred with the NAMBLA brush. There is no court injunction against the publication of the materials. But a site outside the US might be best in any case.
Anyway, if you can help me find someone to take the files and put them up, please let me know.
-- A quote from Petro's Archives: ********************************************** Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question. -- Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural
Declan McCullagh wrote:
[A veteran free speech activist in Cambridge, Mass. sent me this. Any offers of mirroring should go to the list, where I assume they'll be duly forwarded. I wonder how long the HTML files in question here would last on a Geocities/etc account. --Declan]
---
Hi Declan,
I know you're aware of the case of Curley v. NAMBLA, which has very serious First Amendment implications. Jeffrey Curley was a 10-year-old who was murdered in Cambridge, Massachusetts, in October of 1997. The parents are alleging that the murderers were driven by NAMBLA literature in general and specifically by the contents of NAMBLA's web site. After the suit was filed in May of this year, the current NAMBLA web site was taken down.
Frisoli, the Curley lawyer, has been making very outrageous and false statements about what was on the web site. Because the media has no access to the site, no one can contradict him. A vicious media war is now being waged against the ACLU and other free-expression advocates for defending freedom of expression in this case. Few reporters seem even interested in finding out the contents of NAMBLA literature or the contents of the web site as of 10/97. But even if a fair-minded reporter did have this interest, he or she would be out of luck. Printed material from NAMBLA is difficult to find. Members of NAMBLA will speak to the press only under conditions of strict anonymity because they fear for their lives. And the web site is not accessible.
I am not a NAMBLA member, but I believe that the First Amendment applies to them. I have obtained the web files as of 10/97. I don't wish to put them up myself for a variety of reasons. First of all, my ISP might make me take them down. Also, I am involved in another case which I don't want tarred with the NAMBLA brush. There is no court injunction against the publication of the materials. But a site outside the US might be best in any case.
Anyway, if you can help me find someone to take the files and put them up, please let me know.
I knew there was a reason I printed out NAMBLA's website throughout the years. Maybe I should contact this child's parents as well as their attorney. Maybe you should do the same. Maybe you really are a member of NAMBLA. It certainly sounds like it. I wonder if you would tell the parents to their face how important you think it is to preserve the information put out by the people who helped cause their son to be murdered, rather than doing something to help prevent it from happening again. -- "He who does not bellow the truth when he knows the truth makes himself the accomplice of liars and forgers." - Charles Peguy R.A.M.P.-Restore Americas Moral Pride Jodi Hoffman R.A.M.P. http://www.gocin.com/ramp Victimization of Children/Research & Education Council of America 2805 E. OAKLAND PARK BLVD., SUITE 122 FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 33306 TELEPHONE (954) 567-0698 TeleFax (954) 630-2280
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I am saddened to learn of a child murder. I am saddened to learn that NAMBLA lost their website. I am saddened to learn that Jodi Hoffman still can't read very well. Carol Anne Cypherpunk Declan McCullagh wrote:
I am not a NAMBLA member, but I believe that the First Amendment applies to them. >
I knew there was a reason I printed out NAMBLA's website throughout the years. Maybe I should contact this child's parents as well as their attorney. Maybe you should do the same. Maybe you really are a member of NAMBLA. It certainly sounds like it. I wonder if you would tell the parents to their face how important you think it is to preserve the information put out by the people who helped cause their son to be murdered, rather than doing something to help prevent it from happening again. - -- Jodi Hoffman R.A.M.P. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0 Comment: The ArtCall is over 65% complete. iQA/AwUBOb83EKC5l40tbJY2EQLp8QCg0/LPll9URa3+Rs+KZJSxCJCJS2AAoN1D oaNv96nHKRnvYJP+5NnQi24c =xdCu -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
You may want to look into the Publius Censorship Resistant Publishing System. http://publius.cdt.org. This is a beta system currently, so is only a short term solution. But you could post a file to Publius, send the resulting URL out to cypherpunks and other lists, and then anyone could get a copy of the file anonymously. Michael At 11:34 PM -0400 9/12/00, Declan McCullagh wrote:
[A veteran free speech activist in Cambridge, Mass. sent me this. Any offers of mirroring should go to the list, where I assume they'll be duly forwarded. I wonder how long the HTML files in question here would last on a Geocities/etc account. --Declan]
-- Michael Clark, Assistant Webmaster Center for Democracy and Technology 1634 Eye Street NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20006 voice: 202-637-9800 fax: 202-637-0968 mclark@cdt.org http://www.cdt.org/ PGP Key available on keyservers Join our Activist Network! Your participation can make a difference! http://www.cdt.org/join/
At 03:11 AM 9/13/00 -0400, Jodi Hoffman wrote:
I knew there was a reason I printed out NAMBLA's website throughout the years. Maybe I should contact this child's parents as well as their attorney. Maybe you should do the same. Maybe you really are a member of NAMBLA. It certainly sounds like it. I wonder if you would tell the parents to their face how important you think it is to preserve the information put out by the people who helped cause their son to be murdered, rather than doing something to help prevent it from happening again.
Ah, the fascists rise to the bait! Freedom of speech is a moral absolute. The words of NAMBLA are as important, and about as morally sound, as the words of Jodi Hoffman. And, IMO, about as likely to cause a murder.
Lizard wrote:
At 03:11 AM 9/13/00 -0400, Jodi Hoffman wrote:
I knew there was a reason I printed out NAMBLA's website throughout the years. Maybe I should contact this child's parents as well as their attorney. Maybe you should do the same. Maybe you really are a member of NAMBLA. It certainly sounds like it. I wonder if you would tell the parents to their face how important you think it is to preserve the information put out by the people who helped cause their son to be murdered, rather than doing something to help prevent it from happening again.
Ah, the fascists rise to the bait!
Freedom of speech is a moral absolute. The words of NAMBLA are as important, and about as morally sound, as the words of Jodi Hoffman. And, IMO, about as likely to cause a murder.
Ah, the Lizard slinks to the support of child rapists and murderers. Don't sacrifice my child on the altar of the First Amendment, Liz. I'm sure if it were your son, you would feel differently. -- "He who does not bellow the truth when he knows the truth makes himself the accomplice of liars and forgers." - Charles Peguy R.A.M.P.-Restore Americas Moral Pride Jodi Hoffman R.A.M.P. http://www.gocin.com/ramp Victimization of Children/Research & Education Council of America 2805 E. OAKLAND PARK BLVD., SUITE 122 FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 33306 TELEPHONE (954) 567-0698 TeleFax (954) 630-2280
At 10:56 AM 9/13/00 -0400, Jodi Hoffman wrote:
Ah, the Lizard slinks to the support of child rapists and murderers.
Nope, only to the support of those who advocate it, just like I support your right to free speech. I daresay you're much more dangerous to children than any NAMBLA member could ever be. All they want is a childs body. You want to destroy their soul.
Don't sacrifice my child on the altar of the First Amendment, Liz. I'm sure if it were your son, you would feel differently.
I support the right of people to post recipes for stir-fried cat on their web pages. It's disgusting, but it's their right. If they tried ACTING on such impulses, of course, they'd discover why we have a SECOND amendment...
You really don't seem to get it, defending the right to speech is NOT the same as defending the content (though I understand that nowhere do they advocate violence to children) Remember, Jodi, the *same* law that should be protecting their speech protects you and your allies from being prosecuted each time a gay is murdered or an abortion clinic bombed. jay ----- Original Message ----- From: Jodi Hoffman <jlhoffm@attglobal.net> To: Lizard <lizard@mrlizard.com> Cc: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>; <fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu>; <cypherpunks@cyberpass.net> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 10:56 AM Subject: Re: And you thought Nazi agitprop was controversial?
Ah, the Lizard slinks to the support of child rapists and murderers. Don't sacrifice my child on the altar of the First Amendment, Liz. I'm sure if it were your son, you would feel differently.
Jay Holovacs wrote:
You really don't seem to get it, defending the right to speech is NOT the same as defending the content (though I understand that nowhere do they advocate violence to children)
Oh, please. Anal sex with an eight year old child is not violent?
Remember, Jodi, the *same* law that should be protecting their speech protects you and your allies from being prosecuted each time a gay is murdered or an abortion clinic bombed.
jay
----- Original Message ----- From: Jodi Hoffman <jlhoffm@attglobal.net> To: Lizard <lizard@mrlizard.com> Cc: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>; <fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu>; <cypherpunks@cyberpass.net> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 10:56 AM Subject: Re: And you thought Nazi agitprop was controversial?
Ah, the Lizard slinks to the support of child rapists and murderers. Don't sacrifice my child on the altar of the First Amendment, Liz. I'm sure if it were your son, you would feel differently.
-- "He who does not bellow the truth when he knows the truth makes himself the accomplice of liars and forgers." - Charles Peguy R.A.M.P.-Restore Americas Moral Pride Jodi Hoffman R.A.M.P. http://www.gocin.com/ramp Victimization of Children/Research & Education Council of America 2805 E. OAKLAND PARK BLVD., SUITE 122 FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 33306 TELEPHONE (954) 567-0698 TeleFax (954) 630-2280
Jay Holovacs wrote:
You really don't seem to get it, defending the right to speech is NOT
You miss the point... I have never read their site, I do not intend to. That is immaterial. I am addressing the other issue, that your crowd too is protected by free speech rights even though there are plenty who would like to hold you responsible for crime against gays and abortion providers. jay ----- Original Message ----- From: Jodi Hoffman <jlhoffm@attglobal.net> To: Jay Holovacs <holovacs@idt.net> Cc: Lizard <lizard@mrlizard.com>; Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>; <fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu>; <cypherpunks@cyberpass.net> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 11:45 AM Subject: Re: And you thought Nazi agitprop was controversial? the
same as defending the content (though I understand that nowhere do they advocate violence to children)
Oh, please. Anal sex with an eight year old child is not violent?
Remember, Jodi, the *same* law that should be protecting their speech protects you and your allies from being prosecuted each time a gay is murdered or an abortion clinic bombed.
jay
----- Original Message ----- From: Jodi Hoffman <jlhoffm@attglobal.net> To: Lizard <lizard@mrlizard.com> Cc: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>;
<fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu>;
<cypherpunks@cyberpass.net> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 10:56 AM Subject: Re: And you thought Nazi agitprop was controversial?
Ah, the Lizard slinks to the support of child rapists and murderers. Don't sacrifice my child on the altar of the First Amendment, Liz. I'm sure if it were your son, you would feel differently.
-- "He who does not bellow the truth when he knows the truth makes himself the accomplice of liars and forgers." - Charles Peguy R.A.M.P.-Restore America's Moral Pride
Jodi Hoffman R.A.M.P. http://www.gocin.com/ramp Victimization of Children/Research & Education Council of America 2805 E. OAKLAND PARK BLVD., SUITE 122 FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 33306 TELEPHONE (954) 567-0698 TeleFax (954) 630-2280
You are wrong to protect them without knowing what they're about, Jay. Their motto is, "Sex before eight, or it's too late." They are referring to grown men having sex with an under-eight year old little boy. Surely you don't mean to suggest that a website promoting intercourse with a little boy should be protected speech, do you? Jay Holovacs wrote:
You miss the point... I have never read their site, I do not intend to. That is immaterial.
I am addressing the other issue, that your crowd too is protected by free speech rights even though there are plenty who would like to hold you responsible for crime against gays and abortion providers.
jay
----- Original Message ----- From: Jodi Hoffman <jlhoffm@attglobal.net> To: Jay Holovacs <holovacs@idt.net> Cc: Lizard <lizard@mrlizard.com>; Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>; <fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu>; <cypherpunks@cyberpass.net> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 11:45 AM Subject: Re: And you thought Nazi agitprop was controversial?
Jay Holovacs wrote:
You really don't seem to get it, defending the right to speech is NOT
the
same as defending the content (though I understand that nowhere do they advocate violence to children)
Oh, please. Anal sex with an eight year old child is not violent?
Remember, Jodi, the *same* law that should be protecting their speech protects you and your allies from being prosecuted each time a gay is murdered or an abortion clinic bombed.
jay
----- Original Message ----- From: Jodi Hoffman <jlhoffm@attglobal.net> To: Lizard <lizard@mrlizard.com> Cc: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>;
<fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu>;
<cypherpunks@cyberpass.net> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 10:56 AM Subject: Re: And you thought Nazi agitprop was controversial?
Ah, the Lizard slinks to the support of child rapists and murderers. Don't sacrifice my child on the altar of the First Amendment, Liz. I'm sure if it were your son, you would feel differently.
-- "He who does not bellow the truth when he knows the truth makes himself the accomplice of liars and forgers." - Charles Peguy R.A.M.P.-Restore America's Moral Pride
Jodi Hoffman R.A.M.P. http://www.gocin.com/ramp Victimization of Children/Research & Education Council of America 2805 E. OAKLAND PARK BLVD., SUITE 122 FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 33306 TELEPHONE (954) 567-0698 TeleFax (954) 630-2280
-- "He who does not bellow the truth when he knows the truth makes himself the accomplice of liars and forgers." - Charles Peguy R.A.M.P.-Restore Americas Moral Pride Jodi Hoffman R.A.M.P. http://www.gocin.com/ramp Victimization of Children/Research & Education Council of America 2805 E. OAKLAND PARK BLVD., SUITE 122 FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 33306 TELEPHONE (954) 567-0698 TeleFax (954) 630-2280
At 12:57 AM 9/14/00 -0400, Jodi Hoffman wrote:
You are wrong to protect them without knowing what they're about, Jay. Their motto is, "Sex before eight, or it's too late." They are referring to grown men having sex with an under-eight year old little boy. Surely you don't mean to suggest that a website promoting intercourse with a little boy should be protected speech, do you?
