nuremberg files

nuremberg index

The NF Guestbook archive I
February 22 1999 - February 24 1999

Read what others had to say, or put an entry in the Nuremberg Files Mirror Guestbook yourself. Because the guestbook is quite large, I have cut it up into smaller files:

Archive I: entries Feb 22 - Feb 25 1999 (36k)
Archive II: entries Feb 25 - Feb 25 1999 (52k)
Archive III: entries Feb 25 - Feb 27 1999 (37k)
Archive IV: entries Feb 27 - Mar 1 1999 (39k)
Archive V: entries Mar 1 - Mar 14 1999 (34k)
Archive VI: entries Mar 14 - Aug 9 1999 (34k)
Archive VII: entries Aug 9 - now.

From: threehorseranch@hotmail.com [hnshirk.engl.unt.edu]
Date: Thu Feb 25 00:43:34 1999

I am extremely pleased to see that Karin Spaink has conveyed a fundamental human issue-free speech -to and from the Netherlands with such eloquence! Without free speech, there is no free language, and without language there is no one left!

Howard T. Smith, Ph.D., Dipl.-Psych.Univ.

From: bleating1@yahoo.com [host-209-214-29-30.bct.bellsouth.net]
Date: Thu Feb 25 00:43:19 1999

Your decision to mirror the site was a difficult one, I'm sure. By doing so, you have placed yourself in the middle...both sides(ie. pro-life and pro-abortion) see you as a near adversary. Your decision seems to be a statement about the freedom of speech above your abortion posturing. For your recognition and excersize of this unalienable right you are to be commended. We Americans should be ashamed that we have allowed our unalienable rights to be taken from us and are relegated to foriegn nations to express what we cannot express.

I am appalled to hear those, who, after seeing the pictures your site mirrors, are merely concerned about the potential threat posed to abortion providers who have thier names posted. Has the world become so depraved that there is no crying for the babies that were exterminated and shown in thier lifeless state? We Americans are guaranteed the right to life....these babies are not given that right. Why? Because the court has ruled them to be "non-persons" and therefore have not the same rights as real persons. I am forced to ask, as should all Americans: "Who will be the next group declared to be 'non-persons'?". In the nazi regeme, the murder of innocent people was legalized with this exact same declaration of "non-personhood". Millions were mudered. Our Constitution recognizes that individual rights come from the Creator, not from the state, however, we are seeing a movement away from that very foundation.

Now we see the granting and removing of group rights. The babies are a group that have no rights. The Christians have no right to assemble in front of an abortion clinic as there is a perceived threat of violence at the scene....how ironic that if your union wishes to picket your job-site, the police will come to defend the picketer's rights to picket, even though hundreds of people have been killed at these such assemblies. This is another example of group rights being removed. Jack kervorkian is now moving to force the court's hand on another group's rights, namely, the old and terminally ill. We must ask ourselves who the next group will be that loses thier rights...to speak...to be secure in their possessions...to travel about....or to life itself.

As far as the abortion providers are concerned, I have no hate. God's judgement is certain, upon them and upon me, though He is longsuffering and merciful...our fate is in His perfect hands. As far as the irrationale of: "oh, we don't want to put the doctor's life in jeopardy by posting the lists.." I have this to say... There have been at least 38,000,000 million babies murdered in the U.S. alone since the Roe-v-Wade decision (over 1.2 billion by recent estimates-world wide) and there have been aproximately 30 baby aborting doctors murdered or injured in the same span of time (in the U.S.). One does not justify the other, but, where is the outcry for the babies? Where is the dread that comes from seeing these helpless ones so abused and tortured? Why are the advocates of the abortion provider's list so afraid to have the information posted?

They rage against the messenger who tells the truth and slaps the pictures of contorted faces of mutilated babies in their face because their consciences are seared by the shock of those images. The cry is to not tell. "Let us do these things in dark and in secret, lest the truth be found out and we be shown for the depraved hearts that we have in us." May God have mercy upon us all for the murder that is in ALL of our hearts.

I close with two final thoughts...

