The NF Guestbook archive III
February 25 1999 - February 27 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: jeesh9999@aol.com [usilws18.ca-nethaven.com]
Date: Sat Feb 27 00:07:42 1999
Karin I too applaud your bravery. But why have you taken down the NF page? The right to freedom of speech must endure. The people who condemn you for reposting this information are being short-sighted as they could be the next ones to have their right to freedom of speech taken away.
From: justabill55@hotmail.com [205.218.2.190]
Date: Sat Feb 27 00:03:38 1999
Is this illegal?
WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON
Admitted adulterer & liar, alleged rapist
1600 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE
WASHINGTON, DC
USA
...The essence of the First Amendment is that it protects all speech, but ESPECIALLY UNPOPULAR SPEECH. Popular speech needs no protection.
From: Aslan19@netscape.net [166.72.92.192]
Date: Fri Feb 26 23:45:35 1999
wonderful job that you have done in supporting free speech. It looks like free speech is no speech.
From: ml3126@power-net.net [firewall.nrtc.net]
Date: Fri Feb 26 23:06:49 1999
Exodus 20:13 You shall not murder.
'nuff said!
From: i.dont.thinkso@nothere.com [UofL-ce1.uleth.ca]
Date: Fri Feb 26 22:31:15 1999
The best solution I can think of is to set a precedent of civil responsibility for the advocation of the killing of abortionist. This allows for free-speech while making you responsible for what you say.
What thinks all of you?
From: jennifer@jenniferpetersen.com [tts-228.wallnet.com]
Date: Fri Feb 26 22:07:30 1999
If you want to mirror Mr. Horsley's site, you should mirror the entire site, including the pages where he describes his plans to use nuclear weapons to "secede from the union" of his country. Will you also maintain the mirror, crossing out names as the assassins he supports kill their vistims and families? Perhaps if your name was on the list you wouldn't be so quick to support these murderers.
Jennifer Petersen, USA
From: jacko@who.org [130.37.212.40]
Date: Fri Feb 26 20:40:00 1999
This Neal Horsley (the original creator of this list) might want to go and see a doctor himself, a psychiatrist to start with.
The contents of his website is horrible. It is a pitty people lower themselves to these kind of things. Fortunately, there are people who do not agree with his actions. He was expelled from two churches (before founding his own internet-based church). And let us not forget the patronalising US Government. It is however also a pitty other people jump to the completely oposite site, by trying to kill Neal Horsley by sending poisoned letters.
It is a pitty (and a disgrace) this man calls himself a Christian.
It is a pitty there are insane people like Neal Horsley around.
It is a pitty he is not the only one with these kind of ideas.
It is a pitty no-one cares for those who seek refuge in abortion, what their reasons are, what their social problems are. God bless America, except the poor!
It is a pitty people can only talk to eachother through the internet.
Good thing there are defenders of free speech, even if it is only to show what kind of jerk Neal Horsley is.
From a country where abortion, euthanisia, sex and drugs are legal, (which doesn't mean everyone over here agrees in it!)
Jacko.
From: miertje@writeme.com [loce15.nedernet.nl]
Date: Fri Feb 26 19:38:30 1999
Karin/(Horsley) , your personal emotions are absolutely wrong, and by no means idealistic. And in fact in no relation to what this is all about. The persons named in your files are scared to death for obvious reasons. Some were killed allready. There is a war going on overhere you know.
Read the final verdict, and donot feel proud that you draw so much attention. You help the antiabortionist who are looking for other victims so you are guilty yourself if more people are killed.
M.P.
*****
PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) -- A judge on Thursday banned a group of abortion foes from contributing to an anti-abortion Internet site and publishing Wild West-style wanted posters featuring abortion doctors.
In a strongly worded endorsement of a jury's $107 million verdict, U.S. District Judge Robert E. Jones called the Web site and the posters ``blatant and illegal communication of true threats to kill.''
``I totally reject the defendants' attempts to justify their actions as an expression of opinion or as a legitimate and lawful exercise of free speech,'' Jones wrote in his injunction that also orders the activists to turn over all similar materials.
Jones' order comes three weeks after a jury found that the posters and ``The Nuremburg Files'' Web site amounted to a true threat.
The posters and Web site label abortion providers ``guilty of crimes against humanity'' and list their names and home addresses.
