Cyber Dissidents vs "Authoritarian Governments"

[OuterLimits]

http://www.rsf.org/IMAGES/moyen-orient/special_irak2.jpg

Concerned by allegations that some American companies in the Internet sector are cooperating with authoritarian governments to censor speech and imprison dissidents, and by recent revelations of the role allegedly played by Yahoo ! in the prison sentencing of a Chinese journalist, a group of 25 investment managers, research houses, foundations, and religious investors have called on Internet businesses to publicly state support for freedom of expression world wide [-ed when will podcast alley make a similar commitment ??] and agreed to monitor operations of Internet businesses in repressive regime countries.

Following Reporters Without Borders’ lead, 25 North American, European, and Australian investment funds and other organizations, who collectively represent over 21 billion dollars under management, have endorsed a joint statement in which they affirm their commitment to freedom of expression on the Internet, and in which they agree, among other things, to monitor business practices being implemented in repressive countries by Internet-sector companies.

At the press conference, the two firms that have supported Reporters Without Borders’ joint statement from the start - Boston Common Asset Management LLC and Domini Social Investments LLC, will explain why their respective institutions are committed to the principles of the declaration and the business risks that face IT sector companies that collaborate to suppress freedom of opinion and expression. They will also discuss some of the concrete implications of this statement.

For the first time in the United States, Lu Kun, the wife of Chinese cyberdissident Yang Zili, will attest to the fate awaiting dissident Internet users and website managers in her country. In May 2003, her husband was sentenced to 8 years in prison for creating an Internet website advocating democracy - a case reminiscent of the one involving Shi Tao, who received a 10 year prison sentence in April for posting data considered to be a “State secret” on an Internet website based in the US. The Chinese police managed to identify the journalist based on information provided by the Internet server hosting his e-mail account : Yahoo !

The text of the investor statement will be distributed at the press conference, together with the complete list of co-signers.

http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=15480

[OuterLimits]

And for all the candy-assed patriots and Kwishtan moralizers, note that on the world wide press freedom index the USA at #44 scores below Jamaica-mon, Namibia and El Savador.

http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=554

At the top of the Index once again are northern European countries Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Iceland, Norway and the Netherlands, where robust press freedom is firmly established. The top 10 countries are all European. New Zealand (12th), Trinidad and Tobago (12th), Benin (25th) and South Korea (34th) are the highest-ranked countries in other continents.

[OuterLimits]

Pfun Fact:

Gentle, cigar-toking dictator Fidel Castro, friendly compatriot of Che and other commie-bolshevik trash has imprisoned 24 journalists since 2003.

You won't read that in Sultzboiger's New Yawk Timez...

Source:
http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=116

[OuterLimits]

Google's policy guru, McLaughlin, caught on VIDEO:

http://blog.blogcast2005.silkclips.com/clipView?http://silkblogs.com/FindResource/D98888E3-46FD-686C-9284-3832CF98D8A4/andy_mcloughlan.mov

Note that S. Korea places ten spots higher than the USA (#44) on the press freedom index at #34.

[Andy Parnell]

You're using Reporters without Borders as your reference tool. Whilst they're not that bad, they're very biased and don't tend to cover many of the cases of authoritarianism you'll find in the West.

Politically, about the only thing I'd agree with you on is that freedom of expression is a human right and should be upheld. I might detest everything else about your movement, but on freedom of expression, we can agree.

Weird that I'd agree with a bunch of world haters (well, most things in it except perhaps one type of near mythical persons from a very small ethnic group of germanic peoples from Scandanavian descent) on even one issue. What's this world coming too when the ones in power (the 'New Right') are closer to Fidel Castro than the Right wing Libertarians and neo-nazis who seem to have adopted some of the libertarian ideas for themselves?

Anyway, there's no point getting in the BIG DEBATE with you, that would bore me silly. Just don't rely upon RSF for all your factual information on freedom of the press as they are somewhat biased in what they choose to analyse (I'm saying that despite havings some respect for them).

Andy

[OuterLimits]

Having been classified a 'hater', i.e. someone beyond the pale of open discourse for the the corporate/government/pc types, this is a topic that's forced and of course they want words that stick and frighten people. Maybe you're next. It depends on your opinions. Itz almost more interesting to see what kinds of faux-radicalism they tolerate, than the specific spectrum of material they actively supress... at least by 'western' governments.

Getting back to the interview, isn't it interesting that the first 'flavor of censorship' he mentioned had to do with National Socialist material and 'holocaust denial'?

Then he goes on to say there are 15-20 (!) flavors of censorship. He also mentions that google has no need for a 'self-censorship policy' in China as they maintain a government Firewall. He chastises the S. Koreans for being 'clumsily Confusian' in their censorship efforts. Apparently the western flavors of censorship or 'youth protection' are much slicker and more effective.

Not only that he mentions 'safe search technology'. More about this here:

GoogleSafe provides an interface to Google Safe Search that cannot be turned off, even if cookies are reset. In addition, they also have additional keyword blocking to improve the safety of search results. It is a layer that runs on top of Google Safe Search. The service is free.

Below is some text from their site (http://www.GoogleSafe.com)
describing it in more detail:

Welcome to GoogleSafe
Many users prefer not to have adult sites included in search results.
GoogleSafe returns the same search results as Google, but without adult
content mixed in them. If you find sites that contain offensive
content in your results, please send an email with the site's URL to
Google Safe Search for review. The GoogleSafe homepage is your signal
that safe internet results will be returned. This allows parents and
educators to more easily monitor things. We suggest using this tool
under adult supervision. Our philosophy is that any filtering system
can be deactivated or uninstalled if used unsupervised. Using
GoogleSafe for a search and seeing the GoogleSafe logo will help ensure
that search results do not contain offensive material on any computer
system. GoogleSafe also provides a mobile solution to safe internet
usage. You may have internet filtering software on you home or school
computer, but what happens when access is needed on an unknown
computer? :lol: We provide a solution that can be used from any computer in the world without requiring software to be installed. Adults may choose to use GoogleSafe too, since it can make searching easier without
having to deal with all the adult content pages mixed in with
legitimate searches. We have a basic version without graphics or kids'
website listings, that is more geared for adults and older kids.

A better way to search safely
GoogleSafe uses an approach that we believe is better than any other
filtering solution available. Current software based site blockers,
such as Net Nanny, SurfSafe and others, have their place, but many will
agree that they are just too restrictive. Current studies show that
only 20 percent of school libraries use them, since they restrict too
many sites and make research difficult. Many of the sites blocked are
resources that happen to contain a flagged keyword, even though the
site is relevant to a search.

Some family-safe search engines take the approach of "hand picking"
each site. AOL uses this method. A problem here is that one cannot keep
up with current sites. With over 8 billion websites it is just not
practical and greatly limits available internet resources.
Google Safe Search has one of the most advanced context based filtering
systems available. Relevant sites are presented even if they contain a
blocked keyword. For example, a site that is anti-porn will contain
references to the word "porn," but Google Safe Search will still allow
it. However, the system is not perfect and will allow many searches to
still return adult content that it misses. We felt it was the best
technology out there, but it needed some support. Enter GoogleSafe.
GoogleSafe is like a watchdog that sits on top of Google Safe Search.
The first thing the guard does is guarantee a search is safe, even if
Google advanced safe search preferences are not set, either purposely
or by accident (we recommend always having it set). Next, the
GoogleSafe guard screens the search words against our blocked list. It
does not allow a search for an adult content subject. This greatly
reduces the risk of Google Search Safe making a mistake and returning
adult content sites. Our blocked keyword list is constantly updated and uses the latest information on the most common adult terms. We also rely on user feedback and updated our list on a daily basis. The
GoogleSafe guard also uses advanced software technology to restrict
search terms that match adult keywords, but are spelled wrong (e.g., it
knows to block a search for sexxx or sexx).

We truly believe our approach is the best of both worlds. It uses
Google's context filtering to restrict viewing of adult material and
adds a layer on top of this to restrict blatant searches for adult
content. We block adult content searches and rely on Google's
technology to ensure that legitimate searches do not return adult
sites. This improves Google's filter, since we limit the search space
it has to work in, making it return much safer results. For instance,
you can type in "Porn" on Google with Search Safe mode turned on, it
will still return pages that have adult content. GoogleSafe restrict
search terms, so "porn" is just not allowed. They also allow image
searches. We also completely remove image searching abilities, since
it is almost impossible to screen pictures for content.

Google Monitoring
You quickly can monitor website search results by looking for the
GoogleSafe banner that appears at the top of every GoogleSafe search
result. If you do not see the banner, it means the search results may
not be filtered for adult content. This helps teachers and parents to
monitor things from a distance without having to look at the specific
search results.

Added Content Filtering Safety
For added safety, you can also set filtered results to always be on for
all Google.com searches in addition to GoogleSafe. Use this link to set
Google Global SafeSearch filtering. Even with Google preferences set to
filter all searches on Google, using GoogleSafe provides an additional
guarantee. The GoogleSafe logo provides assurance that only filtered
results will be returned. If Google global filtering is unset, you will
not know unless you check the Google advanced settings page before
every search. GoogleSafe searches will always be safe, even if regular
Google settings are not set to filter adult content.
GoogleSafe also removes image searching capabilities. Searches on
Google with advanced safe search preferences checked still do not
filter out most pornographic images. No filtering software today is
able to recognize and block adult content images. GoogleSafe completely
removes the ability to do an image search, but still gives you the
searching power of Google.

Search Flexibility
GoogleSafe gives you added flexibility, since adult users may choose to
not use filtering when accessing Google.com in order to return all
possible search matches (in some cases, filtering can screen out sites
that have safe material, but contain keywords that meet adult screening
criteria). Lastly, if for privacy reasons (see below) if you choose to
disable browser cookies, you will not be able to configure Google to
filter content. GoogleSafe will still allow you to filter content and
does not rely on browser cookies.