At 17 years old, my girlfriend and I murdered our child. Not for health reasons, but for convenience purposes. God has shown me the blackness of my own heart and how vile is my selfishness. My heart is broken over our decision those years ago. I can only pray that His eyes see my broken sprit over that decision and that He will forgive me for taking a life that was not mine, but His to take. Today I reap the consequences of that "choice" by having no children of my own...and probably never will have. My only child, I killed. Today, I saw a picture of what I have done. God please have mercy upon me. Have mercy upon us all.

The last thought I have to offer...

A friend just found out she was pregnant. She came excitedly into the room with a beaming grin on her face saying: "I'm having a baby!" A thought struck me as i heard her words. She is having a baby. She is not having a fetus. She is not having a "blob of flesh". She is not having an accident. It's a baby. Ten fingers...ten toes...two ears etc. exactly as those pictures show. A baby. It's only when the child isn't wanted, that the baby is called some distant sounding term that detracts from the truth of what it really is...a baby. Those other terms are merely a way for us to rationalize the actof what abortion really is....as I have come to find out...it is the act of killing your child...your baby.

i have attempted to post this in love and repentance and to the glory of the Lord in whose hands even my fate awaits.

His sheep

From: varkonyi@telemedia.hu [fire.telemedia.hu]
Date: Wed Feb 24 21:47:59 1999

Dear Ms. Spaink,

I wholly respect - and share - your belief in the right of free speech. However, allow me to raise the following example:

Suppose Hitler's Mein Kampf is banned (as it happens to be in my country). Now, I quite disagree with the banning of any piece of writing, however atrocious it may be. I might even raise my voice against the law, court decision, etc. that bans the publication of that book.

_But: it would never cross my my mind to publish it myself._

Sincerely, Gabor Varkonyi, Budapest

From: pierced@math.mcmaster.ca [stats.Math.McMaster.CA]
Date: Wed Feb 24 21:15:33 1999

I support making available the Nuremberg pages, especially in the context in which they are offered here. I don't believe it was criminal to make them available in the first place, but even if I did, *I* would still insist on the right to peruse them. Does anybody else think differently? Does anybody *not* want the right to look at certain things? Or is it always some other person that they are worried about?

I think it unlikely that anybody could be pushed over the edge into criminal acts by these pages. I may be wrong. If I am, then the resulting harm is indeed a high price to pay for maintaining the right of free speech; it still seems to me, however, that the criminal acts should be fought directly, rather than by suppression of ideas, information or disinformation. If a society can't stop crimes except by controlling what people read or look at, then the society is a failure.

I don't like the analogy to guns, though I grant that it makes some sense. I will support restrictions on ownership and distribution of weapons far sooner than restrictions on speech. If we are to be human, we must be able to read and think freely; being able to shoot freely does not seem so important. Staying alive may sometimes require the ability to shoot freely; but there are things more important than staying alive.

David Pierce

(USian living in Canada; raised to believe that the US Bill of Rights was granted by Providence; now seeing that it must be insisted on by the people, or lost---and yes, guns can sometimes be used to make a point)

From: john.rowan@virgin.net [p48-nighthawk-gui.tch.virgin.net]
Date: Wed Feb 24 19:35:25 1999

I believe a meaningful right of free speech includes a duty of the community to protect its members from violence on account of their views, and consequently a reasonable expectation that free speech will not be abused to encourage violence. That makes this case a difficult one for me.

But you have my respect for acting on what you believe to be the right balance to strike, and taking responsibility for so doing.

with best wishes, John Norris, from Britain

From: trey@realtimes.com [207.123.16.101]
Date: Wed Feb 24 19:13:06 1999

Ms. Spaink,

Oh, by the way, if ever the Thought Police or the oh-so-tolerant pro-abortionists try to haul you into court -- civil or criminal -- I want you to know that I will be proud to stand at your side. They fuck with your rights, they fuck with mine.

Again, thank you.

