The newsgroups are a godsend and, in many ways, far more persuasive and productive than are the websites such as the Zundelsite. On many of these newsgroups, next to a handful of participants, hundreds if not thousands of "lurkers" reside, some of them having grown roots from sheer fascination.
I did a check on one of the search engines this morning, and the name "Zundel" appears in some 12,000 posts. The count on the Zundelsite for the last 24 hours shows 2,200+ visitors and almost 15,000 documents accessed.
Add to that a disclaimer that has just been published by what I understand to be one of the hubs of newsgroup management, and you get an inkling of why the Holocaust Enforcers are foaming at the mouth.
Here is the Content Disclaimer
>
> Let it be known that Newscene is not responsible for the
> content of the Usenet service it provides. Although some
> content may be offensive, undesireable, inaccurate,
> threatening, or illegal, Newscene assumes no responsibility for
> the content of the posted article and only provides access to
> such content as a service to all of its customers. The name of a
> newsgroup is not illegal in nature and does not necessarily
> imply inappropriate or illegal activity. However we encourage
> customers to exercise caution and discretion when viewing and
> posting to all Usenent newsgroups. All content, without
> limitations, is provided by and is the responsibility of the
> person posting the content and the creator of the Usenet
> discussion group. We expect all customers to abide by Usenet
> etiquette, copyright laws, and civil laws. It is possible for
> illegal messages to be posted to any group on Usenet and
> Newscene has no way of monitoring or controlling
> this. Newscene is not in a position to determine what is illegal
> as Newscene does not monitor the content nor is not qualified
> to judge what is illegal. If you feel a customer of Newscene is
> using the service for illegal purposes, please contact the
> appropriate law enforcement officials. If you feel a customer of
> Newscene is using the service to violate copyright laws please
> contact the copyright holder directly. If Newscene is presented
> with a court order to remove messages, cancel an account,
> remove a newsgroup, or log a customer's activity, then
> Newscene will have no choice but to comply with the court
> order. Let it be known then that Newscene is not the censor,
> but rather the court who issues the order is the censor.
> Newscene hopes that by providing an uncensored Usenet
> service with a level of anonymity that customers will respond
> by acting responsibily and appropriately.Newscene is always
> open to suggestions to improve its service.
( Source: http://www.newscene.com/content.html )
Here are two people on one of the Newsgroups arguing themselves very quickly onto a common denominator on "Holocaust Denial" and its merits. (I added *** for emphasis) I will call them Johnny and Sue:
Johnny:
"This is my opinion on the matter of speech pertaining to Holocaust denial.
I proffer no opinion of my own on the matter of Holocaust denial itself beyond saying that I have no reason to disbelieve that six million died.
Sue:
So does that mean that ***exactly*** 6,000,000 died and those 6,000,000 were all Jewish?
Johnny:
An opinion is a subjective interpretation of the facts as presented. Everybody has them and everybody is free to espouse them.
The exercise of free speech is not, and cannot, be dependant on being able to put forth substantive argument and evidence with which to persuade some arbitrary judge.
Evidence is not needed when voicing an opinion.
There are those who believe in the Creation. Should they need to produce hard evidence before being allowed to espouse their belief?
For those who argue that Holocaust denial must be illegal in order to prevent it being forgotten and/or happening again, I say this:
One cannot argue that controls on people's freedoms are necessary to avoid totalitarianism when by definition the former is how the latter is achieved.
One may consider it expedient to curtail freedom of speech in the quest to retain an untarnished truth - but that curtailment may result in other truths being tarnished or lost completely.
In Canada, there are several cases under way involving Ernst Zündel and the "Zundelsite" - a website containing, inter alia, Holocaust denial material.
Sue:
Define Holocaust and denial material!
If the Holocaust was an event where a substantial number of Jews were murdered and abused, then that can stand.
If it is an event where ***precisely*** 6,000,000 Jews were murdered and every other race or religion who lost life is to be disregarded, then I'm for holocaust denial.
Particularly when those involved seek to obtain financial and personal benefit in reliance on promoting a lie!
Johnny:
Pursuant to these cases, the Canadian Human Rights Commission recently made one of the most troubling rulings I have ever come across - That truth is no defense to allegations of incitement to hatred.
That is, even if the website information is correct, it could still have as its effect incitement to hatred and must therefore be prohibited.
The full text of the decision is available at http://www.webcom.com/ezundel/english/misc/interm_decision.html
(end of newsgroup string)
What can I say? Did I do this? Did Ernst?
It is stupid beyond words to keep that Canadian Human Rights Commission Kangaroo Court going - now into its third year! - when these things are being said so clearly and effectively on newsgroups!
Ingrid
Thought for the Day:
"The basis of our government being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right, and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter."
(Thomas Jefferson)