Ohio vs. Brandenburg. Get it through your skull. Advocacy of criminal acts is protected speech. Period. It doesn't matter how vile the concept is. One of the cornerstones of a free society is that the laws reflect the will of the people -- within certain limits -- and that ANYONE, no matter how radical or depraved, is free to try to convince the people of the rightness of his views. Whether these views advocate banning abortions, reinstating slavery, exterminating Jews, or killing baby seals is *irrelevent*. He is free to discuss them and, if anyone should offer violence against him for the content of his ideas, the State is morally obliged to protect him and punish the offender, no matter how much the ideas offend, shock, or disturb. There is no room for compromise on this. None at all. Freedom of speech is for EVERYONE, for EVERY idea, or else it is meaningless. I cannot speak for Jay, but lest there be any doubt of *my* stance, I believe a site advocating the bloody ritual murder of 1 day old infants in disgustingly gruesome fashion, coupled with vile and perverse sexual acts involving corpses, sheep, and watermelons, while giving heroin to 3 year old girls, is protected speech -- so long as the site does not cross from advocacy to incitement. Anyone *committing* such acts deserves a quick trip to "Old Sparky", but that does not limit the right to TALK about such acts at all. Hell, Jodi, I even think YOUR site is protected speech.
At 12:57 AM -0400 9/14/00, Jodi Hoffman wrote:
You are wrong to protect them without knowing what they're about, Jay. Their motto is, "Sex before eight, or it's too late." They are referring to grown men having sex with an under-eight year old little boy. Surely you don't mean to suggest that a website promoting intercourse with a little boy should be protected speech, do you?
Of course it should be protected speech. As are Web sites promoting the growing and processing of marijuana and opium, Web sites promoting the killing of those who need killing, Web sites promoting espionage, draft dodging, and terrorism. While the _activities_ being promoted or advocate may (or may not) be illegal, talking about them and advocating them is a *speech act*. Cf. the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. --Tim May -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
People don't seem to understand what free speech is all about. You might be interested in knowing Jodi that Hitlers Germany had one of the most progressive free speech policies in the world. You could say whatever you wanted to say, provided it was authorized by the state. I don't support free speech because it's the fashionable thing to do. Free speech is the basic right of all. The content of that right is irrelevant. Now - you spending alot of time on the sex angle here. I don't think you understand what freedom of speech means. If I were to tell you that I had personal knowledge of the rape by canadian politicians and senior bureacrats of young boys from fort lauderdale during the 60, 70, 80's - and that these rapes and further investigation of those who abuse these children is being intentionally suppressed by senior police officers and law officers in Canada - how would you react to this? Now here's the kicker. I have all of that knowledge and I am prevented by court order from exposing any of these people. You can thank Judge William Browne of the Ontario Court for that. It's people like you who are willing to deny others rights who end up taking away my rights to expose these political child molesters. Would you like to follow up with the investigating officer in fort lauderdale and verify this? You talk a big talk Jodi - now do you have the passion to walk the walk and help these former kids. Just let me know and I will phone someone who will forward you a URL. We don't want to break our court order you understand ;-) regards Joe Baptista http://www.dot.god/ dot.GOD Hostmaster On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, Jodi Hoffman wrote:
You are wrong to protect them without knowing what they're about, Jay. Their motto is, "Sex before eight, or it's too late." They are referring to grown men having sex with an under-eight year old little boy. Surely you don't mean to suggest that a website promoting intercourse with a little boy should be protected speech, do you?
Jay Holovacs wrote:
You miss the point... I have never read their site, I do not intend to. That is immaterial.
I am addressing the other issue, that your crowd too is protected by free speech rights even though there are plenty who would like to hold you responsible for crime against gays and abortion providers.
jay
----- Original Message ----- From: Jodi Hoffman <jlhoffm@attglobal.net> To: Jay Holovacs <holovacs@idt.net> Cc: Lizard <lizard@mrlizard.com>; Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>; <fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu>; <cypherpunks@cyberpass.net> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 11:45 AM Subject: Re: And you thought Nazi agitprop was controversial?
Jay Holovacs wrote:
You really don't seem to get it, defending the right to speech is NOT
the
same as defending the content (though I understand that nowhere do they advocate violence to children)
Oh, please. Anal sex with an eight year old child is not violent?
Remember, Jodi, the *same* law that should be protecting their speech protects you and your allies from being prosecuted each time a gay is murdered or an abortion clinic bombed.
jay
----- Original Message ----- From: Jodi Hoffman <jlhoffm@attglobal.net> To: Lizard <lizard@mrlizard.com> Cc: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>;
<fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu>;
<cypherpunks@cyberpass.net> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 10:56 AM Subject: Re: And you thought Nazi agitprop was controversial?
Ah, the Lizard slinks to the support of child rapists and murderers. Don't sacrifice my child on the altar of the First Amendment, Liz. I'm sure if it were your son, you would feel differently.
-- "He who does not bellow the truth when he knows the truth makes himself the accomplice of liars and forgers." - Charles Peguy R.A.M.P.-Restore America's Moral Pride
Jodi Hoffman R.A.M.P. http://www.gocin.com/ramp Victimization of Children/Research & Education Council of America 2805 E. OAKLAND PARK BLVD., SUITE 122 FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 33306 TELEPHONE (954) 567-0698 TeleFax (954) 630-2280
-- "He who does not bellow the truth when he knows the truth makes himself the accomplice of liars and forgers." - Charles Peguy R.A.M.P.-Restore America�s Moral Pride
Jodi Hoffman R.A.M.P. http://www.gocin.com/ramp Victimization of Children/Research & Education Council of America 2805 E. OAKLAND PARK BLVD., SUITE 122 FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 33306 TELEPHONE (954) 567-0698 TeleFax (954) 630-2280
If you're serious, send it. We own a law firm. Furthermore, a lot of the cases we handle are pro bono, especially when children are involved. We would help in any way we can. What you say doesn't surprise me. !Dr. Joe Baptista wrote:
People don't seem to understand what free speech is all about. You might be interested in knowing Jodi that Hitlers Germany had one of the most progressive free speech policies in the world. You could say whatever you wanted to say, provided it was authorized by the state.
I don't support free speech because it's the fashionable thing to do. Free speech is the basic right of all. The content of that right is irrelevant.
Now - you spending alot of time on the sex angle here. I don't think you understand what freedom of speech means. If I were to tell you that I had personal knowledge of the rape by canadian politicians and senior bureacrats of young boys from fort lauderdale during the 60, 70, 80's - and that these rapes and further investigation of those who abuse these children is being intentionally suppressed by senior police officers and law officers in Canada - how would you react to this?
Now here's the kicker. I have all of that knowledge and I am prevented by court order from exposing any of these people. You can thank Judge William Browne of the Ontario Court for that.
It's people like you who are willing to deny others rights who end up taking away my rights to expose these political child molesters.
Would you like to follow up with the investigating officer in fort lauderdale and verify this? You talk a big talk Jodi - now do you have the passion to walk the walk and help these former kids. Just let me know and I will phone someone who will forward you a URL. We don't want to break our court order you understand ;-)
regards Joe Baptista
http://www.dot.god/ dot.GOD Hostmaster
On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, Jodi Hoffman wrote:
You are wrong to protect them without knowing what they're about, Jay. Their motto is, "Sex before eight, or it's too late." They are referring to grown men having sex with an under-eight year old little boy. Surely you don't mean to suggest that a website promoting intercourse with a little boy should be protected speech, do you?
Jay Holovacs wrote:
You miss the point... I have never read their site, I do not intend to. That is immaterial.
I am addressing the other issue, that your crowd too is protected by free speech rights even though there are plenty who would like to hold you responsible for crime against gays and abortion providers.
jay
----- Original Message ----- From: Jodi Hoffman <jlhoffm@attglobal.net> To: Jay Holovacs <holovacs@idt.net> Cc: Lizard <lizard@mrlizard.com>; Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>; <fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu>; <cypherpunks@cyberpass.net> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 11:45 AM Subject: Re: And you thought Nazi agitprop was controversial?
Jay Holovacs wrote:
You really don't seem to get it, defending the right to speech is NOT
the
same as defending the content (though I understand that nowhere do they advocate violence to children)
Oh, please. Anal sex with an eight year old child is not violent?
Remember, Jodi, the *same* law that should be protecting their speech protects you and your allies from being prosecuted each time a gay is murdered or an abortion clinic bombed.
jay
----- Original Message ----- From: Jodi Hoffman <jlhoffm@attglobal.net> To: Lizard <lizard@mrlizard.com> Cc: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>;
<fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu>;
<cypherpunks@cyberpass.net> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 10:56 AM Subject: Re: And you thought Nazi agitprop was controversial?
Ah, the Lizard slinks to the support of child rapists and murderers. Don't sacrifice my child on the altar of the First Amendment, Liz. I'm sure if it were your son, you would feel differently.
-- "He who does not bellow the truth when he knows the truth makes himself the accomplice of liars and forgers." - Charles Peguy R.A.M.P.-Restore America's Moral Pride
Jodi Hoffman R.A.M.P. http://www.gocin.com/ramp Victimization of Children/Research & Education Council of America 2805 E. OAKLAND PARK BLVD., SUITE 122 FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 33306 TELEPHONE (954) 567-0698 TeleFax (954) 630-2280
-- "He who does not bellow the truth when he knows the truth makes himself the accomplice of liars and forgers." - Charles Peguy R.A.M.P.-Restore Americas Moral Pride
Jodi Hoffman R.A.M.P. http://www.gocin.com/ramp Victimization of Children/Research & Education Council of America 2805 E. OAKLAND PARK BLVD., SUITE 122 FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 33306 TELEPHONE (954) 567-0698 TeleFax (954) 630-2280
-- "He who does not bellow the truth when he knows the truth makes himself the accomplice of liars and forgers." - Charles Peguy R.A.M.P.-Restore Americas Moral Pride Jodi Hoffman R.A.M.P. http://www.gocin.com/ramp Victimization of Children/Research & Education Council of America 2805 E. OAKLAND PARK BLVD., SUITE 122 FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 33306 TELEPHONE (954) 567-0698 TeleFax (954) 630-2280
Thank you. I will get this information to you promptly. I have to ask a third person to do it for me. Thank you very much Judi and God bless you. regards Joe Baptista http://www.dot.god/ dot.GOD Hostmaster On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, Jodi Hoffman wrote:
If you're serious, send it. We own a law firm. Furthermore, a lot of the cases we handle are pro bono, especially when children are involved. We would help in any way we can. What you say doesn't surprise me.
!Dr. Joe Baptista wrote:
People don't seem to understand what free speech is all about. You might be interested in knowing Jodi that Hitlers Germany had one of the most progressive free speech policies in the world. You could say whatever you wanted to say, provided it was authorized by the state.
I don't support free speech because it's the fashionable thing to do. Free speech is the basic right of all. The content of that right is irrelevant.
Now - you spending alot of time on the sex angle here. I don't think you understand what freedom of speech means. If I were to tell you that I had personal knowledge of the rape by canadian politicians and senior bureacrats of young boys from fort lauderdale during the 60, 70, 80's - and that these rapes and further investigation of those who abuse these children is being intentionally suppressed by senior police officers and law officers in Canada - how would you react to this?
Now here's the kicker. I have all of that knowledge and I am prevented by court order from exposing any of these people. You can thank Judge William Browne of the Ontario Court for that.
It's people like you who are willing to deny others rights who end up taking away my rights to expose these political child molesters.
Would you like to follow up with the investigating officer in fort lauderdale and verify this? You talk a big talk Jodi - now do you have the passion to walk the walk and help these former kids. Just let me know and I will phone someone who will forward you a URL. We don't want to break our court order you understand ;-)
regards Joe Baptista
http://www.dot.god/ dot.GOD Hostmaster
On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, Jodi Hoffman wrote:
You are wrong to protect them without knowing what they're about, Jay. Their motto is, "Sex before eight, or it's too late." They are referring to grown men having sex with an under-eight year old little boy. Surely you don't mean to suggest that a website promoting intercourse with a little boy should be protected speech, do you?
Jay Holovacs wrote:
You miss the point... I have never read their site, I do not intend to. That is immaterial.
I am addressing the other issue, that your crowd too is protected by free speech rights even though there are plenty who would like to hold you responsible for crime against gays and abortion providers.
jay
----- Original Message ----- From: Jodi Hoffman <jlhoffm@attglobal.net> To: Jay Holovacs <holovacs@idt.net> Cc: Lizard <lizard@mrlizard.com>; Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>; <fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu>; <cypherpunks@cyberpass.net> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 11:45 AM Subject: Re: And you thought Nazi agitprop was controversial?
Jay Holovacs wrote:
You really don't seem to get it, defending the right to speech is NOT
the
same as defending the content (though I understand that nowhere do they advocate violence to children)
Oh, please. Anal sex with an eight year old child is not violent?
Remember, Jodi, the *same* law that should be protecting their speech protects you and your allies from being prosecuted each time a gay is murdered or an abortion clinic bombed.
jay
----- Original Message ----- From: Jodi Hoffman <jlhoffm@attglobal.net> To: Lizard <lizard@mrlizard.com> Cc: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>;
<fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu>;
<cypherpunks@cyberpass.net> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 10:56 AM Subject: Re: And you thought Nazi agitprop was controversial? > > Ah, the Lizard slinks to the support of child rapists and > murderers. Don't sacrifice my child on the altar of the First > Amendment, Liz. I'm sure if it were your son, you would feel > differently.