Cordially, Trey Garrison (Contributing Editor Journal X, www.journalx.com)

From: trey@realtimes.com [207.123.16.101]
Date: Wed Feb 24 19:08:55 1999

Ms. Spaink,

I just want to say thank you for standing up for freedom of speech. Whether I agree or disagree with abortion is irrelevant -- I am a First Amendment absolutist, and cherish the right to speak freely above all others, except maybe owning guns, which serves to ensure the former, so there you have it.

Kudos, courage and keep on kicking ass, my dear. Sad we have to turn to Amsterdam to hear an echo of what was once uniquely American -- the idea of unfettered liberty.

Yours with great respect,

Trey Garrison (Contributing Editor Journal X, www.journalx.com)

From: dhendrickson@okc.disa.mil [yadera.okc.disa.mil]
Date: Wed Feb 24 19:02:18 1999

I have to admit that it takes a lot of courage to present a forum of discussion to those that oppose your views. While looking through some earlier postings I saw references to 'incitement to murder', 'hate propaganda', various levels of name-calling, and other manifestations of people's frustration with the topis of abortion.

What is really at stake here is not abortion but the bigger picture of free-speech. While I disagree with you in many areas, I have to allow you to say what you want. If I don't allow you that right but expect it for myself, I have placed myself above you in the legal system and the Constitution and the U.S. legal system are founded on the principle that all men are equal before the law (if it really works that way or not is an entirely different letter).

If I disagree with the XXXXX faction (pick one) and work to shut down every avenue they have at public discourse, why should I kick & scream when other groups rally together to shut down my YYYYY faction? Remember, a freedom lost by a group you hate, will become a freedom lost by a group you love. No matter how sick, stupid, ugly, narrow-minded, sinister, profound, wonderful, or hate-mongering the speech is; it is protected.

One last item; if this site could be held accountable for publishing names, addresses, & phone numbers of people, there are various others that could be held accountable as well; The phone directory, the printer that produces letterhead for these companies, etc. In that case, everyone should be held accountable.

Again, thanks for running this sight. I like the idea of running your commentary within it, it allows a side by side comparison of ideas & facts. An exchange of ideas is really at the core of this debate, something that some folks on both sides of the abortion question don't want to happen.

Dwayne Hendrickson, Oklahoma

From: djh@connect.net [wh106PC.wh120.unt.edu]
Date: Wed Feb 24 18:53:35 1999

I would be interested in your views on the various time/place/manner restrictions placed on free speech by the US Supreme Court, Karin.

I have to respect your motive for mirroring the Files site. I agree that the site squeezes into the First Amendment's range of protection.

The Supreme Court has reasoned in the past that some actions are not actionable if it can be shown that the result of the action would have occurred anyway. I think that argument can be made in this case. Any of the information on the Files site could be found out by anyone if they wanted to; the site truly is a tool, like a phone book. Or, even better, like Martindale-Hubble, the directory of practicing lawyers. Any fanatic ready to kill someone for performing abortion-related services would surely still have the resolve to do so even if the site had never existed. I don't think the site incites "imminent lawless action" test for restricting free speech.

I welcome any discussion about this, as long as it is civil.

From: geo@abd.net [04-207.015.popsite.net]
Date: Wed Feb 24 18:23:44 1999

Conratulations on your courage to let the truth be known. The Stanist feminists and liberals are foaming at the mouth.

TRUTH will always win agaist the liberal lies. The destruction of the fetus is murder. The problem lies in the fact that feminist are Humanist do not believe in a final Judgdment. We who are Christs must fight for the lives of the unborn because we too will have to answer at that same judgement. Thank you again for your courage.

From: AlaisBlue@aol.com [spider-tq082.proxy.aol.com]
Date: Wed Feb 24 18:10:03 1999

This is sick. This is vulgar and full of lies. The kinds of abortions shown here are illegal. The kind of abortions shown here are rare. So rare in fact that almost every state has made an abortion illegal after the 13 week mark. Youare polluting people minds with garbage that is not true. You are a fanatic and you are dangerous. Freedom of speech is one thing, but killing other people? Advertising getting them killed? That makes you no better than the people having the thrid trimester abortions and in some cases it makes you worse! You need help. Lots of help. What kind of a god do your worship anways? The devil is surely your closest ally, for blood stains your hands and heart.