Three times, doctors whose names appeared on the list were killed, most recently in October when Dr. Barnett Slepian was gunned down by sniper fire in his home outside Buffalo, N.Y. His name on the Web site was crossed out that same day.
``The judge was someone who listened to all the evidence as a separate fact finder,'' said Maria Vullo, an attorney for the plaintiffs, including Planned Parenthood. ``As an impartial arbitrator, not only did he agree with the jury but did so in a very strong manner.''
Jones has said he has no jurisdiction over the Web site because its creator, Neal Horsley of Carrollton, Ga., was not a defendant.
But he wrote that the injunction applied to those ``in active concert'' with the defendants.
Horsley, whose site was shut down by its Internet provider for the second time this month, condemned the judge's order.
``We are doing nothing that the constitution forbids,'' he said. ``All of these actions are proving that people who are doing nothing more than exercising their First Amendment rights to resist and protest legalized abortion are being prevented from even speaking about the injustice.''
Jones said defying the injunction could result in criminal prosecution and fines of up to $1,000 a day.
*****
Karin, for your information: be prepared for a lawsuit against yourself. May be you do not care as you might have a few millions in the bank.
M.P.
From: pandrewblake@hotmail.com [ppp-007.m2-16.tor.ican.net]
Date: Fri Feb 26 19:05:42 1999
Re: REASONING 5
"They [the pro-choicers] do NOT want to revert to violence." They don't have to REVERT to violence; they are in the business, along with feminists, of violence.
From: casey@sarahandcasey.com [tide77.microsoft.com]
Date: Fri Feb 26 19:02:05 1990
I'll also add that I notice a lot of people saying that the web site "goes too far". I feel that this is misleading. By saying that it "goes too far", it makes it seem like any speech which "goes too far" away from your personal beliefs should not be allowed. The difference between constitutionally protected speech and threats is a lot more specific than is implied by the vague term, "it goes too far".
Casey
From: portboy@erfurt-city.de [hinkelstein.mdr.de]
Date: Fri Feb 26 19:01:41 1999
SCHADE, DASS SIE EUCH NICHT ABGETRIEBEN HABEN! hier wird gleiches mit gleichem bekaepft. dumm. wer ist denn dann der inteligentere?? ich stehe fuer fuer frei meinungsaesserung!! aber sollte man nicht besser sein als der gegner. diese seite ist einfach verabscheuungswuerdig. mich graut es, wenn zufaellig mein kind hier vorbei kommen sollte. ueberall dieses blut. EKELIG! der inteligentere gibt nach. schade, dass hier die intelligenz fehlt!
From: casey@sarahandcasey.com [tide77.microsoft.com]
Date: Fri Feb 26 18:50:49 1999
When I first heard about this site, I did a great deal of soul searching. Although I certainly respect your opinion and almost agree with it, I feel that this web site crossed a line. That line has nothing to do with what I believe, or with the issue of abortions. The web site crosses the line from a site that provides information and opinion, to a site which is implicitly threatening. I also believe it would be very easy to modify the site so that it is no longer threatening. A good start would be to stop crossing out the names of doctors who have been killed. That single aspect of the site is what bothers me most. It turns it from a site containing opinions and facts (I don't really have a problem with the publishing of personal information on the site, anyone with a phone book can probably get as much. And it isn't implicitly threatening) to something that is designed (IMHO) to look like a hit list.
As a side note, I find it interesting that you compare the site to a gun... I'm very much for stricter gun controls. Thinking of it in your context reveals some inconsistencies in my thinking (ie. I don't mind the publishing of personal information about abortion doctors, which is a "tool", But I do mind the fact that guns (also a tool) are readily available.) Damn, hate it when that happens.
Anyway, although I feel that the site crosses the line from constitutionally protected speech to non-protected threats, I must encourage you to keep taking stands such as this. It encourages active dialog and is good for everyone.
Casey
From: rdownie2@compuserve.com [gw0.gapac.com]
Date: Fri Feb 26 18:49:53 1999
I would rather stand before God...guilty of killing the baby killers..(and let HIM judge my heart) then stand before Him guilty of supporting these animals who kill children. I may be too zealous to some..but whats the differnece between killing the Nazi guard, doctor and nurse or whomever was helping kill the Jews,& Christians in world War 2 then whats going on now? Are we like many in Germany during that time who didn't want to know what was happening?