-- "He who does not bellow the truth when he knows the truth makes himself the accomplice of liars and forgers." - Charles Peguy R.A.M.P.-Restore America's Moral Pride
Jodi Hoffman R.A.M.P. http://www.gocin.com/ramp Victimization of Children/Research & Education Council of America 2805 E. OAKLAND PARK BLVD., SUITE 122 FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 33306 TELEPHONE (954) 567-0698 TeleFax (954) 630-2280
-- "He who does not bellow the truth when he knows the truth makes himself the accomplice of liars and forgers." - Charles Peguy R.A.M.P.-Restore America�s Moral Pride
Jodi Hoffman R.A.M.P. http://www.gocin.com/ramp Victimization of Children/Research & Education Council of America 2805 E. OAKLAND PARK BLVD., SUITE 122 FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 33306 TELEPHONE (954) 567-0698 TeleFax (954) 630-2280
-- "He who does not bellow the truth when he knows the truth makes himself the accomplice of liars and forgers." - Charles Peguy R.A.M.P.-Restore America�s Moral Pride
Jodi Hoffman R.A.M.P. http://www.gocin.com/ramp Victimization of Children/Research & Education Council of America 2805 E. OAKLAND PARK BLVD., SUITE 122 FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 33306 TELEPHONE (954) 567-0698 TeleFax (954) 630-2280
----- Original Message ----- From: "!Dr. Joe Baptista" <baptista@pccf.net>
If I were to tell you that I had personal knowledge of the rape by canadian politicians and senior bureacrats of young boys from fort lauderdale during the 60, 70, 80's - and that these rapes and further investigation of those who abuse these children is being intentionally suppressed by senior police officers and law officers in Canada - how would you react to this?
My Deity! This from Joe Baptista? It must be a forged message. Next we will hear that Joe takes lunch with Julian Fantino. Perhaps the Doctor has been granted an opportunity to pay off some debts by working for Project Guardian.
You are wrong to protect them without knowing what they're about, Jay. Their motto is, "Sex before eight, or it's too late." They are referring to grown men having sex with an under-eight year old little boy. Surely you don't mean to suggest that a website promoting intercourse with a little boy should be protected speech, do you?
Prove it. Produce the documentation that makes that claim. Come on. I double dog dare you--and not some stupid joke, or have wit assertion (which is most of what comes out of your mouth). -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ********************************************** Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question. -- Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural
petro wrote:
You are wrong to protect them without knowing what they're about, Jay. Their motto is, "Sex before eight, or it's too late." They are referring to grown men having sex with an under-eight year old little boy. Surely you don't mean to suggest that a website promoting intercourse with a little boy should be protected speech, do you?
Prove it.
Produce the documentation that makes that claim.
Come on. I double dog dare you--and not some stupid joke, or have wit assertion (which is most of what comes out of your mouth). -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ********************************************** Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question. -- Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural
Give me your telefax number and load your machine with paper. I'm waiting. -- "He who does not bellow the truth when he knows the truth makes himself the accomplice of liars and forgers." - Charles Peguy R.A.M.P.-Restore Americas Moral Pride Jodi Hoffman R.A.M.P. http://www.gocin.com/ramp Victimization of Children/Research & Education Council of America 2805 E. OAKLAND PARK BLVD., SUITE 122 FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 33306 TELEPHONE (954) 567-0698 TeleFax (954) 630-2280
petro wrote:
You are wrong to protect them without knowing what they're about, Jay. Their motto is, "Sex before eight, or it's too late." They are referring to grown men having sex with an under-eight year old little boy. Surely you don't mean to suggest that a website promoting intercourse with a little boy should be protected speech, do you?
Prove it.
Produce the documentation that makes that claim.
Come on. I double dog dare you--and not some stupid joke, or have wit assertion (which is most of what comes out of your mouth).
There is this thing called "The internet". It's a wonderful method for spreading (dis-) information. Scan them, compress them, and mail them to me. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ********************************************** Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question. -- Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural
At $250.00 an hour. In advance. petro wrote:
petro wrote:
You are wrong to protect them without knowing what they're about, Jay. Their motto is, "Sex before eight, or it's too late." They are referring to grown men having sex with an under-eight year old little boy. Surely you don't mean to suggest that a website promoting intercourse with a little boy should be protected speech, do you?
Prove it.
Produce the documentation that makes that claim.
Come on. I double dog dare you--and not some stupid joke, or have wit assertion (which is most of what comes out of your mouth).
There is this thing called "The internet". It's a wonderful method for spreading (dis-) information.
Scan them, compress them, and mail them to me. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ********************************************** Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question. -- Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural
-- "He who does not bellow the truth when he knows the truth makes himself the accomplice of liars and forgers." - Charles Peguy R.A.M.P.-Restore Americas Moral Pride Jodi Hoffman R.A.M.P. http://www.gocin.com/ramp Victimization of Children/Research & Education Council of America 2805 E. OAKLAND PARK BLVD., SUITE 122 FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 33306 TELEPHONE (954) 567-0698 TeleFax (954) 630-2280
At 12:14 AM 16/09/00 -0400, Jodi Hoffman wrote:
At $250.00 an hour. In advance.
Callgirlie wages and stipulations. I hold you in new regard. It's a step in a new direction, Jodi, do we need to explore it?
petro wrote:
petro wrote:
You are wrong to protect them without knowing what they're about, Jay. Their motto is, "Sex before eight, or it's too late." They are referring to grown men having sex with an under-eight year old little boy. Surely you don't mean to suggest that a website promoting intercourse with a little boy should be protected speech, do you?
Prove it.
Produce the documentation that makes that claim.
Come on. I double dog dare you--and not some stupid joke, or have wit assertion (which is most of what comes out of your mouth).
There is this thing called "The internet". It's a wonderful method for spreading (dis-) information.
Scan them, compress them, and mail them to me. -- A quote from Petro's Archives:
**********************************************
Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question. -- Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural
-- "He who does not bellow the truth when he knows the truth makes himself the accomplice of liars and forgers." - Charles Peguy R.A.M.P.-Restore America's Moral Pride
Jodi Hoffman R.A.M.P. http://www.gocin.com/ramp Victimization of Children/Research & Education Council of America 2805 E. OAKLAND PARK BLVD., SUITE 122 FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 33306 TELEPHONE (954) 567-0698 TeleFax (954) 630-2280
Feel free. eese wrote:
At 12:14 AM 16/09/00 -0400, Jodi Hoffman wrote:
At $250.00 an hour. In advance.
Callgirlie wages and stipulations.
I hold you in new regard.
It's a step in a new direction, Jodi, do we need to explore it?
petro wrote:
petro wrote:
You are wrong to protect them without knowing what they're about, Jay. Their motto is, "Sex before eight, or it's too late." They are referring to grown men having sex with an under-eight year old little boy. Surely you don't mean to suggest that a website promoting intercourse with a little boy should be protected speech, do you?
Prove it.
Produce the documentation that makes that claim.
Come on. I double dog dare you--and not some stupid joke, or have wit assertion (which is most of what comes out of your mouth).
There is this thing called "The internet". It's a wonderful method for spreading (dis-) information.
Scan them, compress them, and mail them to me. -- A quote from Petro's Archives:
**********************************************
Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question. -- Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural
-- "He who does not bellow the truth when he knows the truth makes himself the accomplice of liars and forgers." - Charles Peguy R.A.M.P.-Restore America's Moral Pride
Jodi Hoffman R.A.M.P. http://www.gocin.com/ramp Victimization of Children/Research & Education Council of America 2805 E. OAKLAND PARK BLVD., SUITE 122 FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 33306 TELEPHONE (954) 567-0698 TeleFax (954) 630-2280
-- "He who does not bellow the truth when he knows the truth makes himself the accomplice of liars and forgers." - Charles Peguy R.A.M.P.-Restore Americas Moral Pride Jodi Hoffman R.A.M.P. http://www.gocin.com/ramp Victimization of Children/Research & Education Council of America 2805 E. OAKLAND PARK BLVD., SUITE 122 FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 33306 TELEPHONE (954) 567-0698 TeleFax (954) 630-2280
At 11:48 AM 16/09/00 -0400, Jodi Hoffman wrote:
Reese wrote:
At 12:14 AM 16/09/00 -0400, Jodi Hoffman wrote:
At $250.00 an hour. In advance.
Callgirlie wages and stipulations.
I hold you in new regard.
It's a step in a new direction, Jodi, do we need to explore it?
Feel free.
Hey, it's your move. What's that $250 good for, anyway?
By the way, if Jody only wants to fax the document, and Petro only wants to receive it by email, Petro can set up a JFAX.COM account which will accept faxes and email them to him (as TIFF files.) At 12:06 AM 9/15/00 -0700, petro wrote:
petro wrote:
Prove it.
Produce the documentation that makes that claim.
Come on. I double dog dare you--and not some stupid joke, or have wit assertion (which is most of what comes out of your mouth).
There is this thing called "The internet". It's a wonderful method for spreading (dis-) information.
Scan them, compress them, and mail them to me. -- A quote from Petro's Archives:
Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question. -- Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural
Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, bill.stewart@pobox.com PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639
On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, Jodi Hoffman wrote:
You are wrong to protect them without knowing what they're about, Jay. Their motto is, "Sex before eight, or it's too late." They are referring to grown men having sex with an under-eight year old little boy. Surely you don't mean to suggest that a website promoting intercourse with a little boy should be protected speech, do you?
Madam, it has nothing to do with what the website promotes. I think that a website which a browser can display ought to be protected speech. If nothing else, it will supply material for dozens of Ph.D theses in psychology. And yes, given the choice between an absolute law protecting speech and a law which can be constantly reinterpreted depending on the feelings and intestinal gas of the judges and juries involved and the ability of one side or another to spin a tear-jerker, I'll take the absolute law any day of the week. But there's something more important going on here than that. You don't achieve a sane culture by refusing to permit the insane voices within it to speak. You achieve a sane culture by learning to understand the insanity within it and putting it in a sane context. And you can't do that if you shut 'em up. You're upset because people you disagree with have been given a voice. You figure you speak for society at large here and you're defending "polite society's" monopoly on speech. Well, I gotta tell you, "polite society's" monopoly on speech would never have tolerated me, a few years ago or in a different place, so I am predisposed to believe that monopoly is a bad idea. Bear I hate to quote myself, but right now it seems appropriate: --- There have always been a number of perverts, libertines, harlots, sluts, philanderers, pornographers, and other persons of loose moral virtue in society. But prior to the internet, it was much, much more difficult for us to locate and identify each other. -- Ray Dillinger
----- Original Message ----- From: Jodi Hoffman <jlhoffm@attglobal.net> To: Jay Holovacs <holovacs@idt.net> Cc: Lizard <lizard@mrlizard.com>; Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>; <fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu>; <cypherpunks@cyberpass.net> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 12:57 AM Subject: Re: And you thought Nazi agitprop was controversial?
You are wrong to protect them without knowing what they're about, Jay.
How many times do I have to say this. I am *not* protecting them. I am protecting free speech... my free speech, your free speech. This is much more dangerous than you seem to realize. It's tempting to let them get 'theirs' because their ideas are ugly to many of us. But if they can be held liable for a vicious murder (which they did not advocate or instigate) on the part of someone who read their site... what keeps you from being held accountable for someone who reads your site then kills a gay? What keeps a book author or film director from being criminalized because some sicko copycats an incident they describe? This has nothing to do with protecting them, regardless of what they believe. It is enlightened self interest. jay
Perhaps an analogy might help make the general case for support of free speech. We may not like what our neighbor is doing with his lawn or house. But it is in our best interests, generally speaking, to defend his property rights from new laws and regulations because tomorrow our home could be at risk. -Declan On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, Jay Holovacs wrote:
How many times do I have to say this. I am *not* protecting them. I am protecting free speech... my free speech, your free speech.
This is much more dangerous than you seem to realize. It's tempting to let them get 'theirs' because their ideas are ugly to many of us. But if they can be held liable for a vicious murder (which they did not advocate or instigate) on the part of someone who read their site... what keeps you from being held accountable for someone who reads your site then kills a gay?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I've been running an anonymous remailer since DefCon, when a certain speaker motivated me to set one up. I get on average 1 threat of bodily harm and 3 threats of lawsuits per day because of this. To attempt to answer the question "why do you run a remailer", I put up the page http://www.melontraffickers.com/remailer.html. This seems to have the effect of further annoying those who would have anonymous remailers outlawed. I don't enjoy the fact that some people are being harassed through my remailer. But I cannot prevent that without limiting the effectiveness of the remailer. Have there been any court rulings that define the level of liability for remops whose remailers are used to facilitate criminal actions? Is someone like myself, running a public remailer, considered an ISP? (I'm thinking of the Prodigy ruling, where Prodigy was deemed not responsible for content posted on its BBS system.) - --Len. On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Perhaps an analogy might help make the general case for support of free speech.
We may not like what our neighbor is doing with his lawn or house. But it is in our best interests, generally speaking, to defend his property rights from new laws and regulations because tomorrow our home could be at risk.
-Declan
On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, Jay Holovacs wrote:
How many times do I have to say this. I am *not* protecting them. I am protecting free speech... my free speech, your free speech.
This is much more dangerous than you seem to realize. It's tempting to let them get 'theirs' because their ideas are ugly to many of us. But if they can be held liable for a vicious murder (which they did not advocate or instigate) on the part of someone who read their site... what keeps you from being held accountable for someone who reads your site then kills a gay?