From: rhohm@ic.net [cvg1-wc2.atlas.digex.net]
Date: Wed Feb 24 17:43:26 1999

Karin,

Your words leave no doubt that you understand the Bill of Rights, and the principles of liberty underlying them, better than most of my compatriots. This planet needs many more people like yourself. Bravo!!

Rich H., Michigan, USA

From: michelle@michelle.org [206.204.38.166]
Date: Wed Feb 24 17:19:31 1999

Karin,

There is a big difference between free speech and incitement to murder. By publishing Horsley's site, you are aiding a campaign designed to murder abortion providers that is akin to the Nazi's "final solution" for the "Jewish problem." Living in a country that felt the oppression of the Nazis--a country that tried to help Jews evade extermination, you should understand this. Although I never lived under the Nazi oppression, a full third of the descendents of my paternal great grandfather perished under that oppression, and I would have too (had my parents not been exterminated before my birth).

I understand and sympathize with your motives, but firmly believe that you are very misguided in this effort.

INCITEMENT TO MURDER IS NOT FREE SPEECH!

Michelle Steiner

From: gwbrink@yahoo.com [gw.megaplex.nl]
Date: Wed Feb 24 16:42:43 1999

Katz001,

I don't want to start a discussion on this forum. But could you please first answer the question I e-mailed you, before claiming yourself "absoluut right".

Gerwin Brink

From: Katz001@aol.com [tcnet01-11.dallas.texas.net]
Date: Wed Feb 24 16:33:16 1999

The following comments, which appear in a letter below, are a mild example of the kind of wildly dishonest propaganda against legal abortion we have to deal with in the U.S. Although the writer might be sincere and well-meaning, s/he is obviously very ignorant of the reality of abortion in America and has apparently read and uncritically believed some of the inundating flood of blatantly fraudulent propaganda we have to deal with in this country, of which the "Nuremberg Files" is only a part, albeit one of the most insane and disgusting parts. This person insults your intelligence by asking you to believe that abortions are performed in the U.S. by pseudo-doctors with "rusty blades" and that "numerous women" now end up in hospitals bleeding to death. Hogwash, baloney, and bullshit!!!!! THAT is how it was BEFORE Roe v. Wade -- and how it is NOW in those countries in which abortion is still outlawed.

Dear Karin, Many thanks for defending freedom of expression on the internet. Free expression is THE nonviolent alternative in helping settle disputes. Unfortunately, I am not certain if people outside the United States understand the Constitutional problem abortion faces in the US. Several states over 25 years ago had legalized abortion. The Federal Courts came in and made abortion a "right". Essentially, this meant that anyone with rusty blade and some form of medical degree, could perform abortion during anytime through the pregnancy for any reason. The pro-choice advocates dont say or know much about it but numerous women have abortions done, only to end up a few days later in the hospital bleeding to death. In the Court system, welfare mothers have been told to get an abortion or lose their children to foster care. Seldom does this hit the news and most feminists deny that it is happening. Thought you should know.

From: jeroen@rdc.net [diode.rdc.nl]
Date: Wed Feb 24 16:00:41 1999

Karin Spaink is erg begaan met de vrijheid van meningsuiting. Zo erg zelfs dat ze meent, in naam van deze vrijheid, absoluut abjecte web pagina's en links op haar Internet site te moeten opnemen. Na het bericht over mannen die zwanger kunnen worden vond ik dit het meest absurde bericht van de afgelopen week.

Spaink verklaard op haar website dat ze de anti-abortus pagina's opneemt omdat ze in Amerika verboden zijn(?). Dit verbod zou in strijd met het eerste (Amerikaanse) amendement zijn. Maar in haar column verklaard Spaink dat ze "niet onder de jurisdictie van de VS valt". Wat kletst Spaink dan over het eerste amendement? Die geldt dan toch ook niet voor haar?