I think so. Many people in Germany hide behind the LAW..telling each other that they had to obey...after all it is the law. Those of you hold such laws to be higher then the laws of God no doubt would have supported slavery in 1860's in the United States..it was legal even the Supreme Court support it..but it was never right. Abortion can never be right, their can be no compromise on this..you know it..I know it..so where does this lead us too? I can't make you change you mind no more then you can with me..I want even try. Let God judge each mans actions..but we must be able to accept the consequences of our actions and pay the price for it, you have every right to take my life if I ever took out the bady killers just as the Nazi's had ever right to shoot us during the War..and this is,it seems to me,to be a war.I fear when all pieceful means are prohibited (as it seems is happening)...then what else will be left too us? What means of protest will be left? I don't know a soul who wants to hurt another but I do know some who would be willing to lay down their lives to protect the children.
From: schulz@wxs.nl [proxy02.wxs.nl]
Date: Fri Feb 26 18:18:51 1999
Hello Karin,
I think freedom of speech is absolutely one of the most precious things we can have.....but (the bud had to come)... where do you draw the line? When you draw the line by forbidding books like 'Mein Kampf' from Hitler or every type of pamphet in which neo-nazis claim that the holocaust has never occured, why is it so difficult to draw the line where people who pretend to fight for lives of unborn children, threaten peoples lives??
My point is that freedom of speech should never be about killing people which have a different opinion...it should be about the opinion itself.
Last: you sure started a discussion out here, this makes people think and take a stand. Perfect.
Mark
From: jr@mail.ulti.net [nic220.ulti.net]
Date: Fri Feb 26 16:37:30 1999
I too am a believer in free speech, however there is such a thing as going too far! How would you feel if you were to learn that you were the one being hunted and all of it because someone does not agree with your idea of morals? Maybe it is time to take a look at the real world and get in step with it. I don't easily suffer the folly of cowards such as your "flock" and leave you with the message that "you can run, but not far". Your views are rather unpopular on a global field as can be witnessed by how quickly your site gets shut down as soon as the service provider finds out who you really are. A turd by any other name still stinks! Have a nice day.
From: Katz001@aol.com [mnet01-81.dallas.texas.net]
Date: Fri Feb 26 16:00:23 1999
I am a strong defender of freedom of speech myself, but not ABSOLUTE freedom of speech. Absolutism, whether religious or secular, is a cop-out -- it just falsely justifies for stupid, lazy, ignorant, and/or irresponsible people their inability and/or their unwillingness to make difficult moral and ethical judgments. As one U.S. supreme court justice said years ago, "No one should have the freedom to yell 'Fire!' in a crowded theater". I think we must always limit expression to some extent to preserve the public welfare and the safety and rights of individuals when they are clearly under attack. The Nuremberg Files is a HIT LIST -- nothing more. It makes no argument concerning abortion. It is not informative or instructive. It is merely a listing of individuals, along with personal information about some of them, who lunatic Horsley insanely thinks should be exterminated by his version of "the final solution". It is like the Gestapo publishing a list of wanted Jews and other fugitives in Amsterdam in the early 40's. It is like shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater. It is the equivalent of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. It does not qualify as speech that should be protected by either law or ethical principle.
From: dcopes@hotmail.com [ppp15740.on.bellglobal.com]
Date: Fri Feb 26 15:43:07 1999
There is all the difference in the world between "free" speech and incitement to personal violence - do you really think there is NO communication that should be prohibited on the internet? If so, I think you are as frightening as those behind this site.
From: ckl@ckls.net [195.226.104.204]
Date: Fri Feb 26 15:07:02 1999
karin,
a compatriot of yours has pointed out that at least one of my arguments was wrong: i claimed it to be "illegal" what you have done. clearly, this is the wrong term. it is certainly legal, what i meant is that i think neither you nor anyone else does have the "morale" right to do what i called "illegal". sorry, i didn't mean to threaten you.
Christoph
ps: i am not american, btw.
From: pandrewblake@hotmail.com [ppp-154.m2-11.tor.ican.net]
Date: Fri Feb 26 15:05:17 1999
The right to free speech is inalienable.
From: nhorsley@worldnet.att.net [29.atlanta-05-10rs.ga.dial-access.att.net]
Date: Fri Feb 26 13:25:34 1999
Do not invoice me for the advertising services rendered here. I did not order these services and will, under no circumstances pay for them.