GoogleSafe allows for Additional Privacy
Some internet users prefer to use the internet with cookies disabled,
or use a browser that does not support cookies. Google relies on
cookies to set safe searching as a preference. Anytime you land on a
Google page, you get a Google cookie if you don't already have one.
Your Internet IP address, the time and date, your search terms, and
your browser configurations are recorded by Google. We truly believe
that Google just uses the data for internal marketing and does not
disclose it to other parties. However, some people still prefer to keep
things private by disabling cookies in their browser. GoogleSafe
provides a gateway to safe search results without relying on cookies.

Business Solutions
GoogleSafe also has its place in the corporate world. Some companies
choose to limit search results that employees have access to during
business hours. On an intranet, a company can block access to all
search engine sites except GoogleSafe (basic version). This will
guarantee filtered results for all employees. Some may feel that it is
adequate to just use Google with Safe Searching preferences set to
high. However, this puts a dependency on each individual computer. All
it takes is a clearing of browser cookies, which is something that an
individual might do on a daily basis (either intentionally or by
mistake), and Google resets to non-filtered results. Installing content
blocking software is most likely going to be too restrictive. We offer
a great solution. In addition, it is completely free and powered by the
best search engine in the world. You also get our keyword filter guard
to significantly improve the safety results of Google's Safe Search
technology. Need a custom solution? A company branded interface?
Limited access based on IP range? We can provide it. Just contact us
with your specific request. We also have GoogleSafe ad free versions
that are subscription based.

[Andy Parnell]

You've got to admit though, you lot are pretty scary to the rest of humanity...you talk as though you want freedom but if you're anything like the Nazis were, you'd be censoring 90% of the stuff on the net and burning any book or art you didn't agree with. Don't you think its a little hypocritical to have a go at those Neo-Cons running google for doing what you'd only do yourselves if you lot were in power?

Not saying I agree with google, after all,they're all capitalists who wish to control your mind, but then so were the Nazis (State Capitalists as they're known)...

[OuterLimits]

You've got to admit though, you lot are pretty scary to the rest of humanity...you talk as though you want freedom but if you're anything like the Nazis were, you'd be censoring 90% of the stuff on the net and burning any book or art you didn't agree with. Don't you think its a little hypocritical to have a go at those Neo-Cons running google for doing what you'd only do yourselves if you lot were in power?

Not saying I agree with google, after all,they're all capitalists who wish to control your mind, but then so were the Nazis (State Capitalists as they're known)...Andy, you are entitled to your opinion about 'us' and the (over 50 year old and now quite non-existent) National Socialists -- however ill-informed you may be. You repeat the typical libertarian clichés. There is a chance you are wrong. Perhaps you are wrong about quite a number of things. On the other hand, there is no point denying that we would do things differently. It's up to you to decide if these systematic changes would be better for you or not. The current system has itz benefits -- for a price. Maybe it's enough for you -- no need to fault us for opting out.

The thing that gets me is the cheating... you know deep-sixing incriminating evidence, historical facts, relevant information, etc. perhaps if you had the same access to information, we'd agree on more issues than you might care to admit... I suppose the only way you'll find out is by reading our website, listening to our podcast, refuting our facts etc. ... cheers

[Andy Parnell]

Maybe, I certainly don't agree with the ultra right but then, I'm an ultra left Surrealist so that's most likely always going to be the case. Many of my friends (fellow Surrealists some still alive) had to flee the Nazis, Franko and Mussolinni for being Surrealists (they were on Hilter's death list of 'degenerate artists'). Ironically, some of them were harassed and put on trial for being 'reds under the beds' in the 50s by the US government (the Neo-conservatives) depsite having fought facists every step of the way in places like the Spanish civil war in the 30s.

Our current generation of our movement still goes strong. I imagine that's the same your end of the political spectrum. Many of these movements have heritage that goes back to the early 1900s, why would any of them give up that heritage and ideology? I don't think a tiger changes its stripes and you're movement is no exception.

So yes, I agree with you that the current Capitalists are a bunch of evil no-gooders who wish to take away our rights of free speech but then, so would the White Power crowd to anyone they didn't agree with.

Unless of course, you're all suddenly White Power ilbertarians instead...now THAT would be ironic! Anyway, keep up the good fight against the system as every bit helps end the current regime.

Back to the issue at hand, do you know if many web browsers are also building in this censorship technology? One things for sure, no podcaster of whatever belief system wants that kind of censorship going down because before long, podcasting as a medium is likely to come under attack by the big mega corporations who want control of the media. They are likely to start this process against our technology bit by bit no doubt and we'll need to be ready for keeping control of our own medium.

Andy

[OuterLimits]

French TV boss admits censoring riot coverage

Claire Cozens in Amsterdam
Thursday November 10, 2005

One of France's leading TV news executives has admitted censoring his coverage of the riots in the country for fear of encouraging support for far-right politicians.

"You have to think about what you're broadcasting," he said.

Mr Dassier denied he was guilty of "complicity" with the French authorities, which this week invoked draconian laws last passed during the country's war with Algeria 50 years ago.

French broadcasters have faced criticism for their lack of coverage of the country's worst civil unrest in decades. Public television station France 3 has stopped broadcasting the numbers of torched cars while other TV stations are considering following suit.



http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1639538,00.html

[vox_monitor]

ah, a rabblerouser eh?

Rousing rabbles are you, eh?

good, good.

[OuterLimits]

ah, a rabblerouser eh?

Rousing rabbles are you, eh?

good, good.What could we do Vux? Someone left the camera on:

mms://wm.gannett.speedera.net/wm.gannett/kare/2005November/111205_riotvideo_kare.wmv?213436524624

Next time we'll be sure to turn it off before anything interesting happens. You have to think about what you're broadcasting. I'm sure you give content the extra thought it deserves....

[SkepticGuy]

The thing that gets me is the cheating... you know deep-sixing incriminating evidence, historical facts, relevant information, etc.
A biased standpoint (liberal, conservative, libertarian, hate-mongering-lunatics) will always a different spin on these "conspiratorial" topics throughout history. In the end, the only real tactics proven to have measurable results are dialogue, tolerance, and understanding.

I suppose the only way you'll find out is by reading our website, listening to our podcast, refuting our facts etc. ... cheers
Been there done that. Your Stormfront allies attempted to organize an infiltration of our site on two different occasions. It was quite a mess for a while, lots of ignorance being slopped all over unrelated topics as one specific group of people were touted as the root of all of history's problems. -bleh-

I suppose it's not a surprise that these malformed opinions are festering in a society that allows religion to be taught as science (intelligent design).

But it is a surprise that it's being tolerated here in a privately owned online community.

[OuterLimits]

America's most popular Internet companies are helping China crack down on free speech.

About once a month executives from China's Internet news sites gather in a small meeting room on the first floor of Beijing's Information Office, where a government official tells them what not to report. China's Internet giants all send representatives, as does the China branch of one of America's best known icons: Yahoo. The visitors take notes and ask few questions.

On especially sensitive days, the speaker is the office's director, Wang Hui, a woman whom an attendee of the meetings describes as pleasant and informal, with her hair cut short in the classic style of a Chinese bureaucrat. "Her demeanor is friendly," says the attendee, who requested anonymity because describing the meetings could lead to arrest. "We have known each other for a long time, and our companies are very cooperative."

The meetings are part of a system of Internet censorship that combines technological filters, human monitors and threats of detention to systematically suppress political speech.

To conduct business in China, popular Internet companies Yahoo, Microsoft and Google have had to accommodate a regime that forbids free speech, bars political parties and jails journalists. This means filtering searches on their sites, censoring news and providing evidence in the trials of political dissidents -- or risk having their sites blocked in China. Forced to choose between ignoring the world's hottest market or implicitly endorsing a system of censorship that a recent Harvard study called "the most sophisticated effort of its kind in the world," the companies have decided to cooperate.

The law judges the seriousness of the offense not on a site's content but on its popularity. A Web master receiving more than 250,000 visitors might face life imprisonment.

The bulk of Chinese censorship is self-censorship. But the government also relies on the private sector to police the Internet. Fang Xingdong, who runs Bokee, China's largest blog platform, says his company uses a list of keywords to catch illicit postings. Fang declined to list his company's keywords, but a Chinese hack of another tech company's list found 1,041 words ranging from "corruption," "democracy" and "insurrection" to "high-ranking cadre's children," "Tibetan Independence" and the names of China's leaders.

When news breaks, the censors control it by updating the keyword filters. According to the attendee of the meetings, when Jiao Guo Biao, a professor at Beijing University, was fired for denouncing censorship by the Propaganda Ministry, the government ordered that both Jiao's name and "Propaganda Ministry" be blocked.

Google, which filters anti-Jew and pro-White sites from its French and German versions to avoid running afoul of local laws, has said it excludes censored sites as a service to the governments.

http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2005/12/16/censorship/index_np.html

[tabulator32]

Hey! Where are we going? And why are we in this hand-basket?!

I got up this morning and heard on the news...

Troops are upset because the newly elected Iraqi president just banned Western (meaning "American") music from being broadcast in Iraq.

"Intelligent Design" was banned from the classrooms.

This is truly the information age and we will be literally escorted into the next era when the information age is officially proclaimed dead by the continuous mind-numbing banning and censorship of everything that is officially procalimed evil. Some of the laws created o protect ourselves from ourselves only invite weakened, uninformed citizens.

Whether you like or dis-like rock music, whether you approve or dis-approve of Intelligent Design...is immaterial. You should have the choice, shouldn't you?

[tabulator32]

Hey!! Somebody just edited my post up above!

They took out all the other stuff I said!

Hold on...there's some guys in uniform knocking on my door with dogs and guns.

(Get the idea?)

[loganrapp]

Oh noes!!!11 We're number 44?!

Call a waahmbulance. Our press is censored because the market wants a censored press. Deal with it. Maybe when people aren't too chicken to see dead bodies in the street, we'll have a more open press.

Newspeople want dollars. They get them by pleasing their public. The public does not want to see certain things, so newspeople desensitize their news in order to please said public.

