RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH,

or

Right to Free Choice?

The following is another Patrick Crusade

discussion on civil rights.

What do you think?
 
 

Should an offending Website be removed [banned]

when it offends others

-OR-

should we stand up and fight

for their right to express

"their" opinions?

-----Original Message-----
From: john hammar <hammarwrkinc@advi.net
Date: Friday, July 23, 1999 9:10 AM
Subject: [patrickcrusade] Fw: ugly bear

Message received from oasis...
I think I will go to the oasis site and write letters to everyone with a web
page there and ask them if they really think they want to do business with
anyone allowing such stuff on the net! anyone want to join me???
John
 

----- Original Message -----
From: Oasis Abuse Report <abuse@ot.com
Sent: Friday, July 23, 1999 8:28 AM
Subject: Re: ugly bear

On the matter of the "Ugly Bear" site currently published by one of Oasis
Telecommunication's users, we would like to make you aware that the
content of the site in no way violates Oasis' policies.

Though some, if not all of the members of our staff, sympathize with your
and other people's reasoning against the content of the site in question,
as an organization we cannot take action against a paying customer that
has not broken any of our policies or any laws of the United States
and/or local government. While the site may be of questionable subject
matter to some, the content does not contain any pornographic or
vulgar/offensive text or images in the context by which we interpret our
policies. The material at hand does not violate copyright laws and/or
privacy laws as we understand them, and is only questionable on moral
grounds. Its content is wholly and fully owned by, and is the
responsibility of, its author, who happens to rent server space and
bandwidth from Oasis Telecommunications.

Oasis Telecommunications is an Internet Service Provider. While we
attempt to protect our customers against harassment and insure their
privacy and we encourage individuals to report policy violating
incidents, Oasis is not a law or a moral enforcement agency. Oasis will
cooperate fully with any criminal investigation of an Oasis user. In such
cases, when directed to do so by legal authorities, Oasis may copy,
inspect, seize or destroy a subscriber's files and appropriate server
logs without notification or compensation to the user and fully cooperate
with authorities to the full extent of the law.

Regards,
Anabella Wewer
Marketing Director
Oasis Telecommunications, Inc.

----- Original Message -----
From: Alan Cohen <alancohn@onr.com
Sent: Friday, July 23, 1999 4:04 PM
Subject: Re: ugly bear

Folks,

As offensive as we may find this web site, the less we say about it the better. I'm quite certain that whomever created this site is enjoying the controversy. Moving the web page to another provider may have been a minor inconvenience, but I'll be he loved every minute of it.

Really people, leave it alone. Ignore it, and it may go away. Make a big deal out of it, and you will only help spread the word. This is nothing compared to web sites glorifying nazis, gay bashers, racists, bomb makers, and other assorted misfits. As much as I wish people didn't create sites such as I mentioned, I completely defend their right to exist.

Alan Cohen
Texas Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty
Austin, Texas

----- Original Message -----
From: Sissel <denmark@online.no
Sent: Friday, July 23, 1999 4:12 PM
Subject: Re: Re: ugly bear

I totally disagree with the 6-7 postings about this.

The OASIS company should be addressed and boycotted for promoting a policy that accepts Website with this kind of human rights violations.

It is important to give ATTITUDES to this kind of human suppression and as long as Americans accept this to go on, you indirectly ACCEPT the message spread.

I also differ on the attempt to calm this down because of an argument that attention adds to the promotion of this site. This is too much of an easy psychology to me.

I think the way you want to react to this kind of human abuse illustrates the strategically methods chosen in US to abolish the DP.

Sissel

-----Original Message-----
From: Ginger Warbis <WebMistress@Fornits.com
Date: Friday, July 23, 1999 11:12 AM
Subject: Re: [patrickcrusade] Fw: Re: ugly bear

Ok, I have to say something about this. I'm not into telling other people
how to deal with life; that's not my gig. But I would like to offer my
observations in the hopes that they will help to lend focus to and/or shed
some light on this topic.

If the service provider can be held responsible by us to disallow his
customers to post information that we deem harmful, what do you think will
happen to this list and other resources all over the world once the Bush
Dynasty jumps in?