__ L. Sassaman Security Architect | "Lose your dreams and you Technology Consultant | will lose your mind." | http://sion.quickie.net | --The Rolling Stones -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: OpenPGP Encrypted Email Preferred. iD8DBQE5wUiWPYrxsgmsCmoRAuapAKDUQEz8mN67NnioFD2Q2YP/Gfe4zwCgwFZE 6ncZVIbwMu5a7dL2ASr2NQY= =5U53 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
I've been running an anonymous remailer since DefCon, when a certain speaker motivated me to set one up. I get on average 1 threat of bodily harm and 3 threats of lawsuits per day because of this.
To attempt to answer the question "why do you run a remailer", I put up the page http://www.melontraffickers.com/remailer.html.
This seems to have the effect of further annoying those who would have anonymous remailers outlawed.
I don't enjoy the fact that some people are being harassed through my remailer. But I cannot prevent that without limiting the effectiveness of the remailer.
Have there been any court rulings that define the level of liability for remops whose remailers are used to facilitate criminal actions?
Is someone like myself, running a public remailer, considered an ISP? (I'm thinking of the Prodigy ruling, where Prodigy was deemed not responsible for content posted on its BBS system.)
- --Len.
On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Perhaps an analogy might help make the general case for support of free speech.
We may not like what our neighbor is doing with his lawn or house. But it is in our best interests, generally speaking, to defend his property rights from new laws and regulations because tomorrow our home could be at risk.
-Declan
On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, Jay Holovacs wrote:
How many times do I have to say this. I am *not* protecting them. I am protecting free speech... my free speech, your free speech.
This is much more dangerous than you seem to realize. It's tempting to let them get 'theirs' because their ideas are ugly to many of us. But if
Of course being considered an ISP or "provider" may mean you have to comply with CALEA and provide LEO's wiretap access. Between a rock and a hard place ? Of course wiretap access to data encrypted elsewhere wouldn't do anyone much good. Maybe traffic analysis. Neil M. Johnson njohnson@interl.net http://www.interl.net/~njohnson PGP Key Finger Print: 93C0 793F B66E A0C7 CEEA 3E92 6B99 2DCC ----- Original Message ----- From: "L. Sassaman" <rabbi@quickie.net> To: <cypherpunks@einstein.ssz.com> Cc: "Jay Holovacs" <holovacs@idt.net>; "Jodi Hoffman" <jlhoffm@attglobal.net>; <fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu>; <declan@well.com> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 4:52 PM Subject: Re: CDR: Re: And you thought Nazi agitprop was controversial? they
can be held liable for a vicious murder (which they did not advocate or instigate) on the part of someone who read their site... what keeps you from being held accountable for someone who reads your site then kills a gay?
__
L. Sassaman
Security Architect | "Lose your dreams and you Technology Consultant | will lose your mind." | http://sion.quickie.net | --The Rolling Stones
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: OpenPGP Encrypted Email Preferred.
iD8DBQE5wUiWPYrxsgmsCmoRAuapAKDUQEz8mN67NnioFD2Q2YP/Gfe4zwCgwFZE 6ncZVIbwMu5a7dL2ASr2NQY= =5U53 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
May I humbly suggest that the below legal opinion may be something less than complete and reliable? -Declan At 22:32 9/14/2000 -0500, Neil Johnson wrote:
Of course being considered an ISP or "provider" may mean you have to comply with CALEA and provide LEO's wiretap access.
Between a rock and a hard place ?
Of course wiretap access to data encrypted elsewhere wouldn't do anyone much good. Maybe traffic analysis.
Neil M. Johnson njohnson@interl.net http://www.interl.net/~njohnson PGP Key Finger Print: 93C0 793F B66E A0C7 CEEA 3E92 6B99 2DCC
----- Original Message ----- From: "L. Sassaman" <rabbi@quickie.net> To: <cypherpunks@einstein.ssz.com> Cc: "Jay Holovacs" <holovacs@idt.net>; "Jodi Hoffman" <jlhoffm@attglobal.net>; <fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu>; <declan@well.com> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 4:52 PM Subject: Re: CDR: Re: And you thought Nazi agitprop was controversial?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
I've been running an anonymous remailer since DefCon, when a certain speaker motivated me to set one up. I get on average 1 threat of bodily harm and 3 threats of lawsuits per day because of this.
To attempt to answer the question "why do you run a remailer", I put up the page http://www.melontraffickers.com/remailer.html.
This seems to have the effect of further annoying those who would have anonymous remailers outlawed.
I don't enjoy the fact that some people are being harassed through my remailer. But I cannot prevent that without limiting the effectiveness of the remailer.
Have there been any court rulings that define the level of liability for remops whose remailers are used to facilitate criminal actions?
Is someone like myself, running a public remailer, considered an ISP? (I'm thinking of the Prodigy ruling, where Prodigy was deemed not responsible for content posted on its BBS system.)
- --Len.
On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Perhaps an analogy might help make the general case for support of free speech.
We may not like what our neighbor is doing with his lawn or house. But it is in our best interests, generally speaking, to defend his property rights from new laws and regulations because tomorrow our home could be at risk.
-Declan
On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, Jay Holovacs wrote:
How many times do I have to say this. I am *not* protecting them. I am protecting free speech... my free speech, your free speech.
This is much more dangerous than you seem to realize. It's tempting to let them get 'theirs' because their ideas are ugly to many of us. But if they can be held liable for a vicious murder (which they did not advocate or instigate) on the part of someone who read their site... what keeps you from being held accountable for someone who reads your site then kills a gay?
__
L. Sassaman
Security Architect | "Lose your dreams and you Technology Consultant | will lose your mind." | http://sion.quickie.net | --The Rolling Stones
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: OpenPGP Encrypted Email Preferred.
iD8DBQE5wUiWPYrxsgmsCmoRAuapAKDUQEz8mN67NnioFD2Q2YP/Gfe4zwCgwFZE 6ncZVIbwMu5a7dL2ASr2NQY= =5U53 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
"Jodi Hoffman" <jlhoffm@attglobal.net> sez:
You are wrong to protect them without knowing what they're about, Jay. Their motto is, "Sex before eight, or it's too late." They are referring to grown men having sex with an under-eight year old little boy. Surely you don't mean to suggest that a website promoting intercourse with a little boy should be protected speech, do you?
This is EXACTLY why nobody should try and censor their free speech! There are too many people who would say nobody could be sick , crazy, or despicable enough to advocate grown men having anal sex with an 8 year old boy. Let NAMBLA have their Web site so people can see just how disgusting they are. The purpose of free speech is to make us aware of what people REALLY think and feel. That's always good. What if people had known that butchers like Mao Tse Dung, Joe Stalin, Pol Pot and their ilk, really DID think it was OK to butcher millions? Then maybe a few of those damn fool left leaning dilberts would have thought twice before lining up to follow these butchers. As for Hitler, well it isn't because he didn't have the guts to tell people EXACTLY what he had in mind for various groups of people. So what is the liberal's idea of how to deal with this? Yes, it's to censor Mein Kampf! Then people can't read for themselves Hitler's outspoken plans and beliefs. At least Hitler was destroyed; the three communists I just mentioned are still held in reverence by millions of leftwingers across the globe. They still try to cover up their brutal plans with silly crap about the beloved "masses". Of course we now live in the gutless wimpy age of the politically correct, so what can you expect. Nobody today dare say that cramming your penis up another man's feces filled ass might not be a good health plan during the AIDS epidemic, which they are horrified to admit started as a direct result of such filth covered "fun". Now people fear earning the pervert's wrath. Does anybody with half a brain not realize that is exactly why NAMBLA is taking an activist approach? As soon as Hollywood churns out some "stars" who advocate sex with boys, or babies, well far too many of the public will soon be demanding the right to assault the children. Why, it won't be long before they say it should be the right of the pervert to marry the child. The "gays" are living proof of how Hollywood, liberals, and perverts can convert what were once considered a horrible sickness to an idealized and respected life style. Today, if you kill somebody the liberals want to know why. If it's a fag killing a Nazi, he might get a pass. If it's a Nazi killing a fag, forget the trial and lynch them, whoops, make that sue them! As the great George Orwell once said in Animal Farm, his lampoon of leftist twaddle, "Everybody is equal, but some are more equal than others" [sic?]. I am sorry to say that if allowed to present their beliefs, it is possible that NAMBLA might win win the favor of today's brain dead public. Well, so be it. Nobody with half a brain ever said we shouldn't suffer the consequences of our own idiocy. America used to be about free speech. It was at one time considered one of the great principles that separated us from the other nations. In England, a country we wisely separated ourselves from, you are now forbidden to send an encrypted message to a friend without fearing imprisonment if you fail to provide the government with the "key" to the message. Screw King George. Real freedom of speech means you can scream "fire" in a crowded theater. People should look around for smoke and flames and, if present, then proceed in an orderly fashion for the exit. Instead, the new idea is to deny the fire and burn quietly. Sorry, it's time to go watch Will and Grace. Can't happen here? It already has. Repeat after me "Four legs good, two legs bad!" Tom Roach
T. Bankson Roach wrote:
"Jodi Hoffman" <jlhoffm@attglobal.net> sez:
You are wrong to protect them without knowing what they're about, Jay. Their motto is, "Sex before eight, or it's too late." They are referring to grown men having sex with an under-eight year old little boy. Surely you don't mean to suggest that a website promoting intercourse with a little boy should be protected speech, do you?
This is EXACTLY why nobody should try and censor their free speech! There are too many people who would say nobody could be sick , crazy, or despicable enough to advocate grown men having anal sex with an 8 year old boy. Let NAMBLA have their Web site so people can see just how disgusting they are. The purpose of free speech is to make us aware of what people REALLY think and feel. That's always good. What if people had known that butchers like Mao Tse Dung, Joe Stalin, Pol Pot and their ilk, really DID think it was OK to butcher millions? Then maybe a few of those damn fool left leaning dilberts would have thought twice before lining up to follow these butchers. As for Hitler, well it isn't because he didn't have the guts to tell people EXACTLY what he had in mind for various groups of people. So what is the liberal's idea of how to deal with this? Yes, it's to censor Mein Kampf! Then people can't read for themselves Hitler's outspoken plans and beliefs. At least Hitler was destroyed; the three communists I just mentioned are still held in reverence by millions of leftwingers across the globe. They still try to cover up their brutal plans with silly crap about the beloved "masses".
Of course we now live in the gutless wimpy age of the politically correct, so what can you expect. Nobody today dare say that cramming your penis up another man's feces filled ass might not be a good health plan during the AIDS epidemic, which they are horrified to admit started as a direct result of such filth covered "fun". Now people fear earning the pervert's wrath.
Does anybody with half a brain not realize that is exactly why NAMBLA is taking an activist approach? As soon as Hollywood churns out some "stars" who advocate sex with boys, or babies, well far too many of the public will soon be demanding the right to assault the children. Why, it won't be long before they say it should be the right of the pervert to marry the child. The "gays" are living proof of how Hollywood, liberals, and perverts can convert what were once considered a horrible sickness to an idealized and respected life style.
Today, if you kill somebody the liberals want to know why. If it's a fag killing a Nazi, he might get a pass. If it's a Nazi killing a fag, forget the trial and lynch them, whoops, make that sue them! As the great George Orwell once said in Animal Farm, his lampoon of leftist twaddle, "Everybody is equal, but some are more equal than others" [sic?]. I am sorry to say that if allowed to present their beliefs, it is possible that NAMBLA might win win the favor of today's brain dead public. Well, so be it. Nobody with half a brain ever said we shouldn't suffer the consequences of our own idiocy.
America used to be about free speech. It was at one time considered one of the great principles that separated us from the other nations. In England, a country we wisely separated ourselves from, you are now forbidden to send an encrypted message to a friend without fearing imprisonment if you fail to provide the government with the "key" to the message. Screw King George. Real freedom of speech means you can scream "fire" in a crowded theater. People should look around for smoke and flames and, if present, then proceed in an orderly fashion for the exit. Instead, the new idea is to deny the fire and burn quietly.
Sorry, it's time to go watch Will and Grace. Can't happen here? It already has. Repeat after me "Four legs good, two legs bad!"