The only time the government does anything is when people like Judith Miller want to make a name for themselves and stir up trouble and break the law. Every journalist worth their stripes I've spoken to have zero - zero sympathy toward Miller, or animosity toward the government for doing what they did.

In theory, I agree over the freedom of the press. But that appears to be as close as it comes to agreement.

[tabulator32]

Oh noes!!!11 We're number 44?!

Call a waahmbulance. Our press is censored because the market wants a censored press. Deal with it.

Just for the record, for the most part, the OP wasn't referring to "our" press.

[loganrapp]

Knee-jerk reaction, basically.

Though I still say the post stands.

[OuterLimits]

http://www.drexel.edu/univrel/digest/archive/051404/prop.jpg

When's the AP going to start outsourcing? Propaganda "made in (red) China" has to be a lot cheeeaaper...

[OuterLimits]

OY VEH,

Find out what everybody's talking about in Belgium:

I'm Flemish and I hear about it first on Slashdot. Do you really think this is news? For nerds or other human spieces?

The rant about VB has gone on now for decades, quite frankly we're al fed up about it. Actually, the fine will earn VB those extra few votes they need to gain executive power. The other Flemish politicians are shooting themselves constantly in the foot. And the media (now including Slashdot) are giving them a helping hand!

BTW: I never voted VB, yet

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/26/2142242&from=rss

[OuterLimits]

2005: The year the US government undermined the internet

2005 in review 2005 will be forever seen as the year in which the US government managed to keep unilateral control of the internet, despite widespread opposition by the rest of the world.



At that meeting, consciously and for the first time, ICANN used a US government-provided reason to turn over Kazakhstan's internet ownership to a government owned and run association without requiring consent from the existing owners. The previous owners, KazNIC, had been created from the country's Internet community.

ICANN then immediately used that "precedent" to hand ownership of Iraq's internet over to another government-run body, without accounting for any objections that the existing owners might have.

Previously it had always been the case that ICANN would take no action (and only ICANN, through IANA, can actually change ownership of a ccTLD) unless both sides were in complete agreement. Now, ICANN had set itself up as the de facto world authority on who should run different parts of the Internet.

Nuclear option

The Iraq situation is more complicated than briefly outlined above (of which more later), but in a little under two hours, the ICANN Board set aside a process that had held since the very earliest days of the Internet. Not only that but it provided governments with instant, unassailable control over what happens under their designated area of the internet.

If a company running a country code top-level domain refuses to agree to hand over any information or data held by it to the government, either legally, illegally or extra-legally, secretly or not, the government can simply replace the company with a government-run agency. If it refuses to shut down a website, or to redirect it elsewhere, the government can simply replace it with a government-run agency.

It is a nuclear option, but neverthless a nuclear option that didn't exist prior to July. It will also never have to be used - the threat of its use will see any company wanting to keep hold of its livelihood agree to government demands.

Of course this would never happen. Except it has already. Within months of the government-run "Association of Kazakh IT Companies" getting control of Kazakhstan's internet domain, it shut down the website of jewish comic Sacha Baron Cohen (best known as Ali G). The site at www.borat.kz featured another of Cohen's comic creations, Borat Sagdiyev, a Kazakh journalist. It was removed from the Internet.

ICANN and IANA had already decided to adjust vital wording in any ccTLD redelegation process to "address concerns". Agreement between a ccTLD operator and ICANN was now "desirable but not necessary to finalise a redelegation", they had agreed.

Combining this loosening of existing operators' powers with the US principle that strengthened government oversight, ICANN switched control of the internet in one fell swoop to governments. And, of course, it puts itself in the role of judge. This is the phrase that has since appeared in every redelegation following the July meeting: "ICANN has reviewed the request, and has determined that the proposed redelegation would be in the best interests of the local and global Internet communities."

It is with this loose and ambiguous justification - arrived at, you should note, without any publicly available information or debate whatsoever - that ICANN has set itself up as the internet's Supreme Court. And given governments effective control of the internet.

Legal semantics

ICANN's efforts to turn itself into the Internet's government in this area stretch the phrase "redelegation" itself. Despite repeated requests by ccTLD owners themselves, it is ICANN that insists on calling the process of changing the name of the administrative or technical owners of a particular ccTLD "delegation".

The operators themselves prefer the terms "change of manager", "change of technical contact" and, in the case of more technical changes "change of name servers".

The advantage of the term "delegation" is that it has legal connotations. If you are delegating something, it automatically implies that the delegator has some form of legal authority over the delegee. This is something that most country code managers would strongly disagree with in the case of ICANN.
The case of Iraq

Why did the US government allow this sleight-of-hand from an organisation that it has overall control over? Simple: Iraq.

When the US government took over Afghanistan in 2001, it was fortunate in that the current ccTLD owner was killed during bombing of Kabul. It simple forged the man's signature on a piece of paper handing over control to the US-created authority and the job was done.

Control of Iraq's domain was far more complicated however. The .iq domain was registered instead to two brothers living in the US. The Elashi brothers and other members of their family at the time were also in US jail awaiting trial for funding terrorists - which in the end amounted to shipping computer parts to Libya and Syria and for which they all received hefty sentences.

The US was keen to turn over Iraq's internet over the US-run administration but the whole process was political dynamite. Head of the temporary government, Paul Bremer, wrote to ICANN head Paul Twomey requesting ownership of .iq, but Twomey had to say it wasn't possible because the rules dictated that the Elashi brothers agree - something that was pretty unlikely. We only found out about that letter a year later however, and the letter does not appear on ICANN's website.

The situation infuriated the US administration which immediately sought to change how things were done. At the same time however, the US government could not be seen to be demanding that the .iq domain be handed over to whoever it said, because it would undermine its very position at the head of the Internet. It was also inevitable that any such move would attract media attention and criticism.

And so a method was devised by Washington and ICANN to ensure that the rules could be bent. And so they have been. As a result no one single soul is better off, and governments have been given control over the internet by the backdoor. Now you know.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/29/us_undermines_internet/page3.html

[OuterLimits]

Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime.

It's no joke. Last Thursday, President Bush signed into law a prohibition on posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail messages without disclosing your true identity.

In other words, it's OK to flame someone on a mailing list or in a blog as long as you do it under your real name. Thank Congress for small favors, I guess.

This ridiculous prohibition, which would likely imperil much of Usenet, is buried in the so-called Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act. Criminal penalties include stiff fines and two years in prison.

"The use of the word 'annoy' is particularly problematic," says Marv Johnson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "What's annoying to one person may not be annoying to someone else."
It's illegal to annoy

A new federal law states that when you annoy someone on the Internet, you must disclose your identity. Here's the relevant language.

"Whoever...utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet... without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person...who receives the communications...shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

Buried deep in the new law is Sec. 113, an innocuously titled bit called "Preventing Cyberstalking." It rewrites existing telephone harassment law to prohibit anyone from using the Internet "without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy."

To grease the rails for this idea, Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, and the section's other sponsors slipped it into an unrelated, must-pass bill to fund the Department of Justice. The plan: to make it politically infeasible for politicians to oppose the measure.

The tactic worked. The bill cleared the House of Representatives by voice vote, and the Senate unanimously approved it Dec. 16.

There's an interesting side note. An earlier version that the House approved in September had radically different wording. It was reasonable by comparison, and criminalized only using an "interactive computer service" to cause someone "substantial emotional harm."

That kind of prohibition might make sense. But why should merely annoying someone be illegal?

There are perfectly legitimate reasons to set up a Web site or write something incendiary without telling everyone exactly who you are.

Think about it: A woman fired by a manager who demanded sexual favors wants to blog about it without divulging her full name. An aspiring pundit hopes to set up the next Suck.com. A frustrated citizen wants to send e-mail describing corruption in local government without worrying about reprisals.

In each of those three cases, someone's probably going to be annoyed. That's enough to make the action a crime. (The Justice Department won't file charges in every case, of course, but trusting prosecutorial discretion is hardly reassuring.)

Clinton Fein, a San Francisco resident who runs the Annoy.com site, says a feature permitting visitors to send obnoxious and profane postcards through e-mail could be imperiled.

"Who decides what's annoying? That's the ultimate question," Fein said. He added: "If you send an annoying message via the United States Post Office, do you have to reveal your identity?"

Fein once sued to overturn part of the Communications Decency Act that outlawed transmitting indecent material "with intent to annoy." But the courts ruled the law applied only to obscene material, so Annoy.com didn't have to worry.

"I'm certainly not going to close the site down," Fein said on Friday. "I would fight it on First Amendment grounds."

He's right. Our esteemed politicians can't seem to grasp this simple point, but the First Amendment protects our right to write something that annoys someone else.

It even shields our right to do it anonymously. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas defended this principle magnificently in a 1995 case involving an Ohio woman who was punished for distributing anonymous political pamphlets.

If President Bush truly believed in the principle of limited government (it is in his official bio), he'd realize that the law he signed cannot be squared with the Constitution he swore to uphold.

And then he'd repeat what President Clinton did a decade ago when he felt compelled to sign a massive telecommunications law. Clinton realized that the section of the law punishing abortion-related material on the Internet was unconstitutional, and he directed the Justice Department not to enforce it.

Bush has the chance to show his respect for what he calls Americans' personal freedoms. Now we'll see if the president rises to the occasion.

http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance%2C+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html?tag=fd_carsl

[OuterLimits]

Appeals Court Dismisses Yahoo Free Speech Lawsuit

POSTED: 3:12 pm PST January 12, 2006
UPDATED: 3:15 pm PST January 12, 2006

SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal appeals court in San Francisco Thursday dismissed a free speech lawsuit filed by Yahoo Inc. against two French human rights groups concerned about French citizens' access to Nazi materials on Yahoo Internet sites.

Sunnyvale-based Yahoo had sought in the five-year-old lawsuit to win a pre-emptive order from a federal judge in San Jose preventing the two groups from seeking to enforce a French court order in U.S. courts.

The two groups, the Union of Jewish Students of France and the League Against Racism and Anti-Semitism, had never sought to enforce the order in a U.S. court and argued that U.S. courts shouldn't get involved in the case.