The Federal Government, primarily the Republicrats, have been working hard
at censoring the net since long before you probably even began to
understand it's inherent potential to empower the people! Surprisingly, the
Supreme Court has answered our plea for help by overturning the CDA. But
they're still at it, attacking via other legislative and other routes (see
http://eff.org/ for the ongoing history of the Communications Decency Act)

The cost of the freedom of speech is tolerance of other people's speech,
no matter how offensive.

Just my .02
Ginger

-----Original Message-----
From: LuWhipple <mhrnt1@gte.net
Date: Friday, July 23, 1999 11:22 AM
Subject: Re: [patrickcrusade] Fw: Re: ugly bear

In reply to Sissel in regard to the offensive prison site:

As prison activists, we are already fighting scattered battles. We attempt
to put out fires as they arise, without a cohesive and organized battle plan.
The site in question angered me too, yet I did nothing about it. Why? We
must choose our battles carefully, then put our combined efforts to win
them. Wars are won one battle at the time.

A multi-national, multi-state hunger strike would receive world-wide
attention. With the support of a massive letter writing campaign, we could
get a media blitz all over the western world. It would take a year to
eighteen months to organize such hunger strike. Even if only five people
around the world or just in this country would starve concurrently, it would
be enough to gain media coverage. If we could get one person for each US
State, that would be the realization of a dream I have had for a long time.

What if......can become real.
I need your comments on this, as I am almost mentally ready to start this
project.

Assunta

-----Original Message-----
From: Sissel <denmark@online.no
Date: Friday, July 23, 1999 11:23 AM
Subject: Re: [patrickcrusade] Fw: Re: ugly bear

What kind of a FREEDOM is this to anyone

Accepting humiliation of individuals in vulnerable positions???

I do not give much for your American "freedom"
 

Sissel

-----Original Message-----
From: Ginger Warbis <WebMistress@Fornits.com
Date: Friday, July 23, 1999 11:31 AM
Subject: Re: [patrickcrusade] Fw: Re: ugly bear

What kind? The best kind we can hope for in this imperfect world!

If you don't like something that someone else says you can ignore it, you
can complain to them about it, you can refute it, you can complain to
others about what an idiot that person is for saying it. But if you don't
stop short of censorship, then who in the world do you think will stand up
to protect YOUR right to free speech?

Answer: There'll be no one left who's able.

Ginger

-----Original Message-----
From: Marla Mazoch <marlam@cvtv.net
Date: Friday, July 23, 1999 11:58 AM
Subject: Re: [patrickcrusade] Fw: Re: ugly bear

You know, after reading many replies I have to say that I have re-thought my
position on this web site. I believe that I perhaps reacted and did so too
hastily and in anger/outrage.

Ginger and the others are right. If we start to censor (or try to) other
folks' feelings, thoughts, ideas, etc. then it will end up coming back to
haunt us. A good friend of mine & I were talking about this a while back
and he said something that made so much sense to me....and that I should
have remembered before reacting: If we start to try to censor things that
are offensive to us and are successful, what is going to happen when those
whom we offend do the same thing to us?

Although I DO find hate sites (and the like) offensive, ugly and
vile.......I still have to respect their right to express their
feelings......if for no other reason than so I too can enjoy those same
rights & privileges.

Take care,

Marla

-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Jackson <rickndrea@powernet.net
Date: Friday, July 23, 1999 1:04 PM
Subject: Re: [patrickcrusade] Fw: Re: ugly bear

From: Rick Jackson <rickndrea@powernet.net

At 11:11 AM 7/23/99 -0400, Ginger Warbis wrote:
From: Ginger Warbis <WebMistress@Fornits.com

<<<Ok, I have to say something about this. I'm not into telling other people
how to deal with life; that's not my gig. But I would like to offer my
observations in the hopes that they will help to lend focus to and/or shed
some light on this topic.

If the service provider can be held responsible by us to disallow his
customers to post information that we deem harmful, what do you think will
happen to this list and other resources all over the world once the Bush
Dynasty jumps in?>>>

I really have to agree with Ginger. The "ugly bear" site is inflammatory
and offensive, but there is nothing there which would constitute libel in
any way. Many of our sites would be deemed offensive by mainstream
America. We just have to tolerate it. This, however, should not prevent
us from writing letters to the owner of the site, urging him or her to be
more thoughtful and considerate of what they post.