Tom Roach
It's already been demanded, Tom. During the Gay Pride March on Washington, the state and federal demands included: 1) Repeal of all age-of-consent laws (for sex with kids); 2) Repeal of ALL marriage laws (3 men, 4 kids, 1 baby...); 3) Repeal of all public sex laws (including with kids); 4) Repeal of all laws against prostitution(even children); 5) Repeal of all sodomy laws (even with kids); 6) Federal funding of all sex-change operations; 7) Federal funding of artificial insemination of lesbians; 8) total access to Boy Scouts by male homosexuals; 9) sex ed taught by homosexuals in all public schools; and more....... -- "He who does not bellow the truth when he knows the truth makes himself the accomplice of liars and forgers." - Charles Peguy R.A.M.P.-Restore Americas Moral Pride Jodi Hoffman R.A.M.P. http://www.gocin.com/ramp Victimization of Children/Research & Education Council of America 2805 E. OAKLAND PARK BLVD., SUITE 122 FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 33306 TELEPHONE (954) 567-0698 TeleFax (954) 630-2280
Jodi's fantasy world again. Ok Jodi..document your claims which 'march on Washington" Please specifiy who made these 'demands' and the actual quotes involved (not your imaginative paraphrases) Of course, if your past behavior on this list is any indicator, statements were wildly interpreted to suit your strawman perceptions, and I suspect actual quotes will not be forthcoming. jay At 12:30 AM 9/16/2000 -0400, Jodi Hoffman wrote:
It's already been demanded, Tom. During the Gay Pride March on Washington, the state and federal demands included:
1) Repeal of all age-of-consent laws (for sex with kids);
2) Repeal of ALL marriage laws (3 men, 4 kids, 1 baby...);
3) Repeal of all public sex laws (including with kids);
4) Repeal of all laws against prostitution(even children);
5) Repeal of all sodomy laws (even with kids);
6) Federal funding of all sex-change operations;
7) Federal funding of artificial insemination of lesbians;
8) total access to Boy Scouts by male homosexuals;
9) sex ed taught by homosexuals in all public schools;
and more....... --
In 1972 (the year before the APA unilaterally decided homosexuality was "no longer an illness") the Gay Rights Platform was drawn up at the convention of the National Coalition of Gay Organizers. It was officially set forth at the Gay Pride March on Washington, D.C. on April 25, 1993 and has been reinforced every year since. By the way, a couple more of the demands: 1) Demand that contraceptives and abortion services be made available to all persons, regardless of age (what the hell does that matter to homosexuals???); 2) Full inclusion of lesbians, homosexual men, bisexuals and transgenders in education of children and child care; 3) Legalization of all forms of sexual expression, including pedophilia, changing age of consent laws to allow sex with children; 4) demand that Federal Defense budget funds be diverted to cover AIDS patients' medical expenses... The 1998 Federal Budget included $4.746 *BILLION* for AIDS funding. That was a $465 million increase over the 1997 Budget, which is more funding than all forms of cancer combined. Current Federal Money (your tax dollars and mine) spent per death: AIDS/HIV: $39,172.00 Diabetes: $ 5,449.00 Cancer: $ 3,776.00 Heart Disease: $ 1,056.00 Stroke: $ 765.00 What's wrong with this picture? You don't get cancer by engaging in promiscuous sex. Funding should not be based on sexual behaviors. Jay Holovacs wrote:
Jodi's fantasy world again.
Ok Jodi..document your claims
which 'march on Washington"
Please specifiy who made these 'demands' and the actual quotes involved (not your imaginative paraphrases)
Of course, if your past behavior on this list is any indicator, statements were wildly interpreted to suit your strawman perceptions, and I suspect actual quotes will not be forthcoming.
jay
At 12:30 AM 9/16/2000 -0400, Jodi Hoffman wrote:
It's already been demanded, Tom. During the Gay Pride March on Washington, the state and federal demands included:
1) Repeal of all age-of-consent laws (for sex with kids);
2) Repeal of ALL marriage laws (3 men, 4 kids, 1 baby...);
3) Repeal of all public sex laws (including with kids);
4) Repeal of all laws against prostitution(even children);
5) Repeal of all sodomy laws (even with kids);
6) Federal funding of all sex-change operations;
7) Federal funding of artificial insemination of lesbians;
8) total access to Boy Scouts by male homosexuals;
9) sex ed taught by homosexuals in all public schools;
and more....... --
-- "He who does not bellow the truth when he knows the truth makes himself the accomplice of liars and forgers." - Charles Peguy R.A.M.P.-Restore Americas Moral Pride Jodi Hoffman R.A.M.P. http://www.gocin.com/ramp Victimization of Children/Research & Education Council of America 2805 E. OAKLAND PARK BLVD., SUITE 122 FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 33306 TELEPHONE (954) 567-0698 TeleFax (954) 630-2280
4) demand that Federal Defense budget funds be diverted to cover AIDS patients' medical expenses...
The 1998 Federal Budget included $4.746 *BILLION* for AIDS funding. That was a $465 million increase over the 1997 Budget, which is more funding than all forms of cancer combined. Current Federal Money (your tax dollars and mine) spent per death:
Jodi is apparently oblivious to the fact that AIDS is not the single largest cause of death in Africa. It is also a disease that affects the young. Research into the diseases of old age is unlikely to cause a significant extension of the patients lifetime. That is why cancer recieves more funding than heart disease. Spending the federal defense budget on almost anything other than military pork would be a good thing. The US millitary budget is more than half the discressionary spending of the US. It is greater than the combined spending of all the NATO allies combined and of the combined budget of the 19 other countries in the top 20 mmilitary spending nations. If the US military has a preparedness problem the problem is not lack of resources. Why is it that the people who always say that a problem cant be solved by spending more money sing a different tune for military spending? Phill
4) demand that Federal Defense budget funds be diverted to cover AIDS patients' medical expenses...
The 1998 Federal Budget included $4.746 *BILLION* for AIDS funding. That was a $465 million increase over the 1997 Budget, which is more funding than all forms of cancer combined. Current Federal Money (your tax dollars and mine) spent per death:
Jodi is apparently oblivious to the fact that AIDS is not the single largest cause of death in Africa.
That should of course be is the single largest cause. Phill
At 12:25 -0400 9/16/00, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
Spending the federal defense budget on almost anything other than military pork would be a good thing. The US millitary budget is more than half the discressionary spending of the US. It is greater than the combined spending of all the NATO allies combined and of the combined budget of the 19 other countries in the top 20 mmilitary spending nations.
LOL!!!! God I love weasel words. The key word here is *discressionary*. Yes, if you through out social security then the military is almost half of the budget (your exaggerating slightly, but I'll let it slide). The reason is that MORE THAN HALF of the US budget goes to SOCIAL SECURITY which is considered "nondiscressionary*. If you look at the total US budget military spending hovers right around 20%, interestingly enough roughly the same percentage it was before WWI and WWII. And yes, we spend more money than the rest of NATO combined. We also have a bigger economy than the rest of NATO combined. HEll, ignoring turkey we have more territory than the rest of NATO combined!
If the US military has a preparedness problem the problem is not lack of resources. Why is it that the people who always say that a problem cant be solved by spending more money sing a different tune for military spending?
I'm sorry, your wrong. I'm not entirely certain that we should be asking are military to do what we are asking them to do (Bosnia, Iraq, Somalia, Haiti, etc.), but as the saying goes, the cats out of the bag. The military is currently cannibalizing everything it can to keep as many units as it possibly can active. They are being asked to fight what amount to repeated wars with zero increase in there budget, a budget primarily designed for training and maintenance of equipment, the mass moves and long term actions they are being required to do. On my last ROTC FTX I was issued 10 rounds of ammunition for an entire days worth of maneuvers. This is not dissimilar to the practice of issuing broomsticks as rifle substitutes during the rearming prior to our entry into WWII. -- Kevin "The Cubbie" Elliott <mailto:kelliott@mac.com> ICQ#23758827 _______________________________________________________________________________ "As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of change in the air--however slight--lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness." -- Justice William O. Douglas
The military is currently cannibalizing everything it can to keep as many units as it possibly can active.
If less of the 'defense' budget ended up spent on barracks that serve no military purpose, planes that the Pentagon don't want and gold plated research projects, there would be no problem. Phill
At 11:45 PM 9/16/00 -0400, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
The military is currently cannibalizing everything it can to keep as many units as it possibly can active.
If less of the 'defense' budget ended up spent on barracks that serve no military purpose, planes that the Pentagon don't want and gold plated research projects, there would be no problem.
Actually, as we drift typically off-topic, I thought the main problem was the curse of a booming economy -- no one needs to join the military just because they're hiring. We no longer have a literal army of the desperate to feed into the military machine.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin Elliott" <k-elliott@wiu.edu>
than the rest of NATO combined. HEll, ignoring turkey we have more territory than the rest of NATO combined!
Did the U.S. senate finally ratify the Canada Annexation Treaty?
At 22:13 -0400 9/17/00, Me wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin Elliott" <k-elliott@wiu.edu>
than the rest of NATO combined. HEll, ignoring turkey we have more territory than the rest of NATO combined!
Did the U.S. senate finally ratify the Canada Annexation Treaty?
My apologies. Ignoring the great northern state, the above holds true. -- Kevin "The Cubbie" Elliott <mailto:kelliott@mac.com> ICQ#23758827 _______________________________________________________________________________ "As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of change in the air--however slight--lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness." -- Justice William O. Douglas
In 1972 (the year before the APA unilaterally decided homosexuality was "no longer an illness") the Gay Rights Platform was drawn up at the convention of the National Coalition of Gay Organizers. It was officially set forth at the Gay Pride March on Washington, D.C. on April 25, 1993 and has been reinforced every year since.
If it was 'officially set forth' one would think you could produce quotes rather than paraphrases. And maybe name the correct organization. (NCGO doesn't seem to exist, if Altavista is anything to go by)
If it was 'officially set forth' one would think you could produce quotes rather than paraphrases.
And maybe name the correct organization. (NCGO doesn't seem to exist, if Altavista is anything to go by)
Try looking under the protocols of the elders of Zion. Phill
If it was 'officially set forth' one would think you could produce quotes rather than paraphrases.
And maybe name the correct organization. (NCGO doesn't seem to exist, if Altavista is anything to go by)
Try looking under the protocols of the elders of Zion.
All of the gay organizations were disowned by the Elders after an ILGO official criticized the Elder Chairman's choice of cilantro over parsley in the chicken salad at the last conference. She's a bit touchy about such things.
At 11:46 AM 9/16/00 -0400, Jodi Hoffman wrote:
In 1972 (the year before the APA unilaterally decided homosexuality was "no longer an illness") the Gay Rights Platform was drawn up at the convention of the National Coalition of Gay Organizers. It was officially set forth at the Gay Pride March on Washington, D.C. on April 25, 1993 and has been reinforced every year since.
By the way, a couple more of the demands:
1) Demand that contraceptives and abortion services be made available to all persons, regardless of age (what the hell does that matter to homosexuals???);
i'm opposed to all government-funded health care;but, if we ARE stuck with it, it ought to be for all, and, of course, no PRIVATE company should be forced to discriminate on the basis of age.
2) Full inclusion of lesbians, homosexual men, bisexuals and transgenders in education of children and child care;
Seems reasonable to me. Why not? A heterosexual is as likely to be a child molestor as anyone else.
3) Legalization of all forms of sexual expression, including pedophilia, changing age of consent laws to allow sex with children;
They're already down to 14 in Bible belt states like Arkansas...
4) demand that Federal Defense budget funds be diverted to cover AIDS patients' medical expenses...
The 1998 Federal Budget included $4.746 *BILLION* for AIDS funding. That was a $465 million increase over the 1997 Budget, which is more funding than all forms of cancer combined. Current Federal Money (your tax dollars and mine) spent per death:
AIDS/HIV: $39,172.00 Diabetes: $ 5,449.00 Cancer: $ 3,776.00 Heart Disease: $ 1,056.00 Stroke: $ 765.00
What's wrong with this picture? You don't get cancer by engaging in promiscuous sex. Funding should not be based on sexual behaviors.
Government shouldn't be funding medical care at all. However, deciding what to fund on the basis of some moral judgement is folly. Cancer, diabetes, and strokes *ARE NOT CONTAGIOUS*;AIDS is. That makes it far more of a 'public' health threat, and thus, by the logic of 'public health care', the most likely target. Besides -- you get strokes from eating hamburgers, cancer from smoking, and adult-onset diabetes from too much chocalte and not enough exercise. All of these are sins (Gluttony, laziness, etc) in the Christian morality as well -- shouldn't we be "punishing" those sinners as well as gay people?
Ok, you can reword are reiterate your claims. How about backing them up with documentation? (if it's been 'reinforced' every year, it surely is not secret and you must have some links to back up your claims) BTW of your new ones: 1) Would you NOT have them available to all persons regardless of age? Do we really need more teenage pregnancies? (BTW in that year many states restricted access to birth control, my brother's then 17 year old wife could not purchase it it Cal.) 2) why should people be prohibited from participation in child care because they are gay, bisexual or lesbian? Perhaps heterosexuals should be prohibited from child care for the same reasons. 3) Document (not rephrase) this, Jodi 4) Well this country is kind of short on enemies right now since the disappearance of the evil empire... maybe it's time to attack a real enemy. This is, of course similar to the last times, wild claims (probably from some fundie tract) and lots of bluster and no content when challenged to support the claims. Jay Aside to Lizard: I'll be gone for a few days but watching my mail when I get back, try to follow up and make sure we get some documentation. thx At 11:46 AM 9/16/2000 -0400, Jodi Hoffman wrote:
In 1972 (the year before the APA unilaterally decided homosexuality was "no longer an illness") the Gay Rights Platform was drawn up at the convention of the National Coalition of Gay Organizers. It was officially set forth at the Gay Pride March on Washington, D.C. on April 25, 1993 and has been reinforced every year since.
By the way, a couple more of the demands:
1) Demand that contraceptives and abortion services be made available to all persons, regardless of age (what the hell does that matter to homosexuals???);
2) Full inclusion of lesbians, homosexual men, bisexuals and transgenders in education of children and child care;
3) Legalization of all forms of sexual expression, including pedophilia, changing age of consent laws to allow sex with children;
4) demand that Federal Defense budget funds be diverted to cover AIDS patients' medical expenses...
The 1998 Federal Budget included $4.746 *BILLION* for AIDS funding. That was a $465 million increase over the 1997 Budget, which is more funding than all forms of cancer combined. Current Federal Money (your tax dollars and mine) spent per death:
AIDS/HIV: $39,172.00 Diabetes: $ 5,449.00 Cancer: $ 3,776.00 Heart Disease: $ 1,056.00 Stroke: $ 765.00
What's wrong with this picture? You don't get cancer by engaging in promiscuous sex. Funding should not be based on sexual behaviors.