An 11-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Yahoo's lawsuit by a narrow 6-5 vote for two different reasons.

Three judges in the majority voted for dismissal on the ground the case wasn't ready to be considered by a U.S. court. Three other judges approved dismissing the lawsuit on the ground that U.S. courts shouldn't have jurisdiction over the two groups.

Randol Schoenberg, a lawyer for the French human rights groups, said his clients were pleased with the ruling.

Schoenberg said, "They got what they wanted from the French court -- a French court order and a change of Yahoo's procedures. They got rid of most of the offending Internet sites."

Representatives of Yahoo were not immediately available for comment on whether they planned to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

A French law bans the exhibition of Nazi propaganda for sale and prohibits French citizens from buying or possessing such material.

In 2000, the two French groups won a French court order requiring Yahoo to block access by residents of France to Nazi-related messages and images on Yahoo's French subsidiary or on Yahoo's American Web site.

The French subsidiary complied with the law and Yahoo voluntarily banned most of what it deemed to be hate-related artifacts, including most Nazi items, from its American site.

But the company sought in its lawsuit to be protected from being required by U.S. courts in the future to remove all Nazi messages, arguing that such an order would violate its constitutional free speech rights.

http://www.nbc11.com/technology/6035465/detail.html

[ElNacho]

dude

a little thing many learn in elementary school can be very useful. it's called summarizing.

[OuterLimits]

Beijing's New Enforcer: Microsoft

* Sign In to E-Mail This
* Printer-Friendly
* Save Article

Published: January 17, 2006

Microsoft has silenced a well-known blogger in China for committing journalism. At the Chinese government's request, the company closed the blog of Zhao Jing on Dec. 30 after he criticized the government's firing of editors at a progressive newspaper. Microsoft, which also acknowledges that its MSN Internet portal in China censors searches and blogs, is far from alone. Recently Yahoo admitted that it had helped China sentence a dissident to 10 years in prison by identifying him as the sender of a banned e-mail message.

Even as Internet use explodes in China, Beijing is cracking down on free expression, and Western technology firms are leaping to help. The companies block access to political Web sites, censor content, provide filtering equipment to the government and snitch on users. Companies argue that they must follow local laws, but they are also eager to ingratiate themselves with a government that controls access to the Chinese market.

Such obvious disregard for users' privacy and ethical standards may make it easier to do business in China, but it also aids a repressive regime. Some in the American Congress are talking about holding hearings. Microsoft has responded to criticism by saying, "We think it's better to be there with our services than not be there." This is a false choice. China needs Internet companies as much as they need China.

A decade ago, consumers began to rebel against the sweatshop practices of Western manufacturers that made clothes and toys in China and elsewhere. The smart businesses cleaned up. They formed associations to adopt codes of good labor practices and set up independent monitoring.

Reporters Without Borders, a group advocating press freedom, recommends that Internet companies also adopt a good conduct code, pledging not to filter out words like "democracy" and "human rights" from search engines and maintaining their e-mail and Internet servers outside China.

Western businesses have always overestimated the price of defending human rights in China. Some have done it effectively - privately and respectfully - and paid no cost. But the beauty of such an industrywide code of conduct for Internet companies is that it would put no company at a disadvantage.

Western technology companies could have a powerful case if they acted as a group in telling China that they are under tremendous consumer and political pressure to stick up for free expression.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/17/opinion/17tue2.html?ex=1295154000&en=968cd35a2e88378a&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

[smcminn]

dude

a little thing many learn in elementary school can be very useful. it's called summarizing.

Agreed. I teach my students the very same idea.

. . . . . . .

Have any of you been to China? I don't mean visiting for a vacation. I mean living there for a long period. The West's coverage of China (and much of Asia) is through its own perspective, as is the press's view in China of the West.

Don't knock a place until you've experienced it first hand. The media (newspapers, tv, radio, podcasting, blogs) is a medium conveying stories told by third parties who work for companies. Of course you will never get the whole picture.

Education is the key. Critical thinking is another. And seeing beyond our own circles would help.

BTW: is this still about podcasting?

[ElNacho]

cod what thing?

[OuterLimits]

The officer ran with me to the elevators yelling at everyone to move out of the way. When we got to the elevators, he cuffed me and took me outside to await a squad car. On the way out, someone behind me said, "That's Cindy Sheehan." At which point the officer who arrested me said: "Take these steps slowly." I said, "You didn't care about being careful when you were dragging me up the other steps." He said, "That's because you were protesting." Wow, I get hauled out of the People's House because I was, "Protesting."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/sheehan/sheehan27.html

[OuterLimits]

[Why is 'denying' a supposed 'truth' deemed a 'crime' worthy of 3 years in prison?]

VIENNA (Reuters) - British historian David Irving was sentenced to three years in prison for denying the Holocaust 17 years ago, an Austrian court ruled on Monday.

He was sentenced by a court of eight lay jurors and three judges in a case based on remarks he made in a 1989 interview and in speeches when he visited Austria, where denying the Nazi genocide on Jews is a crime.

Irving, who had argued in court that he had denied the Holocaust at the time but had since changed his views, said he would appeal the ruling.

"I'm very shocked," Irving said when he was leaving the court room. His lawyer said that he had already lodged an appeal. The prosecutor declined to comment before he had read the full verdict.

A sentence of three years cannot be suspended on parole in Austria, meaning Irving, who was arrested in Austria in November, would have to stay in prison if the ruling was confirmed by a higher court.

http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-02-20T180313Z_01_L20331829_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-AUSTRIA-IRVING-COL.XML&archived=False

More here:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/673B08C4-547A-467A-966F-F235268E2727.htm

[OuterLimits]

Civil Rights/Human Rights
Prison Sentence for Irving is Outrageous
Feb 22, 2006

A court in Austria today sentenced British historian David Irving to three years in prison for a 16-year-old violation of that country’s “Holocaust denial” law.

This sentence is an outrage. Punishing someone for peacefully expressing an opinion about history is a step backwards to the legal standards of the Middle Ages.

The sentence points up a blatant double standard that prevails in Austria, France, Germany, Switzerland and some other European countries that punish anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy about the Holocaust.

While these countries defend, in the name of free speech, the right of cartoonists and writers to mock and insult the religious sensibilities of Muslims and Christians, they deny that same right to anyone who challenges the official Holocaust historiography.

Irving's three-year sentence is particularly grotesque because it is for a “thought crime” committed 16 years ago. For most crimes committed that long ago, a statute of limitations would have prevented punishment. Irving would not have been punished if, for example, he had stolen a car 16 years ago.

Irving's case is by no means unique. The long list of those who have been fined, imprisoned, or forced into exile for “denying the Holocaust” includes Robert Faurisson and Roger Garaudy in France, Siegfried Verbeke in Belgium, Juergen Graf and Gaston-Armand Amaudruz in Switzerland, and Guenter Deckert, Hans Schmidt and Fredrick Toben in Germany.

In Germany the trial of “Holocaust denier” Ernst Zundel is still continuing. Another German citizen, Germar Rudolf, similarly faces years of imprisonment there for “denying the Holocaust.”

“Holocaust denial” laws violate ancient and universal standards of justice. If the principle of freedom of speech means anything, it means the right to express disagreeable views, particularly about history.

“Holocaust denial” laws are inherently unjust because they are selective and one-sided. They prohibit dissent about only one chapter of history. Similar laws criminalizing dissent about other chapters of history would universally be considered outrageous.

“Holocaust denial” laws inhibit robust and unfettered discussion about an emotion-laden and highly politicized chapter of history. They underscore the quasi-religious status that the Holocaust story has attained in western Europe and the United States.

With each passing year, “Holocaust denial” laws will be regarded as ever more bizarre and embarrassing. It is difficult to imagine that they will still be in place anywhere ten years from now.

http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_21200.shtml

[OuterLimits]

'If the Austrians Want a Fight, They'll Get It'
V-News Staff

Remarkable interview with heretic

David Irving has given a remarkable telephone interview to Britain's Channel 4 News, recorded one day after his conviction for heresy. In the interview Irving roundly castigates Austria as a land- and mind-locked little nation with little understanding of the wider world. According to Irving, the judge who sentenced him to a draconian three years in prison even stated surprise that people as far removed as New Zealand had contributed to the six hundred letters the judge received on Irving's behalf. This goes to show how little the judge understood of Irving's reach and influence. Irving also says that there was considerable "political pressure" on the court, which will surprise no-one. He also makes an obvious point, which the Austrian government will find especially stinging: the Austrian regime is behaving exactly as we are told the Nazis would have acted towards those who question the official party line. Irving also says that he hopes pressure is maintained against the Austrian regime.

Despite his conviction Irving is still being held as a "remand" prisoner, which means that he is confined to his cell for up to twenty-three and a half hours each day. He is permitted exercise periodically amongst other prisoners, including murderers, who are shocked that he is jailed for merely speaking.

Irving says that he will appeal to the Austrian higher courts and also to the European Court of Human Rights.

In the midst of mysterious whispering the Channel 4 interviewer repeatedly attempts to get David Irving to denounce "far right groups" which are "hailing him as a hero." Irving does not take the bait. He has already written 1000 pages of his memoirs and is working on another volume of his Churchill material.

MP3 JAILHOUSE INTERVIEW:
http://www.channel4.com/news/media/2006/02/week_4/22_irving_interview.mp3

[Steve Pinder]

[Why is 'denying' a supposed 'truth' deemed a 'crime' worthy of 3 years in prison?]

VIENNA (Reuters) - British historian David Irving was sentenced to three years in prison for denying the Holocaust 17 years ago, an Austrian court ruled on Monday.

Because, A historian that has an agenda to re-right history, intentionally, in a false way, has no business writing history. That has been the ageneda of a lot of people that don't like Jews. ( I'm putting that as nicely as I can )

6,000,000 is a number that was bragged about. Why not now? I guess it's a little harder to sweep that under the rug.

What happend when you run out of things to be angry at?

What whould happen if you got your wish and all these people went away forever.

