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