Jay Holovacs wrote:
Jay: I've given information which is readily available to anyone who takes the time to investigate it. I've done my homowork (oops...). Now, you do yours and stop being so lazy. After all, I have been led to believe this loop is replete with journalists. I get paid to investigate truths. Don't you? The truth shall set even you free. Jay Holovacs wrote:
Ok, you can reword are reiterate your claims. How about backing them up with documentation? (if it's been 'reinforced' every year, it surely is not secret and you must have some links to back up your claims)
BTW of your new ones:
1) Would you NOT have them available to all persons regardless of age? Do we really need more teenage pregnancies? (BTW in that year many states restricted access to birth control, my brother's then 17 year old wife could not purchase it it Cal.)
2) why should people be prohibited from participation in child care because they are gay, bisexual or lesbian? Perhaps heterosexuals should be prohibited from child care for the same reasons.
3) Document (not rephrase) this, Jodi
4) Well this country is kind of short on enemies right now since the disappearance of the evil empire... maybe it's time to attack a real enemy.
This is, of course similar to the last times, wild claims (probably from some fundie tract) and lots of bluster and no content when challenged to support the claims.
Jay
Aside to Lizard: I'll be gone for a few days but watching my mail when I get back, try to follow up and make sure we get some documentation. thx
At 11:46 AM 9/16/2000 -0400, Jodi Hoffman wrote:
In 1972 (the year before the APA unilaterally decided homosexuality was "no longer an illness") the Gay Rights Platform was drawn up at the convention of the National Coalition of Gay Organizers. It was officially set forth at the Gay Pride March on Washington, D.C. on April 25, 1993 and has been reinforced every year since.
By the way, a couple more of the demands:
1) Demand that contraceptives and abortion services be made available to all persons, regardless of age (what the hell does that matter to homosexuals???);
2) Full inclusion of lesbians, homosexual men, bisexuals and transgenders in education of children and child care;
3) Legalization of all forms of sexual expression, including pedophilia, changing age of consent laws to allow sex with children;
4) demand that Federal Defense budget funds be diverted to cover AIDS patients' medical expenses...
The 1998 Federal Budget included $4.746 *BILLION* for AIDS funding. That was a $465 million increase over the 1997 Budget, which is more funding than all forms of cancer combined. Current Federal Money (your tax dollars and mine) spent per death:
AIDS/HIV: $39,172.00 Diabetes: $ 5,449.00 Cancer: $ 3,776.00 Heart Disease: $ 1,056.00 Stroke: $ 765.00
What's wrong with this picture? You don't get cancer by engaging in promiscuous sex. Funding should not be based on sexual behaviors.
Jay Holovacs wrote:
-- "He who does not bellow the truth when he knows the truth makes himself the accomplice of liars and forgers." - Charles Peguy R.A.M.P.-Restore Americas Moral Pride Jodi Hoffman R.A.M.P. http://www.gocin.com/ramp Victimization of Children/Research & Education Council of America 2805 E. OAKLAND PARK BLVD., SUITE 122 FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 33306 TELEPHONE (954) 567-0698 TeleFax (954) 630-2280
Jay:
I've given information which is readily available to anyone who takes the time to investigate it.
But you have failled to provide information which should be readily available to you if you are telling the truth. You are the person who is making the claim, the onus is on you to provide the evidence to support it. The fact that the few details you have provided turned out to be untrue hardly lends credibility to your argument. Phill
Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
Jay:
I've given information which is readily available to anyone who takes the time to investigate it.
But you have failled to provide information which should be readily available to you if you are telling the truth.
You are the person who is making the claim, the onus is on you to provide the evidence to support it.
The fact that the few details you have provided turned out to be untrue hardly lends credibility to your argument.
Phill
In that case, I'll make you an offer. You or anyone else on this list are welcome to read through our modest collection of over 2,000 books, three four-foot tall file cabinets (all full), various shelves, etc...just like we did. -- "He who does not bellow the truth when he knows the truth makes himself the accomplice of liars and forgers." - Charles Peguy R.A.M.P.-Restore Americas Moral Pride Jodi Hoffman R.A.M.P. http://www.gocin.com/ramp Victimization of Children/Research & Education Council of America 2805 E. OAKLAND PARK BLVD., SUITE 122 FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 33306 TELEPHONE (954) 567-0698 TeleFax (954) 630-2280
Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
Jay:
I've given information which is readily available to anyone who takes the time to investigate it.
But you have failled to provide information which should be readily available to you if you are telling the truth.
You are the person who is making the claim, the onus is on you to provide the evidence to support it.
The fact that the few details you have provided turned out to be untrue hardly lends credibility to your argument.
Phill
In that case, I'll make you an offer. You or anyone else on this list are welcome to read through our modest collection of over 2,000 books, three four-foot tall file cabinets (all full), various shelves, etc...just like we did.
Very good. Now, let's have cites. The proper format is Author, title, date, page numbers, publishing house. ISBN numbers would be nice, too.
Jodi evaded:
In that case, I'll make you an offer. You or anyone else on this list are welcome to read through our modest collection of over 2,000 books, three four-foot tall file cabinets (all full), various shelves, etc...just like we did.
If we are playing that game, I have 5000+ volumes here. All 5000 of them AND my gorilla say that you are full of it. If you have the evidence post it. Explaining how easy it would be for you to post it does nothing for your credibility. Give us a citation that we can look up. Phill
At 09:50 AM 9/18/00 -0400, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
Jodi evaded:
In that case, I'll make you an offer. You or anyone else on this list are welcome to read through our modest collection of over 2,000 books, three four-foot tall file cabinets (all full), various shelves, etc...just like we did.
If we are playing that game, I have 5000+ volumes here. All 5000 of them AND my gorilla say that you are full of it.
That's "Orangutang".
If we are playing that game, I have 5000+ volumes here. All 5000 of them AND my gorilla say that you are full of it.
That's "Orangutang".
No, Helena was in a different room at the time. It was most certainly the Gorilla (and it is hard to make a mistake on such matters). I can send photos if you like. Phill
On Sat, 16 Sep 2000, Jodi Hoffman wrote:
AIDS/HIV: $39,172.00 Diabetes: $ 5,449.00 Cancer: $ 3,776.00 Heart Disease: $ 1,056.00 Stroke: $ 765.00
What's wrong with this picture? You don't get cancer by engaging in promiscuous sex.
Nope. You get it by smoking. You likely get diabetes by leading an unhealthy life - overweight is a primary factor. The same goes for cardiovascular conditions as well. 'Advocate taxing girth? Sampo Syreeni <decoy@iki.fi>, aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university
On Hoffman's superstition-based rants about behavior and age At 12:48 AM 9/16/00 -0400, Jodi Hoffman wrote:
It's already been demanded, Tom. During the Gay Pride March on Washington, the state and federal demands included:
1) Repeal of all age-of-consent laws (for sex with kids);
At some age people are able to sign binding contracts. Once you can, you are self-sovereign.
2) Repeal of ALL marriage laws (3 men, 4 kids, 1 baby...);
Polyamorous relationships are consensual, ergo not regulable. Same with N=1 families (ie single parents), or serially polyamorous Americans (fuck, marry, kids, divorce, repeat with someone else).
3) Repeal of all public sex laws (including with kids);
What laws are these?
4) Repeal of all laws against prostitution(even children);
Prostitution is a voluntary transaction. Individuals are either competent to get into binding agreements or not.
5) Repeal of all sodomy laws (even with kids);
Once again you have no moral basis for regulating others behaviors.
6) Federal funding of all sex-change operations;
Any state funded medicine is socialism.
7) Federal funding of artificial insemination of lesbians;
See #6
8) total access to Boy Scouts by male homosexuals;
Boy scouts are a private club, they can do what they want, but not at public expense.
9) sex ed taught by homosexuals in all public schools;
States should not be running compulsory youth indoctrination centers, period.
At 12:30 AM 9/16/00 -0400, Jodi Hoffman wrote:
It's already been demanded, Tom. During the Gay Pride March on Washington, the state and federal demands included:
1) Repeal of all age-of-consent laws (for sex with kids);
Etc... "..the right to petition the government for the redress of grievences..." ANYONE can demand ANYTHING from the government. And they can try to *convince* a sufficiently large %age of the population to vote for it. It doesn't mean it's going to happen. Let's see. You don't approve of free speech. You don't approve of freedom of religion. You don't approve of the right to petition the government. Tell me, Jodi, is there any part of the First Amendment you DO support? You know, Cuba is just a short swim from Florida. You'd like it there. No free speech, no free religion, no protests...your ideal society.
You don't approve of free speech.
You don't approve of freedom of religion.
You don't approve of the right to petition the government.
Tell me, Jodi, is there any part of the First Amendment you DO support? You know, Cuba is just a short swim from Florida. You'd like it there. No free speech, no free religion, no protests...your ideal society.
Nahh, far to liberal for her. How about Burma? Phill
At 09:02 AM 15/09/00 -0700, T. Bankson Roach wrote:
Nobody today dare say that cramming your penis up another man's feces filled ass might not be a good health plan during the AIDS epidemic, which they are horrified to admit started as a direct result of such filth covered "fun".
http://www.plif.com/archive/wc106.gif "Like, whatever man, you know."
On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, Jodi Hoffman wrote:
You are wrong to protect them without knowing what they're about, Jay. Their motto is, "Sex before eight, or it's too late." They are referring to grown men having sex with an under-eight year old little boy. Surely you don't mean to suggest that a website promoting intercourse with a little boy should be protected speech, do you?
It does seem that you have grave trouble differentiating between words and actions... Besides, there is a point in questioning the tacit assumption behind all this kiddy-porn outrage of children/adolescents not being able to concent to sex. I'm not entirely sure that sort of *debate* should be silenced, while at the moment just about everybody, me included, would agree with you on actually acting out the thing. Sampo Syreeni <decoy@iki.fi>, aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university
Jodi wrote (with the help of the GOP): Oh, please! Anal sex with an eight year old child! Is not violent? Phill PS I know the irony will be lost on her.
On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
Jodi wrote (with the help of the GOP):
Oh, please! Anal sex with an eight year old child! Is not violent?
What about two 8 year olds giving it to each other up the wazoo. Would you consider that violent? Should we send those kids to jail - or maybe execute the parents? Up in my village the kids start young. We had a vibrant community - but all the jobs have gone and what we have left are kids as young as 8 shooting themselves up with heroin. The average age they start is at 10 to 14 and most of them make their money off the sex trade. Their collective goal seems oriented at getting high and staying high. All sex means to them is a means to an end. Even money is of little significance, the main goal is getting and staying high. Now, the one thing that really makes me sick to my stomach is the constant jibberish I hear from people who constantly harp on about saving the pretty little children - meanwhile I have heroin addicts as young as 8 banging each other in the park just down the street. For all the allegator tears I see here and elsewhere - I never see anything of value result from it. Could you save the 8 years olds who are banging each other in my park? I have no idea what they need - i'll be frank with you there - but they need a new life, what they have now is shit. I've noticed people will spend more time trying to silence groups like namble instead of solving the root problem. Kids these days are in serious trouble. People like those in namble are only taking advantage of a preexiting situation. In my town kids are easy to get into bed if you have the right qualifications. And unfortunately those qualifications are not very high. Most of these kids are from families who lost their lively hood when the jobs flew. If you can keep them high - you qualify. A good example is in fact found in our town. I call him the "morphine nipple". He's an old crippled man, dying of cancer, and as drunk as a skunk. You can always find an assortment of boys and girls hanging around his place. And the kids goals are basically - how much morphine can we squeeze out of the morphine nipple. So the boys drop their drawers and expose their dinkys and the girls expose their twinkies and the ol morphine nipple gets milked. Kid's these days are pigs and any fault to be found I suggest is with their parents. Forget the whole concept of childhood - that's a fiction long gone. Based on my experience I think I'm the last person on this planet who actually had a great childhood - and I was innocent too. That's rare these days. And in my opinion an unfortunate observation and my advantage. regards Joe Baptista http://www.dot.god/ http://www.dot-god.com/ dot.GOD Hostmaster
At 11:27 AM -0400 9/13/00, Jay Holovacs wrote:
You really don't seem to get it, defending the right to speech is NOT the same as defending the content (though I understand that nowhere do they advocate violence to children)
Remember, Jodi, the *same* law that should be protecting their speech protects you and your allies from being prosecuted each time a gay is murdered or an abortion clinic bombed.
Actually, the tide of civil lawsuits against all sorts of organizations is rising. Aryan Nations was just ordered to pay some multimillion dollar fee because some woman was harassed or attacked or had her feelings hurt--not sure which--by some people she claimed were connected to or influenced by AN. I watched noted spinster Alan Dershowitz expostulating that lawsuits to bankrupt Aryan Nation are _good_, becuase AN espouses hate, but that lawsuits against NAMBLA are _bad_, for some reason I didn't stick around long enough to hear. This issue of lawsuits about speech is a terribly important one. It tends to get lost in the debate when people say "But the _government_ is not suppressing speech!" Actually, it _is_. By court decisions, by even letting such lawsuits go forward, it is supporting such suppressions of speech. "SLAPP" suits are another example. ("Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation," as when a lumber company slaps a civil lawsuit on a critic of their logging operations. Even the _filing_ of a lawsuit essentially forces the target to hire his own $400 an hour lawyers. (Yeah, I know what Duncan would say: "Throw the subpoena away. Make yourself judgement-proof. Ignore the matter." Well, nice theory, hard in practice for anyone with real assets.)_ We as a culture have swung far away from "sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me" toward a culture of lawsuits. And the lawyer lobby supports and embraces this culture, getting laws passed making it easier every day to suppress speech. Crypto helps in various ways, of course. Both Aryan Nations and NAMBLA will be helped, along with Friends of the Earth and Pacific Lumber. Censorious bitches like Jodi Hoffman will splutter. --Tim May -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
Tim May wrote:
We as a culture have swung far away from "sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me" toward a culture of lawsuits. And the lawyer lobby supports and embraces this culture, getting laws passed making it easier every day to suppress speech.
