Re: Futplex makes the news!

[jrochkin@cs.oberlin.edu (Jonathan Rochkind)]

At 1:17 PM 02/02/96, Mike Duvos wrote:
>We seem to be discovering more and more side effects from the
>defense of free speech for the unpopular.  The Holocausta Nostra
>is cheering wildly at the opportunity to present the works of
>Mr. Zundel under a banner reading "Nazi Scum".  Zundelsites are
>being set up by people whose views are so disgusting they probably
>offend even Mr. Zundel himself.  And now our very own "Futplex"
>will have to live the rest of his life branded as a electronic
>distributor of "hate literature" by the forces of political
>correctness at UMASS.
>
>It may be time to regroup and take inventory of what we are
>suposedly trying to accomplish here.

The AP article on the net that someone referenced for us before
(http://www.boston.com/globe/ap/cgi-bin/retrieve?%2Fglobe%2Fapwir%2F033%2Fre
g%2Fag052102), fortunately portrays Futplex M accurately as a principled
free speech crusador, rather then a Nazi, with a few good quotes from F
(nice job Futplex!).     [And Rich Graves should be pleased to see his name
gets mentioned _before_ Declan's.  snork.]   I hope he doesn't get into too
much trouble with UMASS, but I suspect he won't--after he gets called a
"free speech activist" on the AP wire, umass is going to look really bad
punishing him for his activism.   [I guess they've already told him he has
to take it down, but it served it's purpose anyway].

I think the whole endeavor was a resounding success, and I wish I had been
on the ball enough to participate in it.  So, nazi wierdos even worse then
Zundel have appropriated his views--only goes to show that when you try to
censor something (on the net especially--but this has always been true to
some extent, and you can frequently hear ACLU types worthily propagandizing
it), all you do is end up giving it free publicity.  So what if the
'holocost nostra' is delighting in calling Zundel "nazi scum", or whatever.
I haven't read his stuff, so I don't know if I think him deserving of that
title or not, but they can certainly exercise their freedom of speech in
saying so. (Although if they're not careful I suppose Zundel could exercise
his freedom of filing a libel lawsuit against them).

The important thing is that Rich, Declan, Futplex, and anyone else
participating showed the world that censorship on the internet, if not
impossible, is at least a good deal more dificult then people thought.
And,  just as importantly, that they defeated this individual act of
censorship thoroughly.  (Yes, I think participating in the defeat of
censorship is worthy even when it's nazi stuff you're protecting.  A
'banned sites' page on the WWW would be a great thing, even if it contained
a majority of links to neo-nazi propaganda.  If censorship attempts
continue, one of us ought to make such a site--and, of course, mirror it
throughout the universe).

[ Thought--if Germany was blocking sites that contained pornography
instead, not only would Rich/Declan/Futplex probably have been more
reluctant to mirror it, but they probably would have gotten in legal
trouble for doing so, even in the U.S.  And, of course, would have brought
their web servers to a standstill as the entire world tried to get erotic
pictures from their sites.  And the AP article probably wouldn't have been
so kind.   It's ironic and sad that in 1996 America, pictures of people
having sex are more dangerous contraband then is anti-semetic propaganda.]