Your group would turn on themselves,

You don't have a desire to change anything. That's not what drives you. It's the need to hate something that drives you.

It's the need to justify the hate you feel for yourself, by getting others to hate you too. If you had the eyes to see this in the mirror, you would know what I'm talking about.

You have been so deceived.

Do those people that you try to impress with your show or these post, really care about you. They'd step on you in a heartbeat to save their own back-side.

It's impossible to truly hate one race and love another. To truly love, is to have an understanding of grace and mercy. It's a decision, and that feeds the emotion.

Many people have tried to deny that the Holocaust ever happened.
But why?
It's because the truth scares people, including you.


Steve Pinder
www.karatekast.com

[ElNacho]

a "supposed" truth? wait wait wait hold up, hold up. you don't believe the holocaust happened?

[OuterLimits]

KEN LIVINGSTONE was considering a High Court appeal last night after receiving a four-week suspension from his job as the Mayor of London for likening a Jewish reporter to a "kapo" or a concentration camp guard of jewish extraction.


Mr Livingstone also faces £80,000 costs after the decision by the Adjudication Panel for England after his failure to apologise for the insult a year ago.


The three-man body unanimously ruled that Mr Livingstone had been “unnecessarily insensitive and offensive” to Oliver Finegold, a journalist at the London Evening Standard.


Mr Livingstone said: “This decision strikes at the heart of democracy. Elected politicians should only be able to be removed by the voters or for breaking the law. Three members of a body that no one has ever elected should not be allowed to overturn the votes of millions of Londoners.


“I will meet with my legal representatives early next week and will then make a statement about whether I will be exercising my right of challenge.”


Mr Livingstone was leaving a reception at City Hall when he was approached by the reporter. When Mr Finegold said he was from the Evening Standard, Mr Livingstone said: “What did you do before? Were you a German war criminal?” Mr Finegold replied: “No, I’m Jewish. I wasn’t a German war criminal . . . I’m actually quite offended by that.”


Mr Livingstone added: “Well you might be, but actually you are just like a kapo. You’re just doing it ’cause you’re paid to, aren’t you? . . . Your paper is a load of scumbags.”


The Board of Deputies of British Jews complained, but the mayor refused to withdraw his remarks.


David Laverick, chairman of the Adjudication Panel, said: “The case tribunal is concerned that the mayor does seem to have failed, from the outset of this case, to have appreciated that his conduct was unacceptable, was a breach of [the Greater London Authority code of conduct] and did damage to the reputation of his office. His representative is quite right in saying . . . that matters should not have got as far as this, but it is the mayor who must take responsibility.”


Jon Benjamin, of the Board of Deputies, said: “The message that one would hope the mayor would take away from this is that he is not the sole arbiter of standards in public life and that an elected official can nevertheless go beyond what is acceptable and can offend people. The right and proper thing to do, and no one would have criticised him had he have done this, would be to make amends and make a proper apology.”


Mr Livingstone’s antipathy towards the Evening Standard, which has campaigned solidly against his mayoralty, has festered for years. To him, it was a justified counter-attack.


An investigation of this kind would be banned under a change in the law proposed by ministers. Phil Woolas, the Local Government Minister, said that public officials should not be investigated if they had not broken the law.
Mr Livingstone was defended by a range of politicians at City Hall, including the Greens and Respect. The Labour MP Diane Abbott said: “Londoners will be shocked and appalled that their mayor can be removed by three unelected members of a quango that nobody has heard of and that is not accountable to anybody.”


If the suspension is carried out as planned from March 1, Nicky Gavron, the deputy mayor, will take over.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2057545,00.html

[ElNacho]

ahduno whatever it is you pasted, can you like, talk to me or r u just gonna copy more articles and stuff...

[OuterLimits]

ahduno whatever it is you pasted, can you like, talk to me or r u just gonna copy more articles and stuff...Not to be rude, but you (and Steve) are welcome to send me PMs with personal inquiries/questions. I'd like to keep this thread as 'on topic' as possible.

Cheers,
8)

[SteveRunner]

Trying to stay "on topic" as it were, I'm fascinated (as a child is fascinated with a particularly gruesome insect) by the apparent "genius" of “Outer Limits” (make no mistake about it, I'm being facetious…”Outer Limits” rants here have long gone from comically amusing to blatantly hateful, lacking in logic and devoid of an open mind) that caused him/her to post this topic here.

Put more succinctly: What I’d really like to know is this:

Why exactly is this particular topic being presented in the “PodCaster Discussion” section of this forum? What does “cyber dissidents vs. Authoritarian Governments” have to do, even tangentially, with a discussion about PodCasting?

Would you not agree that the topic would best be categorized within the “Non-PodCasting Discussions” section under “Everything Else”?

What brilliant and superior thinking led “Outer Limits” to post her/his selection of opinionated, pompous, one sided news clippings in this section of the PCA forum?

In all honesty, was this section chosen because “Outer Limits” sought an audience of any kind? Was “Outer Limits” desperate to share his/her recent experience with the Thesaurus, by incorporating “big words” to stress her/his unique minority opinion?

Inquiring, tolerant and larger minds want to know.

[monkey_one]

I agree free speech is essential for a free society and I believe in that firmly even if it means sharing my air with hypocrits like you .....outerlimits!!!

[SteveRunner]

Why is this topic being presented in the “PodCaster Discussion” section of this forum?

[Steve Pinder]

The reason it's here, is because he/she will post anywhere they are aloud to.

to get their opinion read.


Steve Pinder
www.karatekast.com

[WyethDigital]

dude

a little thing many learn in elementary school can be very useful. it's called summarizing.

That may be pointless. After all, the guy's got a Manifesto to write, and apperantly not enough room on his own site.

Basically, some crackpot takes a legitimate story and warps it for his own causes. Not many people will argue that Google's own Mission statement of "Don't be evil" has just been flushed down the toilet). But he leaves out the crimes of his own forebears (committed by the White Supramacy movement both here and abroad), perhaps in the hope that his stance will somehow become more legitimate. It won't.

And don't be fooled. This knucklehead is only about Freedom of the Press when it makes non-whites look bad, and his organization look good. Do movements and groups change? Sure. Everything does. His group has gone from public lynchings to race baiting. In his mind, nobody gets hung by their neck in the town square, but if they can start a good ol' riot and get some black heads busted by the cops, it's all the same to him. Sick MF!

But, if the blowhard wants to get on his soapbox, that's his right. I consider freedom of speech an inalienable human right. It's just too bad better things don't come out of our mouths when we choose to excercise it.


Eric

[WyethDigital]

Whether you like or dis-like rock music, whether you approve or dis-approve of Intelligent Design...is immaterial. You should have the choice, shouldn't you?

Well, to generally go off topic here, Intelligent Design versus Evolution isn't a choice. Academically, they are two seperate topics that deserve discussion in their own curricullum, not a shared one. The problem schools have with intelligent design is that the folks pushing it want it in science classes (it should fall under philosophy). Science deserves robust discussions about the workings of the laws of physics, evolution, astronomy, etc. The problem with ID, is that it's hypothesis does not lend itself to the scientific methodologies that can prove or disprove theories. Faith and religion just don't work that way. What if Newton had merely decided it was God's Will that caused the Apple to fall? Or Ben Franklin to leave lightning amongst the clouds?

Many scientists and church leaders, including the Vatican, have said that the teaching of science (specifically, evolution) does not preclude religious teachings, and that science should be taught seperately from religion. Einstein, in fact, was a very spiritual man. Believe it or not, so was Darwin. But they were also scientists seeking a greater understanding of the world and the universe by applying the tenets of science. I for one am thankful that science is not forced on us in church, and I would really appreciate it if people quit trying to force religion into science.

Just a few thoughts,

Eric

[OuterLimits]

Unshaven, unrepentant and unbowed since he was sentenced on Monday to three years for denying the Holocaust, 67-year-old Irving said American Jews - like those in Nazi Germany of the 30's - held "disproportionate power" in business, media and the entertainment industry.

"They are a very clever people disproportionately represented with extreme opinions and in 20 to 30 years the problems they faced in Nazi Germany will face them in America, I sincerely believe this," said Irving, speaking shortly after breakfasting on bread and black tea in his cell at the Josefstadt Prison in central Vienna.

"They expect special treatment. And special treatment, as we have seen, leads to Sonderbehandlung."

Here Irving used the German word of the cold Nazi bureaucracy - "special handling" being the rounding up, transportation and extermination of 6-million European Jews during World War 2.

'I know why I am not liked. I know why I am hated. I know what I could instantly do to be liked'
He went on: "Freedom of speech is the right to say things that others object to.

"The freedom of speech is also the right to be wrong. That has been taken away from me.

"They, the Jews, do not like it that they were partially to blame for what happened to them.

"I know why I am not liked. I know why I am hated. I know what I could instantly do to be liked. But Jews have not been liked for 3 000 years. I know this. It is a fault in our human microchip but there it is.

"Some years ago I told the author of Hitler's Willing Executioners Daniel Goldhagen that if I was a Jew in an anti-tank ditch about to be shot, my question would not be who was pulling the trigger, but why? I think it is the question of the millennium."

'My cell has a very small desk but at least there is no graffiti on the walls'
Irving claims he had a flight "paid for by the BBC" ready to whisk him to London to appear on the flagship Newsnight programme if he had walked free from Vienna State Court on Monday.

Instead, he was sentenced for speeches he made to right-wing student groups in Austria nearly 17 years ago in which he made statements that the gas chambers at Auschwitz didn't exist and that Hitler extended a "protective hand" towards the Jews.

He denies that he switched decades-long held views about the Nazi extermination programme only to save his skin.

"My position has been clear since then, I accept the existence of gas chambers and that millions died," he said.

But Irving is incapable of any seismic shift away from a regime he clearly worships and defends its leader Hitler with vigour, saying underlings organised the killings at death camps across Eastern Europe and in mass shootings in Russia.

"I think he was actually a weak leader who allowed those under him to do this.

"I am not the only historian who has defended Hitler - AJP Taylor also did."

