Good Morning from the Zundelsite:

• The Leuchter Report - End of a Myth
• Auschwitz: Myths and Facts
• Inside the Auschwitz Gas Chambers
• A Prominent False Witness: Elie Wiesel
• What Is Holocaust Denial?
• Pressac's New Auschwitz-Book
• The Making of a Holocaust Revisionist
• "Judicial Notice of Unnassailable Fact" - Or Justice?

Once again it is Ernst Zundel and his bedeviled Zundelsite pioneering cyberspace rules dramatically by helping set the boundaries by which the Internet will be governed and directed in the future.

And isn't it ironic that here you have a "Neo-Nazi", reviled and demonized for decades, who helps to keep the "free world" free? It wouldn't be the first time. Remember the Supreme Court decision in the Zundel case in 1992? It gave Canada more rights of freedom of expression than it had ever had before - while the HoloHucksters were gnashing their teeth!

Now given the above, several thoughts come to mind:

• Only the German version of these articles was targeted. We have some of the same articles in English. Does that mean that Germans who would like to read these documents would criminalize themselves reading them in German but not in English - or Spanish, French, Italian or Swahili?
• 
  
• The government has no obligation to let an individual or organization know which documents are "dangerous" or not. Once a document or book is "indiziert," it is up to the individual to divine that. Someone in the United States - where, so we hope, freedom still reigns - who innocently copies and posts one of our documents will not know that he is "endangering" Germany's youth. Inquiring minds will want to know - don't you think? He or she will have no way of knowing that people can go to prison for downloading something from his or her website.
• 
  
• What would happen if, let's say, some 500 websites copied and posted a certain document all over the world - just to spit in the face of an idiotic law sprung from a repressive medieval mindset and make a stand for freedom? Would the government of Germany hunt and haunt all these different websites globally? Can you imagine the paperwork and cost to the taxpayers of Germany? The loss of face for doing something that blatant to protect the political and monetary interests of the Shrill Minority?
• 
  
• At least one of the documents, "What is Holocaust Denial?" was published by the "Canadian Free Speech League" as an official position paper. Does that mean that the government of Germany is dictating to free speech supporters in Canada what philosophical stance they must hold to accommodate an already legally discredited version of the Holocaust?
• 
  
• This is the first time, to my knowledge, where generalizations like "Neo-Nazi propaganda" or "pornography" have been narrowed down to specific examples on the Internet. To illustrate: is one thing to say that "pornography" is offensive. Most people would agree with that. It is another thing to say: "This picture, specifically, is offensive." This brings up the hairy matter of criteria. At least from a legal point of view, it makes the matter of censorship vastly more difficult and vulnerable to challenge.
• 
  
• As I understand it, so far the "crime" of forbidden literature in Germany was "physical possession". If you had a book in your bedroom drawer in Munich, let's say, that had been "indiziert", the government could launch a midnight raid and zap you with fines in the thousands - or even send you to prison. But what if a person decides not to download and, hence, to "own" the document where it can be physically seized, but simply decides to read and memorize it? Can the government of Germany seize the brain where it is stored?
• 
  
• What if a student stumbles accidentally onto a forbidden document, reads several paragraphs, says to himself: "Oh, my God! This stuff is Politically Incorrect!" and jumps off that site like a hare. He certainly hasn't inhaled. Could a click on a website be enough to criminalize an otherwise perfectly Politically Correct Person? Who is to say how much of it he read?
• 
  
• What if a person decides to visit and study forbidden documents - not for the purpose of hunting for the truth but for the purpose of harassing people searching for the truth - let's say, a German version of a Nizkorite? If he or she prints out a document in order to refute it, does he or she not "possess" it as well, albeit for Politically Correct reasons?

The possibilities of bizarre consequences seem endless!

This newest governmental move would seem to be a bureaucratic nightmare for Germany as well as yet another indication of just how desperately the HoloHucksters try to close the barn door long after the horse has escaped.

There are now in existence literally thousands and thousands of documents which challenge the Holocaust Myth. To track them down and notify the parties posting them that they are doing something cyber-wise that will get unknown, untold people in Germany an unpleasant "criminal" record would surely be a "first"!

Ingrid

Thought for the Day:

"Under current law, it is a crime for a private citizen to lie to a government official, but not for the government official to lie to the people."

(Donald M. Fraser)

Back to Table of Contents of the Sept. 1996 ZGrams