Wat is uw volgende aktie in naam van de vrijheid van meningsuiting mevrouw Spaink? mein kampf en kinderporno op uw website? Verboden in respectievelijk Nederland en De rest van de wereld, maar dat zou in het kader van "vrijheid van meningsuiting" dan ook maar op uw site geplaatst moeten worden.

Helemaal eng wordt het als mevrouw Spaink verklaard "hoe kunnen ze weten dat ik niet met de namen en adressen heb gerommeld, en vermijden dat ze hun eigen medestanders overhoop schieten als ze mijn gegevens gebruiken?". Als er iemand (goed of slecht maakt niet uit) door de de inhoud van haar website wordt verwond of gedood maakt het mevrouw Spaink niet uit, vrijheid van meningsuiting nietwaar! Brrrr.

Vrijheid van meningsuiting is een weelde waar je mee om moet kunnen gaan denk ik, jammer dat een publiciste als Spaink dat niet kan. Spaink verklaard voorstander van abortus te zijn, ze doet deze zaak met haar website een hele slechte dienst.

Voor de goede orde, ik ben niet tegen abortus, ben VOOR vrijheid van meningsuiting en heb (wil) niets te maken hebben met het scientology stokpaardje van mevrouw Spaink.

From: Katz001@aol.com [tcnet01-21.dallas.texas.net]
Date: Wed Feb 24 15:39:05 1999

Karin,

You seem to think "Nuremberg Files" is a legitimate free expression of "the other side" of the controversy. It is not that at all. It is defamation and demonization of individuals and thinly veiled exhortations to MURDER them created not by a supporter of freedom, but by a psychotic, twisted religious fanatic bent upon oppressing freedom. The individuals marked for death are the ones who stand for FREEDOM, and their standing for freedom is exactly WHY Neal Horsley exhorts others to murder them. He is the type of insane tyrant who would send out armed police, if he could, to round up all those who disagree with him and send them to a "final solution" in concentration camps. I would have thought you Netherlanders would have had your fill of that in the early 1940's. Have you forgotten your own history? Does the name Anne Frank ring a bell? In supporting this website you are not only OPPOSING freedom and supporting arbitrary oppression, but you are supporting, aiding, and abetting deliberate murder of those who disagree with Neal Horsley. And, doing this, YOU pretend to care about freedom of expression. You apparently are very confused -- and rather stupid -- or at the very least, naive and reckless. I urge you to reconsider and to take down this abomination.

From: panchomar@hotmail.com [207.35.107.5]
Date: Wed Feb 24 15:25:46 1999

The worshippers of the god of free speech show there is no fear of God in their lives. God will bring all to HIS judgment seat one day. Where will be free-speech then? Just a reminder, before it's too late...

From: drshelm@bigplanet.com [1Cust76.tnt5.tacoma.wa.da.uu.net]
Date: Wed Feb 24 15:12:16 1999

Karin (or Mr. Hoarsely): This is one of the most despicable copouts in the history of free speech. This is nothing more than solicitation of assassination. Your agenda is obvious and should be prosecuted to the limits of the law. Your website will soon be closed down, and perhaps you will be the defendant in another multi-million dollar lawsuit.

Ronald R. Helm

From: ngva@nedernet.nl [loce74.nedernet.nl]
Date: Wed Feb 24 14:38:42 1999

Karin, dit gaat veel te ver. Je acties tegen de scientology heb ik bewonderd. De hele abortus wereld voelt zich verraden.

Als je zo pro choice bent dan neem je ook een zodanig standpunt in en verwijdert Nurnberg onmiddellijk van je site.

Geen kletskoek over freedom of speech. Er zijn grenzen, zelfs voor jou.

W. Beekhuizen, voorzitter Nederlands Genootschap van Abortusartsen.

Een rectie uit amerika:

She seems to think it is a legitimate free expression of "the other side" of the controversy. It is not that at all. It is demonization of individuals and thinly veiled exhortations to murder them -- and the indiviiduals marked for death are those who stand for freedom. She seems very confused -- and rather stupid.