He also said it was "not lost" on him that he is incarcerated for offending one religion when people who draw cartoons of the prophet Mohammed that inflame the Islamic world are still at liberty.

Irving didn't know that on the same day that his lawyer Elmar Kresbach applied for an appeal against his conviction and sentence, the prosecutor in the case had submitted a motion to the Austrian Supreme Court seeking to have his period of imprisonment increased, possibly up to 10 years.

"That doesn't surprise me though," he said. "I am a political prisoner. My lawyer actually said to me: 'You know you are a real martyr now.'

"Austria is caught in a political vice. I find it ironic that the arrest warrant against me was on November 8 1989, the day that the Berlin Wall was coming down and here in Austria new walls against freedom of speech were going up."

Irving complained that he needs medical treatment for a heart condition but that otherwise his treatment in the jail holding 1 200 remand prisoners was "perfectly correct".

He said he is locked up for 23 hours a day because he has no interest in taking a prison job - clerical, in the bakery or laundry - for 65 pence per hour.

He gets one hour's exercise a day - "in a yard half the size of my drawing room in Queen Anne's Gate, walking around with 70 other men who are robbers, rapists, swindlers, murderers and cocaine dealers" - and claims the other prisoners are astonished at his sentence.

"They say to me: 'What are you in for?' he said. "And I reply: 'For expressing an opinion 17 years ago.' They then say: 'Oh!'"

Irving, who dined on fish in cream sauce on his first day after being sentenced and who goes to bed at 7pm, went on: "I am quite solid in my own mind. Life is too short to worry about everything. I won't get bail while I am appealing, it has been refused three times in the past.

"My cell has a very small desk but at least there is no graffiti on the walls and it doesn't smell too bad. I am also lucky that it is a no smoking cell.

"I have had 600 letters of support since I have been in here.

"I have asked for a laptop to work on three books I am writing. I also asked to have books on Auschwitz from the prison library but these were refused me.

"But this is a good place for a writer to be - the solitude is good."

[Steve Pinder]

I'm surprised you support him, when he recanted his statement made 17 years ago.

As far as the laws that jailed him,...I believe they are a little lop sided, but that is a point of view based on very limited information about his trial.

Steve Pinder
www.karatekast.com

[monkey_one]

All I can see is you are using the victmising of this individual to try to put forth your views or your propaganda I should say didnt hitler and his propaganda machine in the 30's and 40s belieave and practice what is known as the BIG LIE tell a group A LIE LONG ENOUGH AND LOUD ENOUGH and they will believe , this is what you are doing here do not think for a minute you fool us to think you do not believe 6 million Jews were killed by Hitler and his henchmen, how many times have you wished he finished the job......you act like this person whos civial liberties have been walked all over yet what you hold as what a goverment should be has in the past done far worse...and yet people like you do not have the balls to publicly embrace your hatred of certain peoples even to the point of genocide......hypocrits liars and if people didnt tend to forget the past and wernt so easly led like lemmings your absurd posistion would be laughable
but mabey that is why the place were the Monster was born has such strict laws so hopefully a clear message will resound throughout the world ......NEVER FORGET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Steve Pinder]

Well put Monkey king


Steve Pinder
www.karatekast.com

[ElNacho]

Haggis becomes hot health topic
Haggis
Guidelines call for limited consumption of haggis
A debate has broken out on the eve of Burns Night after haggis was placed on a government list of restricted foods for nursery schools.

The celebrated dish, according to the classification, should only be eaten once a week - in common with foods such as turkey twizzlers and burgers.

The inclusion by officials of the national dish on the blacklist has angered traditional haggis producers.

Butcher James Pirie from Newtyle, in Angus, called it "ridiculous".

The latest advice is part of a drive to extend the executive's Hungry for Success fight against childhood obesity to the under-fives.

Consultation on the Nutritional Guidance for Early Years took place between March and June last year.


Haggis have all got the best of ingredients
James Pirie
Butcher

The recipe for haggis varies but it can be made using a sheep's stomach bag which holds a mix of sheep's liver, heart and lung, oatmeal, suet, stock, onions and spices.

Mr Pirie, whose business won the 2005 Scottish Haggis Master Championship, was furious that the dish was placed on the list.

"It's absolutely ridiculous - you simply can't compare the two. Haggis have all got the best of ingredients," he said.

"They're all fresh. They're not mass-produced, they're hand-produced."

Mr Pirie added: "If you go to your local butcher the haggis are all specially done to a special recipe.

"They've all got good ingredients and no harm can possibly come out of eating good haggis.

"We make terrific products for the kids using haggis. There's not a great deal of fat in haggis."

However, an Scottish Executive spokeswoman said: "Haggis is tasty but due to fairly high salt and fat content young children should only indulge in moderation.


Because of the saturated fat and salt in haggis it's not desirable for children to have it more than once a week
Brian Ratcliffe
Nutritionist

"The nutritional guidelines are intended to give advice on how to provide a balanced diet over a week.

"Nothing has been banned but certain foods should be eaten in moderation."

Nutritionist Brian Ratcliffe, of Robert Gordon University in Aberdeen, agreed.

"It's not to say that haggis is not a good dish but because of its saturated fat and salt it's not desirable for children to have it more than once a week," he said.

"Producers could perhaps go down the line of changing the recipe by reducing the amount of animal fat and salt to make a more acceptable variety."

However, he added: "You still wouldn't want children eating it every day. There are many foods you wouldn't want young people eating every single day."






http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/4642682.stm

[OuterLimits]

I'll see your rant, monkey man, and raise you a podcast:

MP3
http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/sctemp/shoutcast-1-9-5-linux-glibc6/content/gf2948k.mp3

[Steve Pinder]

I like cheetos




hey, it's as relevant as the last post.




Steve Pinders
www.karatekast.com

[Yotto]

Cheetos. Now that sounds good. I may have to run out and get a bag.

You should totally call Frito Lay and offer them a sponsorship deal.

[Steve Pinder]

Cheetos shal make me rich

Steve Pinder
www.karatekast.com

[OuterLimits]

An unrepentant David Irving today maintained his denial that Adolf Hitler oversaw an organised attempt to exterminate Europe's Jews.


Speaking from jail in Austria, where he was sentenced to three years imprisonment last week for denying the Holocaust, the disgraced right-wing historian questioned whether the Nazis could have really intended to wipe out all the Jews held in concentration camps if, as he claimed, so many had survived the experience.


"Given the ruthless efficiency of the Germans, if there was an extermination programme to kill all the Jews, how come so many survived?" he said, in an interview on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.


During his one-day trial in Vienna last week, when he pleaded guilty to denying the Holocaust in two speeches made to Austrian neo-Nazis in 1989, Irving acknowledged that he had made a mistake in denying the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz, the most infamous Nazi camp.


He claimed that he personally had identified two small buildings where gassings occurred - but he pointedly ignored the weight of historical evidence that points to mass executions in an enormous purpose-built crematorium where victims were first gassed then their bodies burned.


Today, the British academic repeated his assertion that the number of Jews killed at the camp was relatively small, and certainly much smaller than the figure of 1.1 million that is generally accepted by Holocaust historians.
"There were these two small buildings where gassings were done, but I think we can be very argumentative about the scale of it," he said. "Certainly, anybody who suggests that this was the heart of the Nazi programme is way off track."
Irving said he accepted that 1.4 million Jews were killed at the so-called Reinhard extermination camps of Sobibor, Belzec and Treblinka, but he insisted Auschwitz was different: "You can say millions died, but not at Auschwitz."
The story of Anne Frank, according to Irving, backs up his argument: "The Anne Frank family wasn’t gassed, although they were in Auschwitz," he said. "When they fell ill, they were looked after by SS doctors, and two of them survived. The whole Anne Frank story is proof that I am right."


He also questioned the responsibility of Hitler for the 20th century's greatest crime. Asked whether he believed that Hitler had overseen the Holocaust, Irving replied: "No. That is absolutely wrong and nobody can justify that.
"Adolf Hitler’s own involvement in it has a big question mark behind it."
Irving, 68, was shocked to receive a three-year sentence at his trial under Austria's stringent Holocaust denial laws last week.


He is spending 23 hours a day in solitary confinement at the start of his punishment, which Austrian prosecutors are seeking to extend to 10 years because of Irving's "special importance to rightwing radicals". Irving is also planning to appeal. But today's outburst is unlikely to help his claim to have recanted some of his most extreme beliefs about the Holocaust.
He said this morning that his conviction was the result of a "show trial" and he promised to continue writing history.
Irving is the author of more than 30 books, but his reputation as a trustworthy historian was destroyed by a High Court libel trial in 2000 that showed that he had distorted and wilfully misunderstood sources relating to the Holocaust.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-2061988,00.html

VIDEO:
http://www.sky.com/skynews/video/videoplayer/0,,91134-irvinginterview_220206_1100,00.html

[Steve Pinder]

An unrepentant David Irving today maintained his denial that Adolf Hitler oversaw an organised attempt to exterminate Europe's Jews.

This is a contradiction.

David Irving said that he doesn,t have the same views as he had 17 years ago, and he had recanted his 17yr old statement. If this has changed now, then he's right where he belongs. everyone knows the laws. We have the freedom of speech, we have the freedom of stupidity, but, we don't have the freedom to be obstused.
If you tell a police officer that you didn't know about a certain law, his reply will be, "Ignorance is no excuse for the law"


Steve Pinder
www.karatekast.com

[OuterLimits]

Hate website fine a first
Sat, March 11, 2006



For the first time in Canada, an Internet service provider has been found guilty and fined for hosting websites that spread hate messages against blacks, Jews and Muslims.

In the landmark ruling by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal yesterday, southern Ontario's white supremacy movement also took a hit, with two leaders and one group found guilty of violating the Canadian Human Rights Act and ordered to pay $8,000 in fines and compensation.

The Internet service provider, Affordable Space. com, was fined $5,000.

"The ruling sends a very strong message that Internet servers, if they are aware there is hate content and don't take timely action to remove it, can be held liable," said Ottawa lawyer Richard Warman, who filed the complaint in February 2002.