Neal Horsley, The Nuremberg Files
From: ckl@ckls.net [195.226.104.204]
Date: Fri Feb 26 12:31:01 1999
Karin,
I read your "context" and your reasoning, and I have to say that I strongly disagree with your arguments. Personally, I do not think that you mirroring the site is a big problem. the big problem indeed is your reasoning. this I find dangerous. let me go over your arguments:
[karin] 1. These lists have been circulating underground for a very long time, and they will be again if the NF site is outlawed or too expensive (because of damages needing to be paid) to maintain. They would go underground again.
[ckl] I agree with you and I would submit that the judges decision was probably not really serving its own purpose. However, it is clearly the judges choice and you or nobody else have the right to ignore this decision. if you do not like the judges decision, go ahead and use legal action against it - but do not ignore and disrespect the jurisdiction. this is clearly illegal.
[karin] 2. If there is a danger involved for me (assuming I am an abortion doctor), I would rather see my name appear on a public page. That would inform me, allow me to take all the appropriate precautions, and give me a very good reason to demand police protection.
[ckl] perhaps. but this is clearly the decision of the people listed in the Nuremberg files - not yours. you are trying to play god here. keep in mind that YOU are not on the list nor would you be threatened by it, even if you'd be on it.
[karin] 3. Pages like this are the ultimate argument against vehement anti-abortionists. They allow the pro-choice people to attack their bias, their propaganda, their cliches, their means, their methods. It shows their dirt. In short: the page is an excellent tool to attack the more vehement lot of the anti-abortionists. Especially when you present the page in your own context, like I did.
[ckl] this argument I find extremely perverse! if at all, this is an argument against insane and violent people who happen to masquerade as Christians. This is certainly not an argument against "vehement anti-abortionists". Arguing like this, you are suggesting that all serious - or vehement - anti abortionists are as insane as Mr. Horsley is. this is bad style - to say the least.
[karin] 4. Yes, I understand the fear many of these doctors live in; [ ... ] I encapsulated a warning on the top of the page [ ... ] Do not trust the names and addresses you find here [ ... ] That's information warfare.
[ckl] That's not information warfare, that only shows that you had your own doubts.
[karin] 5. Free speach is invaluable. The pro-choicers need it as much as the anti-abortionists, in fact, even more: precisely because they do not want to revert to violence.
[ckl] Nothing in the world is "invaluable". Claiming anything to be "invaluable" is sheer propaganda. Most ethical values in this world are competing values. In other words, usually they get into conflict with others in real life. This is why things are so difficult. You should know that. Claiming "Free speech is invaluable" is a little comparable to what the Nuremberg files say "Unborn Life is invaluable". Will you set up a web site soon listing names and addresses of judges who in your opinion do harm to your "invaluable" right??
[karin] [ ... ] Planned Parenthood could even have reversed the tables on the NF people. They, or their affiliates, could easily make a similar page that lists the names of vehement anti-abortionists, adorned with pictures of dead doctors and mug shots of their murderers.
[ckl] I am glad, they did not. Perverse advise, I would say.
[karin] 6. Rights, including the right to free speech, can always be abused. [ ... ] Should one decide how, and with which aims in mind, people may exercise their rights? Should the right to exercise them depend on the goal and the cause? Who decides what is a good cause and what is not, and which words and opinions serve that cause?
[ckl] You are right - rights can be abused. As a matter of fact, the harm caused by abuse of rights is most often less than the harm caused by trying to prevent the abuse. But there is definitely abuse that must be stopped, and it is clearly the jurisdictions responsibility to do this according the rules set by the legislation. This is a very difficult task. But a valid task - and not yours.
[karin] 7. Free speech is indeed indivisible. You cannot modify it. "Freedom of speech is a right, except when..." or "Freedom of speech is a right, on condition that..." " or "Freedom of speech is a right, if...". Salmon Rushdie, a writer I admire, put it very terse:: " "Free speech is not just an important thing. It is the only thing." Restrictions on free speech on other grounds than the personal moral and responsibility of the speaker, will bring free speech down and undercut the principle itself.
[ckl] I like Rushdie very much, still I believe this is nonsense. See point 5 above. You are citing Wallace " A book, pamphlet or web page calling for the murder of a group of people, repulsive as it is, is not illegal under this rule. Standing on the proposed victim's doorstep, addressing an angry armed mob, would be." So here we are: Freedom of speech is a right, except when your are standing on the proposed victim's doorstep, addressing an angry armed mob.