For my first year of law school I'm taking Contracts, Criminal Law, Legal Writing, and Torts. The books for the first three subjects aren't too bad from a "lawyers are scum" perspective, but both of my torts books had me screaming within twenty pages. In one, the authors argue for greatly increasing the scope of tort offenses and reducing the permissible defenses [1]. As if the US doesn't have enough frivolous and nonsensical lawsuits. In the other, on page 3 yet, the authors argue that if someone is injured such that he can no longer work, _someone_ should be held financially liable because society has lost the first person's wages [2]. That seems just half a step from saying that the people are the property of the state. Maybe I'm reading too much into poorly-phrased paragraphs, but I haven't seen anything in either book to contradict the bad impression. [1] _Understanding Torts_, Diamond, Levine, and Madden, Matthew Bender. [2] _Torts and Compensation_ 3rd ed, Dobbs and Hayden, West Publishing See http://www.overlawyered.com for a jaundiced view of the legal system. The site editor, Walter Olsen, has particular "issues" with plaintiff's lawyers. -- Steve Furlong, Computer Condottiere Have GNU, will travel 518-374-4720 sfurlong@acmenet.net
At 1:19 PM -0400 9/13/00, Steven Furlong wrote:
Tim May wrote:
We as a culture have swung far away from "sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me" toward a culture of lawsuits. And the lawyer lobby supports and embraces this culture, getting laws passed making it easier every day to suppress speech.
For my first year of law school I'm taking Contracts, Criminal Law, Legal Writing, and Torts. The books for the first three subjects aren't too bad from a "lawyers are scum" perspective, but both of my torts books had me screaming within twenty pages.
Why in the name of all that is good and interesting would you train to become a _lawyer_? Jeesh. (From a practical standpoint, here in the Bay Area there is a growing oversupply of lawyers. According to the newspapers, modulo their biases and inaccuracies, many lawyer larvae are accepting "paralegal" positions. As with past "shortages of doctors" and "shortages of teachers," the boom-bust cycle continues. Also, there is a trend toward "corporatization" of these fields, with doctors as not-so-highly-paid-anymore employees of HMOs, for example. If the trend carried over to LMOs (Legal Maintenance Organizations), look out.)
In one, the authors argue for greatly increasing the scope of tort offenses and reducing the permissible defenses [1]. As if the US doesn't have enough frivolous and nonsensical lawsuits. In the other, on page 3 yet, the authors argue that if someone is injured such that he can no longer work, _someone_ should be held financially liable because society has lost the first person's wages [2]. That seems just half a step from saying that the people are the property of the state. Maybe I'm reading too much into poorly-phrased paragraphs, but I haven't seen anything in either book to contradict the bad impression.
All of this is why I protest so loudly when I hear people saying "But this is a lawsuit, not a government action! It's not speech suppression, just the tort process at work." (And there are some connections, which I won't go into right now, with treating journalists as some kind of special protected class, with "shield laws" and customary (pace Lessig) exemptions from lawsuits which would hit ordinary proles. There should be no such exemptions, and yet far higher standards for successfully suing. My not liking the words of NAMBLA, or Declan McCullagh, or Aryan Nations, should not be enough to get a lawsuit into a court of law.) There have been _practical_ solutions offered. "Loser pays" is the most obvious one. (With no way of avoiding the judgment. Not with bankruptcy, not with poverty. If Sally B. Frivolous files a lawsuit against J. Random Company and _loses_ and is ordered to pay court costs and damages of several million dollars, then let her mop floors for the next 60 years, paying 80% of her earnings just to keep up with the interest payments! Debtor's prisons are a good idea.) --Tim May -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
Tim May wrote:
Why in the name of all that is good and interesting would you train to become a _lawyer_?
<grin> I make my living as a programmer, and plan to continue to do so. I want a law degree to help defend techies and free software projects from big-bucks corps and govts who feel threatened or avaricious over some aspect of the free projects. I'm attempting to help in some prior-restraint-on-crypto cases now, on the tech side, and would have liked to be able to help on the legal side. After I have a year of school under my belt, I'll see if EFF or the like can use some untrained assistance.
(From a practical standpoint, here in the Bay Area there is a growing oversupply of lawyers.
That's the case all over the US, isn't it? But you're right, the Bay Area seems to have more than its share. Look on the bright side: the lawyers will probably manage to kill the Silicon Valley boom in a few more years, the boom will go elsewhere, and the lawyers will follow. <<too many lawsuits>>
There have been _practical_ solutions offered. "Loser pays" is the most obvious one.
I like "loser pays", too. Interesting that various associations of trial lawyers contribute big bucks to kill loser pays, all the while sanctimoniously declaiming that they're only looking out for the interests of Sally Mae, who was rendered sterile at age 53 by a chemical spill two hundred miles away. See http://www.overlawyered.com/topics/politics.html (not for Sally Mae; I just made that up). Regards, SRF -- Steve Furlong, Computer Condottiere Have GNU, will travel 518-374-4720 sfurlong@acmenet.net
On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 01:19:38PM -0400, Steven Furlong wrote:
and nonsensical lawsuits. In the other, on page 3 yet, the authors argue that if someone is injured such that he can no longer work, _someone_ should be held financially liable because society has lost the first person's wages [2]. That seems just half a step from saying that the people are the property of the state.
David Friedman argues that if someone is injured, "someone" should be held financially liable - not because society has lost something, but because of economic efficiency. Here's an excerpt from his book Law's Order: I take actions that may impose costs on others-drive a car, shoot a rifle, blow up rocks with dynamite. The size and likelihood of those costs depend on what precautions I take. How can we use tort law to give me an incentive to take those precautions that are worth taking, and only those? Our objective is not to eliminate the risks entirely-we could do that by banning cars, rifles, and dynamite. Our objective is to get the efficient level of precautions, and thus the efficient level of risk. We want a world where I get my brakes checked one more time if, and only if, doing so reduces expected accident costs by at least as much as it costs. We want a world where I break up rock with dynamite instead of a sledge hammer if and only if the savings in cost to me at least makes up for the increased risk to my neighbors. What we want is not a world of no accidents-that costs more than it is worth-but a world with only efficient accidents, only those accidents that cost more to prevent than preventing them is worth. We want the world we would have if everyone took all and only cost-justified precautions. To simplify things, I start with the simplest case-unicausal accidents. I am engaged in an activity, flying a small airplane, which has some chance of injuring other people's persons and property. The probability of such injury depends on what precautions I take but not on what precautions they take. There is nothing other people can do, short of armoring their roofs with several feet of reinforced concrete, a precaution we are confident is not worth the cost, to protect themselves against the risk that I might crash my plane into their houses. [...] http://www.best.com/~ddfr/Laws_Order_draft/laws_order_ToC.htm
At 11:27 AM -0400 9/13/00, Jay Holovacs wrote:
You really don't seem to get it, defending the right to speech is NOT the same as defending the content (though I understand that nowhere do they advocate violence to children)
Remember, Jodi, the *same* law that should be protecting their speech protects you and your allies from being prosecuted each time a gay is murdered or an abortion clinic bombed.
Actually, the tide of civil lawsuits against all sorts of organizations is rising. Aryan Nations was just ordered to pay some multimillion dollar fee because some woman was harassed or attacked or had her feelings hurt--not sure which--by some people she claimed were connected to or influenced by AN.
Actually, she got shot at and roughed up by AN members. (AN has a habit of disavowing relations with members once they get in trouble with The Elders of Zion.)
At 4:57 PM -0400 9/13/00, Omri Schwarz wrote:
At 11:27 AM -0400 9/13/00, Jay Holovacs wrote:
You really don't seem to get it, defending the right to speech is NOT the same as defending the content (though I understand that nowhere do they advocate violence to children)
Remember, Jodi, the *same* law that should be protecting their speech protects you and your allies from being prosecuted each time a gay is murdered or an abortion clinic bombed.
Actually, the tide of civil lawsuits against all sorts of organizations is rising. Aryan Nations was just ordered to pay some multimillion dollar fee because some woman was harassed or attacked or had her feelings hurt--not sure which--by some people she claimed were connected to or influenced by AN.
Actually, she got shot at and roughed up by AN members. (AN has a habit of disavowing relations with members once they get in trouble with The Elders of Zion.)
This woman and her daughter just "happened" to be far from home, out near the AN compound, and their car, they claim, just "happened" to backfire. I doubt the backfiring theory very much...none of my cars has _ever_ backfired, and I've been driving since 1968. I would bet a lot of money that this woman, a leftie simp-wimp, took a shot at the compound she hated so much. A pseudonymous person sent me a note on this woman and her plans, including this excerpt, which I agree with: "The fact the woman, supposedly a random passing stranger, intends to use the money and convert the compound to a 'Peace Center' makes me think the entire thing was a setup. " In any case, if she was roughed up, without provocation, then those who roughed her up are solely to blame. Suing AN was merely an example of "deep pockets" and "joint and several liability" doctrines, motivated by PC sentiments. The Southern Law Poverty Center routinely uses this tactic to silence those it doesn't like. I still say we should sue Operation Push for every asset it has. Hymietown, indeed. --Tim May -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
At 05:14 PM 9/13/00 -0400, Tim May wrote:
At 4:57 PM -0400 9/13/00, Omri Schwarz wrote:
Actually, she got shot at and roughed up by AN members. (AN has a habit of disavowing relations with members once they get in trouble with The Elders of Zion.)
This woman and her daughter just "happened" to be far from home, out near the AN compound, and their car, they claim, just "happened" to backfire.
I doubt the backfiring theory very much...none of my cars has _ever_ backfired, and I've been driving since 1968. I would bet a lot of money that this woman, a leftie simp-wimp, took a shot at the compound she hated so much.
Your internal combustion experience is of little relevence here. The law is wrong for pinning a rabid security force's wrongs on their employer. That is simple deep-pocket mining like the tobacco suits. However, Tim is being unjustifiably condemning of citizens with old cars, methinks. Even having an agenda to provoke the brownshirts by slowly driving by does not justify violence. Again, violence is the responsibility of the perpetrators, not their bosses, or the authors of words they read. Frankly, thinking critically, the backfire defence sounds like straw-grasping, esp. given no firearms found on the victims. One hopes that TM does not discharge his artillery towards misfiring vehicles passing his terrain on public roads. Again: its wrong to bust the smalldicked neonazis for the actions of their 'security force', its wrong of them to assault passers-by for impulsive noises. ..... 19. Never try to baptize a cat
Mr. May:
At 4:57 PM -0400 9/13/00, Omri Schwarz wrote:
Actually, she got shot at and roughed up by AN members. (AN has a habit of disavowing relations with members once they get in trouble with The Elders of Zion.)
This woman and her daughter just "happened" to be far from home, out near the AN compound, and their car, they claim, just "happened" to backfire.
I doubt the backfiring theory very much...none of my cars has _ever_ backfired, and I've been driving since 1968. I would bet a lot of money that this woman, a leftie simp-wimp, took a shot at the compound she hated so much.
Not commenting on anything but the backfire thing: I've had several cars over the last since 1983 (when I started driving) that backfired at one time or another for various reasons--usually relating either to spark plugs not firing properly (broken plugs, wires, bad distributer wires going to the wrong plugs etc), vacuum problems, or just plain being a rolling disaster. It's *possible*. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ********************************************** Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question. -- Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural
Actually, she got shot at and roughed up by AN members. (AN has a habit of disavowing relations with members once they get in trouble with The Elders of Zion.)
This woman and her daughter just "happened" to be far from home, out near the AN compound, and their car, they claim, just "happened" to backfire.
I doubt the backfiring theory very much...none of my cars has _ever_ backfired, and I've been driving since 1968. I would bet a lot of money that this woman, a leftie simp-wimp, took a shot at the compound she hated so much.
Coeur D'Alene has a lot of tourism going on, and you must not get out much. I hear a backfire at least once a week in Boston. If anything, after the incident the AN's neighbors might have decided to milk it for what it's worth. AN has been depressing the tourism in the area and many of the locals want their heads on stakes. A friend of mine's cousin was there at the last march and some of the neighbors were there hoping to get a few punches in Aryan noses and then blame the ruckus on the JDL. The AN has a charming rep around there.
In any case, if she was roughed up, without provocation, then those who roughed her up are solely to blame. Suing AN was merely an example of "deep pockets" and "joint and several liability" doctrines, motivated by PC sentiments. The Southern Law Poverty Center routinely uses this tactic to silence those it doesn't like.
I still say we should sue Operation Push for every asset it has. Hymietown, indeed.
Oh, hell yes. Sharpton and Jackson should both pay for the damage and injuries they've incited in NYC.
In any case, if she was roughed up, without provocation, then those who roughed her up are solely to blame. Suing AN was merely an example of "deep pockets" and "joint and several liability" doctrines, motivated by PC sentiments. The Southern Law Poverty Center routinely uses this tactic to silence those it doesn't like.