Art Bell is involved in a massive lawsuit against an individual who accused
him of child molestation and pornography. The timing of the accusation was
shortly after Art's own son was kidnapped and molested. You need this type
of violation, such as false accusations of crimes, to get a site pulled.
It's all documented at http://www.artbell.com/

If we go after these guys, they'll come after us. Our only concern should
be to get the truth out...not to engage in any type of censorship.
Everyone has the right to be offensive.
 

Rick Jackson, Reno, NV

-----Original Message-----
From: Sissel <denmark@online.no>
Date: Friday, July 23, 1999 2:03 PM
Subject: Re: [patrickcrusade] Fw: Re: ugly bear

The moment you start to tolerate this kind of a Website and let this type of
a Website continue to exist, you have lost something very important of your
human nature.

To me this is more important than any "free " speech possibility.
If we should tolerate nazi propaganda and such kind of humiliating,
suppressive messages that this Website send out in my country, we would have
lost something important for our culture.

The way you react to this kind of suppression is for me symbolic of a kind
of double standard that I do not want to be a part of.

This company should be boycotted by all of us and on our Websites we should
inform our readers
why we cannot tolerate a company that accepts such kind of human rights
violations and intrusions in privacy for each of these suppressed women.
We need to have values in life and this Website sends a message of so
negative values, that we should never "tolerate" this. There need to be set
BORDERS for human rights abuses.

I am sad to see I am working with persons who are willing to accept this.
Is this the way you will tolerate your husbands and friends and
family members to be portrayed in the time to come?
If we do not start acting upon this today, we have lost the future.

Sissel

-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Jackson <rickndrea@powernet.net>
Date: Friday, July 23, 1999 2:16 PM
Subject: Re: [patrickcrusade] Fw: Re: ugly bear

From: Rick Jackson <rickndrea@powernet.net>

At 07:52 PM 7/23/99 +0200, Sissel wrote:
From: "Sissel" <denmark@online.no>
>
<<<The moment you start to tolerate this kind of a Website and let this type of
a Website continue to exist, you have lost something very important of your
human nature.>>>

But, Sissel, you publicly stated you created a banner that has George W.
Bush dripping with blood for his murders in Texas. I salute you for that,
and would live to host this banner on my site if you would make it
available. See...even though Bush is a government leader, we can do that
in this country with impunity. It has to be a 2-way street. Freedom of
speech is absolute. The only limitation is libel, such as fabricating
evidence of a crime. Even that could only be dealt with through civil
litigation, and not through criminal prosecution.

Now, if the parody attacks on George Bush are to be allowed, we have to
allow attacks on ourselves as well.

As for your suggestion of boycotting the sever who hosts the "ugly bear"
site, that's fine. That's free speech too. But, you can't force them to
ban the site, and so far as I can see, there are no grounds for civil
litigation.

My site publicly attacks the prosecutor who put my wife in prison for
life. I even created a type of "Satanic Alter" to him at
http://www.freeandrea.org/dunn.htm

Now, if you can force the ugly bear site off the net, surely Dunn can force
me to remove that page. That's a very slippery road I don't want to go
down. Please try to understand that when we attack and lampoon, we have
to understand that we, too, are going to be subjected to the same thing.

Our only obligation is to get the truth out.

Rick Jackson, Reno, NV

-----Original Message-----
From: Ginger Warbis <WebMistress@Fornits.com>
Date: Friday, July 23, 1999 2:46 PM
Subject: Re: [patrickcrusade] Fw: Re: ugly bear

From: Ginger Warbis <WebMistress@Fornits.com>

At 07:52 PM 7/23/99 +0200, Sissel wrote:
 
 

<<<The moment you start to tolerate this kind of a Website and let this type of
a Website continue to exist, you have lost something very important of your
human nature.>>>

Depends on how you define the word tolerance. You've already acted, and
well I might add. It's not necessary to inflict intentional financial harm
to the service provider. Just pointing out the simple truth is enough to
turn people off to the publisher and anyone associated with him.

The service provider is about 75% correct in their stated position.

That they choose to do business with this guy is probably a bad choice.
Don't worry, you're not the only one who feels this way and people do take
this sort of thing into consideration when choosing who to spend their money
with.