Dr William West.

From: pavicicmd@usa.net [firewall.telegraafnet.nl]
Date: Wed Feb 24 14:06:57 1999

Dear Karin,

I totally approve of your actions, concerning the Nuremberg Files. Over the years I've read a lot of your articles both on your site as in Het Parool. We will never live in a perfect world where we won't need freedom of speech. To know how imperfect it all can be implies the necessity for open access to all sorts of information. Not knowing or not wanting to know about actions approved by anti-abortionists creates the opportunity for them to grow in their obscurity. Thank you for 'reloading' the anti-abortion discussion and the matter of freedom of speech as a whole! Michael Pavicic, Amsterdam.

From: rderer@derer.com [s112-59.it.luc.edu]
Date: Wed Feb 24 13:59:14 1999

I believe you are on the right side of history.

From: Wendywendy@dolfijn.nl [sp0008.kub.nl]
Date: Wed Feb 24 13:51:23 1999

Dear Karin,

I can appreciate the ideas behind your action, but frankly I don't really agree.

As you can see, I am from The Netherlands too, and it's true that free speech is one of the most important things in a democracy. But the thing is that it may not be that black white as you are telling us. It is hard to maintain the free speech for people who are trying to undermine the whole principle of democracy itself. It might even be selfdestructing to do so. The thing is, that everybody should be entitled to speek their own mind, but it could lead to the end of the democracy. And that is certainly not what we are after. So what to do? I really don't know.

How to preserve democracy and free speech, while the whole principle is being used against itself? I haven't made up my mind yet. But for one thing I am quite sure: Propaganding hatred is not the same as free speech. And that is exactly what these people are trying to do.

I am truely glad you have explained why you are doing it, and I think you are right about what you are saying, but I don't think it is neccesary to publish the whole thing again. I read something about this page in DE VOLKSKRANT.

And that article really didn't do you right, they didn't explain why you have done it.

Groetjes van Wendy

(sorry for my poor english, I tried to make it comprehencive for others but us dutchies too)

From: freeman@stad.dsl.nl [proxy2.bART.nl]
Date: Wed Feb 24 13:49:07 1999

Hi Karen, although I think the content of the Nuremburg Files is despicable, I find it consistent of you to keep it up in the name of free speech. Let's hope more people see it that way.

Richard

From: gwbrink@yahoo.com [gw.megaplex.nl]
Date: Wed Feb 24 13:47:20 1999

The best thing about freedom of speech is that you are allowed to say freedom of speech should be abolished.

Gerwin Brink
-everybody has a right to my opinion-

From: frihed89@hotmail.com [sys-687.risoe.dk]
Date: Wed Feb 24 12:50:46 1999

I wonder, would you have put the list on your site, had it contained the addresses and telephone numbers of those listed?

I think there always must be limits on free speech, if the speech can be foreseen by a reasonable person to threaten the lives of others. I'm not sure if this list meets the test, as it is.

But, apart from an legal definitions, i would have trouble sleeping at night if i think i in any way contributed to any harm that might come to those on the list.

Mac Callaway, Copenhagen

From: NGvA@nedernet.nl [loce15.nedernet.nl]
Date: Wed Feb 24 10:32:39 1999

Karin, your action is miserable.You proved before that you know how to attract attention. But please, not this way. The thought behind your action may be OK but the contents of the Nurnberg site is NOT. All anti abortion people are very happy with you and will put you on their list to be the next Pope.

If you only had the slightest notice of what is going on in the USA you would be ashamed of yourself. It is so easy to be a hero for free speech IN THE NETHERLANDS.

Joeri van den Bergh, MD PhD
International Society of AbortionDoctors
secretary general

From: hurtbymorons@earth.com [fastweb.sympatico.ca]
Date: Wed Feb 24 05:14:10 1999

yes, lets fight abortion, then the moronic mold can continue to propogate the planet, consuming everything in its path.