The ruling was the third victory in as many tries for Warman in efforts to shut down Internet hate and a boost to his complaints against several other London-area white supremacists.

"I am absolutely thrilled," he said. "This is proof human rights laws work."

The ruling also shows that online pseudonyms, used by both men in the case, are no protection against the law, said Monette Maillet, the Canadian Human Rights Commission lawyer who argued the case before the tribunal.

"The ruling shows Canadians have no tolerance for hate," Maillet said.

In the ruling, ex-Londoner James Scott Richardson was fined $1,000 for several Internet postings, including one calling for attacks on Jewish and Muslim agencies, temples and residences.

Longtime white supremacy leader Alexan Kulbashian of North York was fined $1,000 for his hate messages.

Kulbashian must also pay $5,000 to Warman for online attacks against the lawyer.

Reached at his parents' home near Toronto, Kulbashian expressed anger at media coverage of the issue.

"My comment for you is shut up," said Kulbashian, before hanging up.

Richardson, now living in Hamilton, couldn't be reached for comment.

Richardson and Kulbashian were members of the Canadian Ethnic Cleansing Team (CECT), now defunct, which also must pay a fine of $3,000.

The CECT website and a related web forum were hosted on Affordable Space.com.

Kulbashian may be on the hook for the $3,000 fine against Affordable Space.com, because he owned the company.

The CECT web forum was "littered with statements of extreme ill will to various ethnic, racial and religious groups," ruled tribunal members Athanasios Hadjis,

Some of the material suggested whites use any means possible to ensure the "white race prevails."

"I find that the material in question constitutes hate messages," Hadjis said.

The Human Rights Act prohibits the communication of messages over the Internet likely to expose people to hatred or contempt based on religion or race.

The two men, the group and the server must "cease and desist" sending similar material over the Net, Hadjis ruled.

The ruling is backed by the federal court, which can fine or imprison the two men for contempt if they break the order, Warman said.

Warman and the commission had also sought penalties against a website called tricityskins.com.

Hadjis dismissed the complaint because the extent of Richardson and Kulbashian's involvement with the site or a group with the same name was never made clear.

At a February 2005 tribunal hearing in Oakville, Richardson threatened several times to walk out and he and Kulbashian accused London police and Maillet of lying.

The two men vowed earlier to fight the allegations, but decline to offer any evidence in their own defence at the hearing.

http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/Local/2006/03/11/1482485-sun.html

[OuterLimits]

Radio host sacked for Rice blunder
23/03/2006 - 07:45:00

A Missouri radio station sacked a newly-appointed talk show host for a racial slur as he talked about secretary of state Condoleezza Rice.

Dave Lenihan, only two weeks into what he said was his “dream job”, apologised on the air immediately after making what he said was a slip of the tongue yesterday.

St Louis-based KTRS radio station’s president and general manager Tim Dorsey agreed the remark was accidental, but said it was nonetheless “unacceptable, reprehensible and unforgivable”.

Lenihan had been heaping praise on Rice, who has said she aspires to run the National Football League one day but has more recently ruled out seeking to replace retiring NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue.

“She’s been chancellor of Stanford,” Lenihan said on the air. “She’s got the patent resume of somebody that has serious skill. She loves football. She’s African-American, which would kind of be a big coon. A big coon. Oh my God. I am totally, totally, totally, totally, totally sorry for that.”
He said he had meant to say “coup” instead.

Listeners soon began calling the station to complain. Twenty minutes after the utterance, Dorsey went on the air to apologise to Rice and listeners.

“There can be no excuse for what was said,” Dorsey said. “Dave Lenihan has been let go … There is enough hate. We certainly are not going to fan those flames.”

National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People chapter president Harold Crumpton commended Dorsey for his swift action.

Reached at home, Lenihan said he was still trying to figure out what happened and was drafting a letter of apology to Rice. He said he never uses the slur he uttered and thinks Rice is “a fantastic woman”.

Lenihan had been working at KTRS for less than two weeks.

“It was my dream job,” he said. “Ratings were going well. It kind of stinks.”

http://breakingnews.iol.ie/entertainment/story.asp?j=11526680&p=yy5z67z6&n=1

[Yotto]

You're still here?

How dare that radio station fire an employee. Next thing you know, they'll hire a Jew to replace him!

[OuterLimits]

Things get worse for St. Louis radio host who used racial epithet

Stern calls him, gets suspended from other job

Associated Press

ST. LOUIS - If Wednesday was rough for fired talk show host David Lenihan, Thursday didn’t get much better. He was awakened at 5:30 a.m. by shock jock Howard Stern, who informed him he was on the air.

Stern wanted Lenihan to discuss his firing Wednesday for using a racial epithet in describing Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Lenihan had the morning show on St. Louis radio station KTRS.

To top it off, Lenihan was suspended Thursday from his job at Logan College of Chiropractic, where he’s taught anatomy and neuroanatomy since September 2004.

Most of the day, Lenihan took calls from the media. A few white supremacists called him too.

Lenihan also got a call from associates of Larry Elder, a nationally syndicated, black conservative talk show host, who invited him for an interview.

Former KMOX announcer Frank Absher, who founded the St. Louis Radio Hall of Fame and teaches journalism at St. Louis University, said broadcasters and all media “assume the responsibility for speaking appropriately and for thinking before speaking.”

Before the 1980s, an announcer could lose a license for saying something inappropriate or offensive, he said. “Those standards are gone now,” he said. “It’s that simple. But they still have a responsibility to think before they speak.”

Station management also must be careful to hire appropriate people, he said.

Lenihan, who’d been in radio only three years, has chiropractic degrees and had moved to St. Louis for postdoctoral work on spinal cord injury at Washington University. He became a frequent listener of WGNU radio. One afternoon, he heard a talk show host make a remark about former NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson, whom Lenihan said he had met in Europe.

Lenihan said he wrote WGNU a letter, took up an argument, and the next thing he knew he was offered a job. He worked there for three years before starting two weeks ago at KTRS as a morning show host.

He said he has loved talk radio, but both careers are up in the air. Logan suspended him Thursday pending an internal investigation.

KTRS President and General Manager Tim Dorsey fired Lenihan on Wednesday, 20 minutes after he twice used the word “coon,” a racial slur. Both Dorsey and Lenihan have maintained that Lenihan was trying to say “coup” in describing Rice’s attributes for the commissioner’s job.

Dorsey reiterated Thursday that use of the word was “completely uncalled for and grounds for dismissal.

“We listened to the tape, listened again, and the word came out a second time,” he said.

He said the dismissal was for political reasons.



[You can use obscenity until you’re blue in the face. You could curse whites with every word in the English vocabulary. One word against the institutional designated favored class and you’re gone. It doesn’t matter what the context is, it is the thought that counts.]

[OuterLimits]

[Isn't it curious that many Americans think this is not only 'normal' behavior, but perfectly justifable too. Try calling the police the next time you're 'offended' and see what happens... :lol:]


Park official asked to resign over anti-Semitic remark
By Leslie H. Dixon / Daily News Staff
Thursday, March 30, 2006 - Updated: 12:44 PM EST

MILFORD -- An alleged anti-Semitic remark aimed at Finance Committee Chairman Marc Schaen has drawn the attention of Milford Police and the Anti-Defamation League and has Schaen poised to demand another town official’s resignation.

Schaen filed a complaint with the Milford Police Department yesterday morning alleging Park Commissioner Reno Baci, 80, said about Schaen that "they turned the ovens off too soon when it comes to that guy," referring to the gas chambers the Nazis used during the Holocaust to kill Jews and other ethnic groups. The remark was made in front of a small group of officials during an inspection of the soon-to-be home of the Park Department office earlier this month.


Schaen, who is Jewish, was not at the inspection, but said yesterday he was informed of the alleged incident "on or about March 18" by someone who was, but declined to say who.
"This is not the first time it’s been said, but it’s the last," said Schaen, 60. "It’s unacceptable and I won’t stand for it."
Baci, who has been a park commissioner for 47 years and is a longtime member of the Zoning Board of Appeals, conceded yesterday he did make a remark about Schaen that was "insensitive," but when asked if he said the specific words charged by Schaen, Baci replied, "I think you should talk to my lawyer."
His attorney, Ernest Pettinari of Milford, did not return calls yesterday.
Baci said his "insensitive" remark was in response to something said by another person at the inspection. The group was at Fino Field to inspect two 40-foot trailers set up to house the Park Department.
"It was in reply to a joke that was said to me in regards to Marc Schaen trying to micro-manage the Park Department for the last three years," said Baci. "It was insensitive and I regret that I said it."
Baci would not identify the person who made the initial "joke."
Schaen, who has already filed a complaint with the Anti-Defamation League, said he intends to ask the American Civil Liberties Union to investigate the allegations and selectmen to call for Baci’s resignation.



http://www.milforddailynews.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=88933&format=&page=2

[OuterLimits]

MySpace Removes 200,000 'Hate Speech' Profiles

Financial Times | April 1 2006

Paul Watson

Steve Watson

MySpace.com, the fast-growing community website hugely popular with American teens, has removed 200,000 “objectionable” profiles from its site.

The site, which allows users to create their own profiles with details of their interests that can be viewed and linked to by other MySpace.com “friends”, was acquired by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp last year and its phenomenal growth has placed it at the centre of the media company’s internet strategy.

Ross Levinsohn, head of News Corp’s internet division, said some of the material taken down contained “hate speech”.

“It’s a problem that’s endemic to the internet – not just MySpace,” Mr Levinsohn said.

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/010406MySpace.htm

[OuterLimits]

Lawyer bodily removed from Zundel trial
Apr. 5, 2006. 12:14 PM


MANNHEIM, Germany (AP) — A defence lawyer of far-right activist Ernst Zundel, charged with denying the Holocaust, was physically carried from the courtroom Wednesday after defying a ruling banning her from the trial on grounds she tried to sabotage the proceedings.