They'd be better off if they could leave enforcing the law to law
enforcement, too. (what is it we're paying them to do again?) But that is
just not possible under our current legal system.

I think the best possible policy would be to leave responsibility for the
material squarely on the shoulders of whoever posted it.

Ginger

-----Original Message-----
From: Lisa B. <NOMOUSES@prodigy.net>
Date: Friday, July 23, 1999 2:47 PM
Subject: [patrickcrusade] FW:Ugly Bear-site owner response

From: "Lisa B." <NOMOUSES@prodigy.net>

I emailed UglyBear site owner regarding chix in chains and received a
response.
Lisa B

-----Original Message-----
From: Lisa B. [mailto:NOMOUSES@prodigy.net]
Sent: Friday, July 23, 1999 11:27 AM
To: uglybear@ot.com
Subject: Website

It is pretty remarkable that someone, anyone, would take all the time it
must have taken to put up such a Website as you have done. You must be one
very angry person. It would serve us all as a society and as human beings if
people like you diverted your anger into constructive solutions to remedy
the epidemic of crime in America. A site like yours could possibly inspire
some other person to follow in the footsteps of the examples you have
presented of people gone wrong. Definitely, your web site in very poor taste
and even poorer judgement.

-----Original Message-----
From: Non-Violent Offender [mailto:uglybear@oasis.ot.com]
Sent: Friday, July 23, 1999 11:36 AM
To: NOMOUSES@prodigy.net
Subject: comments
Lisa:
I don't think you are being fair. This site only calls attention to these
unfortunate girls. I think it's a stretch to say anyone would be inspired
to commit crimes because of a Website. Isn't that what all criminals say,
someone or something else made me do it?
Thanks for visiting and I hope you will return with an open mind ! Thank
you.
Best Wishes,

Non-Violent

-----Original Message-----
From: LuWhipple <mhrnt1@gte.net>
Date: Friday, July 23, 1999 3:33 PM
Subject: [patrickcrusade] Re: [ugly bear

From: "LuWhipple" <mhrnt1@gte.net>

From: Assunta at mhrnt1@GTE.net - I Just mailed this note to ugly bear site
owner.

Chicks in chains?
Those "chicks" are human beings whose family have suffered horrendous pain.
Some of these "chicks" are people suffering from a mental illness. Some of
these "chicks" are people who have been wrongly imprisoned, while others are
are guilty as charged. None of them deserves the derogatory name of
"chicks"; none of them deserves to be the object of being debased as human
beings, and none of your web site readers deserves your insulting their
sense of humanity.

Your web site makes me sick, your intents make me sick. You view women as
"chicks", people in prison as objects of ridicule and sadism, their families
as non-existent. You seem incapable of understanding what being "human"
means. You are worst than some of the people you ridicule on your web site.
The families of the victims deserve our compassion; the prisoners our
understanding; the families of prisoners
(they are victims too) our support. And what are you doing? Making a mockery
of all.

I pity you.

Assunta

-----Original Message-----
From: Non-Violent Offender <uglybear@oasis.ot.com>
Date: Friday, July 23, 1999 3:47 PM
Subject: Updated
 

I updated the site and admitted that Darlie is probably innocent. Why do
you insist on beating up on me? I'm working to call attention to these
cases. You should know better Assunta.

Non Violent

----- Original Message -----
From: Oasis Abuse Report <abuse@ot.com
To: john hammar <hammarwrkinc@advi.net
Sent: Friday, July 23, 1999 8:28 AM
Subject: Re: ugly bear

On the matter of the "Ugly Bear" site currently published by one of Oasis Telecommunication's users, we would like to make you aware that the content of the site in no way violates Oasis' policies.

Though some, if not all of the members of our staff, sympathize with your and other people's reasoning against the content of the site in question, as an organization we cannot take action against a paying customer that has not broken any of our policies or any laws of the United States and/or local government. While the site may be of questionable subject matter to some, the content does not contain any pornographic or vulgar/offensive text or images in the context by which we interpret our policies. The material at hand does not violate copyright laws and/or privacy laws as we understand them, and is only questionable on moral grounds. Its content is wholly and fully owned by, and is the responsibility of, its author, who happens to rent server space and bandwidth from Oasis Telecommunications.