From: rab@noSPAMdaft.com [tide77.microsoft.com]
Date: Wed Feb 24 03:25:29 1999

Huzzah! for a well-done action of free speech. While I share your deep abhorrence of these people -- and don't think I could quite bring myself to mirror their site -- I do have to applaud your action. I'm a libertarian myself -- which means you and I have quite a lot in common (kindly ignore those idiots who try to pretend that libertarians are "on the right" -- we're NOT) -- and one thing that means is total support for free speech and individual freedom and responsibility.

Again, my compliments on your work.

.....rab

From: rgkracht@garlic.com [x.sm2.garlic.net]
Date: Wed Feb 24 02:03:43 1999

Keep up the good work!

From: tumbrel@earthlink.net [CBL-tumbrel.hs.earthlink.net]
Date: Tue Feb 23 23:17:29 1999

For all the talk of his bravery, is the mirror actually here? There doesn't seem to be a link. I don't support the content, but I do think that it's within the scope of the US First Amendment.

From: flagg@oberberg-online.de [line016.gm.oberberg-online.de]
Date: Tue Feb 23 22:44:53 1999

As a journalist, I, of course, advocate free speech. But free speech excludes hate propaganda. It ends where lives are in danger. What will you, Karin Spaink, do if some abortion fanatics visit this mirror site, get the addresses of their potential victims, visit them and kill them -- as they've done before? If that would happen I would only see it as justified to bring you to trial as well for negligent killing. Of course you may say that you "might" have changed the addresses, but why host the "Nuremberg files" at all in this case? If you are so pro free-speech why not indeed supply the full unchanged addresses of the doctors and their relatives? Even you have recognized that free speech has its limits. I therefore urge you to be consistent and remove this bullshit -- completely. It's not worth a single byte of harddisk space.

The comparison with arms manufacturers makes me sick. Isn't it obvious that our world would be a great deal more peaceful without arms manufacturers, without the people who sold weapons to Saddam or to the UCK? But no, weapons trade must be free because of freedom of trade! And if their weapons kill millions, that's not our problem. And if every American and every European possesses a weapon at home, that's because the laws of the market want it so. It's this kind of attitude that might throw us back into the Dark Ages.

From: DrewLiberty@free-market.net [1Cust223.tnt24.dfw5.da.uu.net]
Date: Tue Feb 23 22:27:15 1999

From: sylans@worldonline.nl [vp233-182.worldonline.nl]
Date: Tue Feb 23 22:10:20 1999

I believe in free speech. I believe in everyone's right to say what they think is just. I don't believe in things like the Nuremberg files. I think it is really stupid to put these things on the net. Free speech ends there where you want to destroy the life of another person. If you want to terminate people who work in abortion clinics your right to speak out freely ends. I think it's a silly thing to put such sites on the internet even if the point your trying to make is a good point.

From: sorrynomorespam4me@thank.you [listc03-056.li.net]
Date: Tue Feb 23 22:09:50 1999

Karen, As much as I abhore the Nuremberg site, I, too, shareall your characteristics and philosophies(expect that "bi"thing, I like woman only;-p)Your mirroring of the site,(especially in the context of the way you expressed yourown views about the site and your reasons for doing so)isan all-too rare example of NON-hypocracy, and you are tobe congratulated for that. I, too, am pro-choice, but amalso pro-free speech. The Nuremberg site, IMO, REALLY skateson thin ice, legally, ethically, and morally, and I was, atfirst, happy over the court verdict. I think those peopleare hypocritical, mentally-ill scum, but your doing theunthinkable and reviving the miserable site re-affirmedin me, the reasons for needing to allow a site like theNuremberg site to exist. I especially like the twist youput on maybe teaching THEM a lesson in tolerance by puttingtheir site up. You`ve taught ME something. Congratulations.

From: freedom1@mindspring.com [rti443.rti.org]
Date: Tue Feb 23 20:29:35 1999

Good for you! Thank you for your courage!

-- Steve (also pro-abortion rights AND pro-free speech)

nuremberg files

The NF Guestbook archive I February 22 1999 - February 24 1999

The NF Guestbook archive I
February 22 1999 - February 24 1999