It's not a "deep pockets" thing, it's a "shallow pockets" thing. Deep pockets cases are where you want the money, so you drag somebody with lots of money into the case if you can. In this case, and Morris Dee's previous KKK case, the objective isn't *getting* money - it's *taking away* all the money the bastards have to put them out of business, and then twisting the knife and rubbing salt in the wounds by using their former Bad White Boys playground for something they dislike. If they had deep pockets, this would be hard. But soft targets like the AN or KKK chapter don't have a lot of money, so a lawsuit for shooting at people or beating them up can be enough to bankrupt them, even if all you get is a couple of double-wides on a hunk of scrubby land. Also, they're less likely to have good legal representation (at least these days - in the KKK's heyday the town judge and lawyers might well have been members), so they're easier to beat. Also, this is rural Idaho - stunningly gorgeous country, where the traditional way to relate to the wildlife involves firearms, so even if she *had* been shooting her gun it'd've been pretty normal. The newspaper reports didn't say whether the real bright Aryan boys decided gunshots must have been an invading Jew army before they saw that the car was full of white people, or whether they at least looked at them enough to decide they weren't blacks or cops... Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, bill.stewart@pobox.com PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639
Actually, she got shot at and roughed up by AN members. (AN has a habit of disavowing relations with members once they get in trouble with The Elders of Zion.)
This woman and her daughter just "happened" to be far from home, out near the AN compound, and their car, they claim, just "happened" to backfire.
I doubt the backfiring theory very much...none of my cars has _ever_ backfired, and I've been driving since 1968. I would bet a lot of money that this woman, a leftie simp-wimp, took a shot at the compound she hated so much.
Coeur D'Alene has a lot of tourism going on, and you must not get out much. I hear a backfire at least once a week in Boston.
Most cars don't backfire, essentially it is a sign that the engine is seriously out of tune. Tim is guilty of statistics abuse, because it never happens to Tim he assumes it can never happen to anyone who is passing the local Nazi encampment. What Tim does not explain is why sending a truck full of thugs off to beat up someone carrying a loaded, recently fired weapon is a reasonable or even a sensible response.
In any case, if she was roughed up, without provocation, then those who roughed her up are solely to blame. Suing AN was merely an example of "deep pockets" and "joint and several liability" doctrines, motivated by PC sentiments. The Southern Law Poverty Center routinely uses this tactic to silence those it doesn't like.
The problem with the KKK, AN and other groups of thugs isn't what they say, it is what they do - beat people up. As for being PC, can anyone explain how an organization could be less tollerant of opposing views than the AN? Phill
Still crossposting liberally, I see. At 10:05 AM 14/09/00 -0400, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
Tim is guilty of statistics abuse, because it never happens to Tim he assumes it can never happen to anyone who is passing the local Nazi encampment.
My own differences with Tim aside, what proof do you have that Tim drives past Nazi encampments? Decry his "statistics abuse" while an equally underhanded conjecture emerges from your addled backside?
What Tim does not explain is why sending a truck full of thugs off to beat up someone carrying a loaded, recently fired weapon is a reasonable or even a sensible response.
Defending racism? Please show where the defendants in the lawsuit were shown to possess such an implement. It wasn't mentioned in this thread, nor do http://www.oregonlive.com/news/99/01/st012717.html or other, similar stories cover this little factoid. I remember reading about this lawsuit when the story first broke, this is the first I've heard that a loaded, recently fired weapon was found in the Keenan vehicle. Great Scott!!! The loaded, recently fired weapon wasn't an SKS, possibly resembling the one fired at the Keenan vehicle, was it?
As for being PC, can anyone explain how an organization could be less tollerant of opposing views than the AN?
I've heard academia could give them a good run for their money.
Reese wrote:
Still crossposting liberally, I see.
At 10:05 AM 14/09/00 -0400, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
Tim is guilty of statistics abuse, because it never happens to Tim he assumes it can never happen to anyone who is passing the local Nazi encampment.
My own differences with Tim aside, what proof do you have that Tim drives past Nazi encampments? Decry his "statistics abuse" while an equally underhanded conjecture emerges from your addled backside?
What Tim does not explain is why sending a truck full of thugs off to beat up someone carrying a loaded, recently fired weapon is a reasonable or even a sensible response.
Defending racism? Please show where the defendants in the lawsuit were shown to possess such an implement. It wasn't mentioned in this thread, nor do
I think you are misunderstanding what he wrote -- and then you further confuse the issue with this "defendants....shown to possess" statement. The AN were the defendants, they clearly did have guns. However, what I understood Phil to be saying is that the defendants story about them thinking they were being fired upon, and then chasing after the car, doesn't make a lot of sense. Would you chase after a car carrying unkown number of enemy with unkown firepower who had just done a driveby shooting with you as the target? Shoot back at them from behind a safe position, yes, and maybe chase them if you had an APC, but you'd have to be pretty stupid to run after them otherwise. And Phil isn't saying that the woman and her kid had a gun at all, but just that the AN tried to BS everyone with that story.
At 11:42 PM 9/14/2000 -0400, Harmon Seaver wrote:
Reese wrote:
Still crossposting liberally, I see.
At 10:05 AM 14/09/00 -0400, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
Tim is guilty of statistics abuse, because it never happens to Tim he assumes it can never happen to anyone who is passing the local Nazi encampment.
My own differences with Tim aside, what proof do you have that Tim drives past Nazi encampments? Decry his "statistics abuse" while an equally underhanded conjecture emerges from your addled backside?
What Tim does not explain is why sending a truck full of thugs off to beat up someone carrying a loaded, recently fired weapon is a reasonable or even a sensible response.
Defending racism? Please show where the defendants in the lawsuit were shown to possess such an implement. It wasn't mentioned in this thread, nor do
I think you are misunderstanding what he wrote -- and then you further confuse the issue with this "defendants....shown to possess" statement. The AN were the defendants,
Oops, you are correct. The AN are the defendants, the occupants of the vehicle that backfired are the plaintiffs. Brainfart.
they clearly did have guns. However, what I understood Phil to be saying is that the defendants story about them thinking they were being fired upon, and then chasing after the car, doesn't make a lot of sense. Would you chase after a car carrying unkown number of enemy with unkown firepower who had just done a driveby shooting with you as the target?
You assume they should act, think rationally, by your definition of the word.
Shoot back at them from behind a safe position, yes, and maybe chase them if you had an APC, but you'd have to be pretty stupid to run after them otherwise. And Phil isn't saying that the woman and her kid had a gun at all, but just that the AN tried to BS everyone with that story.
Aye, noted. Please take note of the US Army response to sudden machinegun fire from a bunker, and the US Marine response to it. Marines have a lower life-expectancy in the field for a damn good reason, and while I have no way of knowing what prior .mil experience any of those AN members might have, I'm not about to assume they would not go charging after a vehicle, guns blazing, should they think the occupants of that vehicle had been shooting at them.
Tim is guilty of statistics abuse, because it never happens to Tim he assumes it can never happen to anyone who is passing the local Nazi encampment.
What Tim does not explain is why sending a truck full of thugs off to beat up someone carrying a loaded, recently fired weapon is a reasonable or even a sensible response.
Generally speaking, a militant organization, be it the Marine Corps or the Aryan Nation does not put it's best and brightest on security details. They realize that yes, sometimes you *do* need to have that bunker charged, or that hill taken, and you need people who are bright enough to do that, and dumb enough not to think about it. In some cases putting yourself in front of the bullet, or charging the machine gun nest *is* the best thing to do for your cause. I'm not saying that only stupid people join these kinds of groups, but that of the people who join these groups, the stupid ones will wind up in the "bullet stopper" positions.
In any case, if she was roughed up, without provocation, then those who roughed her up are solely to blame. Suing AN was merely an example of "deep pockets" and "joint and several liability" doctrines, motivated by PC sentiments. The Southern Law Poverty Center routinely uses this tactic to silence those it doesn't like.
The problem with the KKK, AN and other groups of thugs isn't what they say, it is what they do - beat people up.
As for being PC, can anyone explain how an organization could be less tollerant of opposing views than the AN?
The AN doesn't have the majority of the mainstream media hanging on it's every word, like the Democrats (and to a lesser extent the Republicans) do. They don't pretend to be fair and honest, and then bleed you to death with a thousand little cuts (metaphorically speaking). They are pretty much nasty creatures, but in a way honest. If they don't like you, they make it very plain they don't like you. The AN is no more and no less intolerant than most other political parties. The scope of what they tolerate is smaller, but they are no more vicious and nasty to those outside their lines than most other groups. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ********************************************** Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question. -- Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural
At 10:38 AM 9/18/00 -0400, petro wrote:
I'm not saying that only stupid people join these kinds of groups, but that of the people who join these groups, the stupid ones will wind up in the "bullet stopper" positions.
"Cannon fodder" is the more common historic term.. Maxim's maxim: machineguns beat rifles.
At 02:09 PM 13/09/00 -0700, Tim May wrote:
I doubt the backfiring theory very much...none of my cars has _ever_ backfired, and I've been driving since 1968. I would bet a lot of money that this woman, a leftie simp-wimp, took a shot at the compound she hated so much.
A vehicle badly out of tune will backfire, as will a vehicle whose driver turns the motor off for a few seconds, then turns the ignition back on as the vehicle rolls down the road. This works better in vehicles with manual transmissions. unburnt fuel flushed through the exhaust system ignites at once, resulting in a very noticeable backfire-like noise. While no vehicle you've ever owned has ever backfired, you say, this does mean other vehicles are free from the phenomena. Nice ad hominem, btw.
At 03:42 PM 14/09/00 -1000, Reese wrote:
At 02:09 PM 13/09/00 -0700, Tim May wrote:
I doubt the backfiring theory very much...none of my cars has _ever_ backfired, and I've been driving since 1968. I would bet a lot of money that this woman, a leftie simp-wimp, took a shot at the compound she hated so much.
A vehicle badly out of tune will backfire, as will a vehicle whose driver turns the motor off for a few seconds, then turns the ignition back on as the vehicle rolls down the road. This works better in vehicles with manual transmissions. unburnt fuel flushed through the exhaust system ignites at once, resulting in a very noticeable backfire-like noise.
While no vehicle you've ever owned has ever backfired, you say, this does mean other vehicles are free from the phenomena.
d'oh. NOT. This does NOT mean other vehicles are free from,,,
Nice ad hominem, btw.
You still haven't put your money where your mouth is. You claim you've printed out those web pages. I don't give a rat's ass either way, however, I did see a challenge there which you've just slithered out of answering. IMHO, yes, anyone who murders a child should indeed go to jail for the rest of their lives (and the shorter and more painful those lives are the better.) However, that said, where on their page did it say that they encouraged killing kids? (Again, I've never visited, seen, nor care to, NABLA's site as I disagree with their ideas, lifestyles, etc.) But one must always distinguish between the right of free speech advocating something, and actually taking action on it. You are failing to do that. It's not about whose son or daughter it was. Indeed, that was murder and possibly rape, and it should be punished at such. This is about blaming someone's speech for that crime. The question is, did that someone, in this case a web site, incite murder and rape? You claim you've got the printouts. Well, please quote from them to prove your point. Likely you'll come up with some excuse to not do so, or ignore this request, or likely call me a defender of rapists, which I assure you I am not. I'd like to be the first in line with a hot iron to plunge in assholes of the rapists/murderers. But only if they are found guilty. Mere accusations, and guilt by association does not make those who only speak, but don't take actions guilty. It makes it "thoughtcrime" which is anathema to a free country and basic human rights. Jodi Hoffman wrote:
Lizard wrote:
Ah, the fascists rise to the bait!
Freedom of speech is a moral absolute. The words of NAMBLA are as important, and about as morally sound, as the words of Jodi Hoffman. And, IMO, about as likely to cause a murder.
Ah, the Lizard slinks to the support of child rapists and murderers. Don't sacrifice my child on the altar of the First Amendment, Liz. I'm sure if it were your son, you would feel differently.
-- ----------------------Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--------------------------- + ^ + :Surveillance cameras|Passwords are like underwear. You don't /|\ \|/ :aren't security. A |share them, you don't hang them on your/\|/\ <--*-->:camera won't stop a |monitor, or under your keyboard, you \/|\/ /|\ :masked killer, but |don't email them, or put them on a web \|/ + v + :will violate privacy|site, and you must change them very often. --------_sunder_@_sunder_._net_------- http://www.sunder.net ------------
I knew there was a reason I printed out NAMBLA's website throughout the years. Maybe I should contact this child's parents as well as their attorney. Maybe you should do the same. Maybe you really
You definitely should. A quick email from anybody on this list and your printouts will be subpoenaed. (By which side, I know not.)
are a member of NAMBLA. It certainly sounds like it. I wonder if you
Maybe you're an alien from space.
would tell the parents to their face how important you think it is to preserve the information put out by the people who helped cause their son to be murdered, rather than doing something to help prevent it from happening again.
[A veteran free speech activist in Cambridge, Mass. sent me this. Any offers of mirroring should go to the list, where I assume they'll be duly forwarded. I wonder how long the HTML files in question here would last on a Geocities/etc account. --Declan]
Did Curley's lawyers at least have the smarts to grab a snapshot of the site before getting it taken down?
participants (26)
-
!Dr. Joe Baptista -
Bill Stewart -
Carol Braddock -
David Honig -
Declan McCullagh -
Harmon Seaver -
Jay Holovacs -
Jodi Hoffman -
Kevin Elliott -
L. Sassaman -
Lizard -
Me -
Michael Clark -
Neil Johnson -
Omri Schwarz -
Omri Schwarz ---
-
petro -
Phillip Hallam-Baker -
Ray Dillinger -
Reese -
Sampo A Syreeni -
Steven Furlong -
sunder -
T. Bankson Roach -
Tim May -
Ulf Möller