Oasis Telecommunications is an Internet Service Provider. While we attempt to protect our customers against harassment and insure their privacy and we encourage individuals to report policy violating incidents, Oasis is not a law or a moral enforcement agency. Oasis will cooperate fully with any criminal investigation of an Oasis user. In such cases, when directed to do so by legal authorities, Oasis may copy, inspect, seize or destroy a subscriber's files and appropriate server logs without notification or compensation to the user and fully cooperate with authorities to the full extent of the law.

Regards,
Anabella Wewer
Marketing Director
Oasis Telecommunications, Inc.

----- Original Message -----
From: Dave Marsh <marsh6@HOME.COM
Sent: Friday, July 23, 1999 9:23 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: ugly bear

john hammar wrote:

<<<Message received from oasis...
I think I will go to the oasis site and write letters to everyone with a web page there and ask them if they really think they want to do business with anyone allowing such stuff on the net! anyone want to join me???>>>

John,
IF you decide you are really going to do that--and I am of the opinion that when you do, you'll add more mountainous dimensions to a molehill--do yourself a favor and don't argue that you are against censorship. You want this site censored. You just don't want to do it directly, or to admit that that is what you are doing. Some of us are absolutists not only about justice in the criminal system but about the 1st Amendment too and it might, perhaps, be just better for all concerned if you were straightforward about your goals. I think that censoring things is "wrong"; I think the 1st Amendment means what it says and applies everywhere; but I also think that people have a right to think otherwise. So go for whatever it is you hope to accomplish--stirring the hornets from their nest, perhaps--but don't pretend to views you don't hold because that reduces your credibility.

with respect,
Dave Marsh

----- Original Message -----
From: Dave Marsh <marsh6@HOME.COM
Sent: Friday, July 23, 1999 10:26 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: ugly bear

john hammar wrote:

<<<Since I am being censored for my right to make my views clear. Political action
of course...I will just bow out of the discussion.

However, when there are lives at stake, I care little about a bunch of rights that
were long ago discarded by the "Supreme" court and since the net is the only
place I have to express my views I feel it is in order to write to people about
issues that I am concerned with.

Our freedom of speech has enslaved us to corporate ownership of our
government paid for by falling prey to the commercials - so much in fact
that the corporations now own the media and have the best censorship
ever...selective news reporting.>>>
 

John,
I for one would urge you NOT to censor *yourself* by withdrawing from
the discussion. At the very least, since I'm the one who put it in those
terms, I would appreciate knowing--even if only by a private, insulting
e-mail, if that's what it takes--how you construe yourself as being
"censored"? I tried to discourage you from speaking but I concluded by
saying what I meant, which is that you have the right to totally utterly
disagree with me, to say whatever you please, and I support that right.
I do. I also don't entirely disagree with your analysis of what the
severely truncated form of "free speech" that presently exists has wrought.
However, it is also hard for me to understand how abandoning the
principle and behaving "just like" the government (etc) in censoring
others will achieve any of our goals. And I mean that sincerely--I would
be glad for you to set me straight on this point, too.

respectfully,
Dave Marsh

-----Original Message-----
From: john hammar <hammarwrkinc@advi.net
Date: Saturday, July 24, 1999 12:19 AM
Subject: [patrickcrusade] Re: Re: Fw: ugly bear

I am resting at the moment on this...there has been so much discussion on
this that my head is spinning. I rally feel that the folks who promote the
death penalty use every deceitful tool at their disposal and we just try to
play by the rules...

It is the same question I have had to face about non violence...I try to be
non violent in both the sense of never harming anyone physically as well as
never damaging any property...I would not make a "plowhshares activist" as
I would not want the property destroyed,...but if it could be recycled...

So do I resort to the same tactics that I am preaching against?

I do not know the answer. I have been told by the site owner (the person
who makes the money from the site) that there is no violation, and I must
agree that this site is not quite as bad as a pornographic one might be.

Perhaps there is too much discussion about this...that I should put my
energies elsewhere...
but I do not feel that this has been a bad move...I have heard a lot of
different viewpoints and a lot of discussion has materialized on several
different lists.

The abolish list is probably the most diverse of the several groups that are
joining in the discussion.

I will sleep on this one I guess...

john

Home