Two female police officers had to carry Sylvia Stolz from the Mannheim courtroom after she refused the judge's order to leave.

"Resistance! The German people are rising up," Stolz shouted as she was taken from the room.

Some of the scores of supporters of Zundel, a 66-year-old German deported from Canada, also quit the courtroom. Zundel, who emigrated to Canada in 1958 and lived in Toronto and Montreal until 2001, has been standing trial since November on charges of years of anti-Semitic activities including denying the Holocaust — a crime in Germany — in documents and on the Internet.

The presiding judge halted the trial on March 9 to ask for Stolz's removal after she denounced the court as a "tool of foreign domination" and described the Jews as an "enemy people" in earlier sessions.

[OuterLimits]

2 charged for Holocaust denial

News24, Johannesburg Tuesday, 18 April 2006 / 22:26

BERLIN — German prosecutors say they have charged a German far-right activist, extradited from the United States, and a Belgian man, handed over by the Netherlands, with incitement for allegedly denying the Holocaust.

On Tuesday, prosecutors in the western city of Mannheim said Germar Rudolf and Siegfried Verbeke were accused of “systematically” denying or playing down the Nazi genocide of Europe’s Jews in documents and on the Internet, and of stirring anti-Semitic hatred.

Denying the Holocaust is a crime in Germany. It carries a maximum sentence of five years imprisonment.

Rudolf, 41, published a study claiming to prove that the Nazis did not gas Jews at the Auschwitz concentration camp.

He was deported to Germany from the U.S. in November, to serve a 14-month prison sentence for a 1995 conviction on similar charges.

Verbeke, 64, was arrested in the Netherlands and also extradited to Germany in November.

Prosecutors in Mannheim are leading a similar, but unrelated case, against Ernst Zundel, a German deported from Canada last year.

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1918387,00.html

[OuterLimits]

Man charged with posting racist comments

May 10 2006

Daily Post


A MAN appeared in court yesterday accused of posting racist comments on a website set up in memory of black Anthony Walker.

Neil Martin, 29, appeared before Knowsley magistrates in Huyton, Merseyside, charged with racially aggravated harassment and stirring up racial hatred.
The latter offence carries a maximum sentence of seven years imprisonment.

Martin, an office worker from Maghull, Merseyside, is alleged to have posted the comments last August, just days after 18-year-old Anthony was slain with an ice axe.

Dressed in a blue shirt and grey suit and tie, Martin did not enter any pleas and spoke only to give personal details.

The case was adjourned to Liverpool Crown Court for a plea and case management hearing on June 27. Martin was granted conditional bail.

The short hearing was attended by Anthony's mother and sister, Gee and Dominique Walker.

[OuterLimits]

Wired News is reporting that the equipment found in the "secret" NSA room at AT&T
wasn't some elaborate device designed by Big Brother. Rather, it is a commercially available network-analysis product that any company could acquire. From the article: "'Anything that comes through (an IP network), we can record,' says Steve Bannerman, marketing vice president of Narus, a Mountain View, California, company. 'We can reconstruct all of their e-mails along with attachments, see what web pages they clicked on, we can reconstruct their VOIP calls.'"

This device as designed and built for spying, and was placed into telcos
everywhere on the PRETEXT of being useful for traffic analysis. Then the NSA came
calling and bulldozed the telcos into giving them everything that goes through it.

The fact of the matters is that Narus the company is run by an "Israeli immigrant"
and is financed by, among others, an Israeli investment company, one of the
partners of whom happens to have worked for the Israeli government, including a
stint developing optical devices for the Israeli military.

http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/06/05/17/1629227.shtml

[WyethDigital]

Outer-****ing-Limits spamming his own thread in a futile attempt to get the smart, sane, and good-hearted people of the board to read his retarded, hate filled, pea-brained rhetoric :roll:



Lame!

[ElNacho]

what the hell is "cyber dysentary" anyways? sounds nasty

[OuterLimits]

what the hell is "cyber dysentary" anyways? sounds nastyItz what you get when you mix El Nachos, mouldy kosher pickles and a bad comedic preformance....

:lol:

Nothing to say about the information wyeth? typical...

[WyethDigital]

Nothing to say about the information wyeth? typical...
When you prove yourself or your "information" worth responding to...

Eric

[OuterLimits]

11 August 2006: We attended a super brief hearing at the magistrates court during which the case was adjourned until 1 September.

One thing is certain: as with the their battle with Hezbollah, the Israelites have picked a battle they cannot win. True to form, they have gone too far and are tactically floundering. Even if the worst came to the very worst, and Luke and I are imprisoned, it will only demonstrate their vindictive and intolerant nature for all to see. And it's not as if we're threatened with being jailed in an American prison, where we could be the prey of Aids-infected savages. The biggest problem in British prisons is stark boredom – although the large numbers of Muslims in British prisons nowadays means segregation for nationalists is mandatory.

It is said that the internet has provided the first opportunity for decades that white man has been able to speak to white man without a Jew in the middle. That is why they hate it. This is the first time, to my knowledge, that a British prosecution has been attempted for a political, informational and humorous website.

http://heretical.com/British/raids.html

[OuterLimits]

Tomasz Winnicki's lawyer calls the nine-month jail term a "travesty"

Tue, August 15, 2006


London's self-styled "biggest hater" has appealed a landmark ruling that put him behind bars for nine months and made him a cause celebre in North America's white supremacy movement.

Tomasz Winnicki's lawyer has asked the Federal Court of Appeal to acquit his client, order a new trial or reduce his sentence to time served.

"The sentence imposed was unduly harsh and disproportionate given the circumstances of the case," argued Ottawa lawyer James Foord in a notice of appeal dated Aug. 3.

Federal court judge Konrad von Finckenstein also erred in allowing certain evidence and in denying Winnicki a chance to make a submission before sentencing, Foord said.

Foord did not respond to an interview request yesterday.

Another Ottawa lawyer, who first complained about Winnicki's online hate messages, said there are no grounds to appeal.

"I think the appeal has no merit, but that is up to the court to decide," said Richard Warman.

"Personally, I think the reasons for the decision are perfectly solid and are based in law and in fact."

Winnicki had a chance to make submissions but did not, said Warman, who attended the hearings.

For several years, Winnicki has been at the forefront of London's white supremacy movement, appearing at rallies and filling Internet websites with profanity-laced complaints about blacks, Jews and other non-whites and non-Christians.

He once bragged he was London's "biggest hater."

Using the Internet to expose people to hatred and contempt based on race and religion violates the Canadian Human Rights Act. [-ed THE ONLY RIGHT THAT HAS BEEN VIOLATED IS WINNICKI'S RIGHT TO COMMUNICATE]

In 2003, Warman complained to the Human Rights Commission that Winnicki was violating the law.

The commission investigated the complaint and took Winnicki before a tribunal.

The commission also sought to have Winnicki prevented from posting hate messages online until the tribunal made its decision.

Last October, a federal court agreed with the commission's request and ordered Winnicki to stop posting online hate messages.

Winnicki refused. The Human Rights Commission took him to court for contempt and on July 12 von Finckenstein found him guilty.

It was the first time a white supremacist in Canada was jailed for breaking a court order to stop spreading hate messages online. Other white supremacists have been sentenced to jail for doing the same using phone hotlines.

Meanwhile, in April, the human rights tribunal found Winnicki guilty of breaking the Canadian Human Rights Act and ordered him to pay $11,500 in fines and compensation.

Winnicki's troubles have made him a hero across North America.


http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/CityandRegion/2006/08/15/1756305-sun.html

Listen to GoyFire's interview with Winnicki before he was imprisioned:
Mp3
http://www.goyfire.com/goyfiredownloads/GoyFire_22.mp3

[OuterLimits]

http://www.zundelsite.org/zundel_persecuted/sylvia_stolz.jpg
Sylvia Stolz, German Patriot


The vassal justice system of the Bundesrepublik/present-day Germany has charged Ernst Zündel's defense attorney, Sylvia Stolz, with denial of the Holocaust.

As the defense attorney for German Forces Reserves Physician Colonel, Dr. Rigolf Hennig, who is accused of severe denigration of the present government, Stolz is supposed to have read to the court a newspaper article about the appearance of world renowned Israeli artist, Gilad Atzmon in Bochum. In a public statement, Atzmon is quoted as having said that the written history of the Second World War and the Holocaust are a "complete forgery, initiated by Americans and Zionists".


Further, the defense attorney had cited in a petition the statement of the Iranian Prime Minister Ahmadinedschat that he did not believe in the Holocaust. Additionally, Stolz claimed that the "Lectures on the Holocaust" by Germar Rudolf would "eradicate the Holocaust religion down to the roots".

As if this weren't bad enough, during closing argument in the main trial against Dr. Hennig, she maintained that the German Reich was legally still in effect and that, therefore, the currently existing Bundesrepublik had no jurisdiction over Dr. Hennig's case. She is cited as having stated: "The Lie of the Holocaust is crumbling! Even this Court cannot shut itself off any more with regard to informed doubters."

During the initial stages of the trial, Sylvia Stolz stated that the Holocaust was not "obvious" - as claimed per judicial notice. "Obviousness" was merely faked utilizing evidence tampering, false witness statements, torture, brute force, opinion suppression, threats as to one's loss of livelihood and systematic eradication/annihilation of so-called revisionists, the banning of revisionists' books, and the criminal pursuit of everyone expressing publicly some doubts about the Holocaust. The punishment of Holocaust deniers would come to an end very soon, she said, because too many people worldwide were waking up to the suppressed facts.

Due to the severity of the subject matter, the prosecution moved the matter before a higher court rather than the District Court.

http://vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=37203

----

The nature of an historical event (Holocaust, in our cause) is a matter of historians only. Prosecuting people for disbelief is absolutely untenable on logical grounds, which is why it's done using totalitarian methods and rationalle ("If X says Y and Y is a tenet of the Enemy, then X must be an enemy of the people and it is imperative to confine him.") As in any totalitarian country, the purpose of law enforcement is no longer to serve the citizen, but to enforce total control and prosecute ideological crimes.