There is nothing invaluable or indivisable. There is always judgement required. This judegement is what makes you a good or bad human being.
Regards, Christoph (ckl@ckls.net)
From: whealton@wordsalad.net [host-209-215-27-24.ilm.bellsouth.net]
Date: Fri Feb 26 05:19:36 1999
I find your page interesting, especially from your point of view. However, I was interested in viewing the photographs that were included on the site. Since the controversy was over the names as targets why were the photographs of abortion realities not included in your mirror site? Please include them as they are part of the web site. Anti-abortion folks have been able to show graphic photographs, it was only the situation of making a list of baby butchers that was the problem.
Thanks, Bruce
From: tjbroderick@rocketmail.com [usr2-40.toolcity.net]
Date: Fri Feb 26 05:11:52 1999
The Nuremberg Files web site seems to be a failure. The babies are being forgotten in all the discussion about free speech and the actions of a very few misguided and violent individuals. What worries me is that -- in light of what abortion is and what it does -- ANY honest discussion of the subject is bound to cause strongly negative responses.
In many cases, these responses will be directed against those who speak up and tell the truth, that is, the messengers. However, at times, the message itself will be considered, and the negative responses will be directed against those who actually carry out the evil killing procedure called abortion.
If INJUSTICE is to be enshrined as a cornerstone of public policy, as in the case of abortion in the United States (no reason required during the FIRST 24 WEEKS, and virtually any reason accepted from that point forward), MANY civil rights will eventually have to be suppressed. Injustice invariably breeds discontent, alienation, disrespect for the sovereign authority of the state, hatred, and violence. (Think of the father whose preborn son or daughter has been put to death against his will.) In order to control such violent, lawless tendencies, only a tyrannical suppression of human rights will suffice. Indeed, the right of free speech and the state sancioned killing of innocent human beings -- before or after birth -- are fundamentally incompatible. One or the other must be eliminated.
Tim B.
From: ATrueChristian@god.com [198.108.138.191]
Date: Fri Feb 26 02:05:56 1999
The Nuremberg Files web page is so nauseatingly appaling that it makes me fear for what God will actually have waiting for those who have created and supported it. You know who you are. And so does he.
From: browns@your-net.com [port41.your-net.com]
Date: Fri Feb 26 00:26:45 1999
i believe in freedom of speech as much as the next. I believe this and other like rights given to us by our fore fathers are what make this country what it is today. that is not why i write this .
i write this because what is going on is wrong. You all say that you are pro-life..why do you kill??? is it your intention to bring hyposcrosy and blood onto the doorsteps of the loving families friends and neighbors of your undeserving victims...undeserving may only be my opinion, yet death isnt the answer to anything but life itself. i urge you all to re-think your actions and beliefs..i'm not one to push my opinions on others and i only ask you to consider mine...I pray for you all and i pray for your victims, their children, family and friends..
craig brown
From: SKitty@communityconnect.com [rvchw29.Res.McGill.CA]
Date: Thu Feb 25 23:18:51 1999
I really admire your open-mindedness in deciding to mirror this rather disagreeable site, in spite of your opinions about the issue. I applaud your motives to protect the 1st Amendment of the US.
I don't know if I agree whole-heartedly with your reasoning however. I have always advocated freedom of speech myself, but I believe that this right is waived when, and only when, it infringes on the rights of someone else. This is technically a part of the Freedom of Rights Charter, but everyone always conveniently forgets this.
If what you say is true, that the Nuremberg files listed private information of these ppl who work in abortion clinics or who have supported abortion directly or indirectly and even advocated that they should be killed, then I believe the courts had every right to take the site off the internet, as it does infringe on the rights of these people; it infringes on their right to privacy and to safety.
Sure, their information is probably in the phone book, but posting on the web is that much more public, and easier to access than a phone book or hospital record. Would you like to have your name and private address and other private information about you posted on the net for anyone to see? People warn us all the time about putting private information about ourselves on the net because we make it that much easier for identity stealers and other criminals to access it, and ruin our finances, lives and credit ratings! By posting these people's information on the web, they are doing the net equivalent of giving the key to their doors to people who might want to hurt them. They are taking away these people's right to privacy.
In addition, you have stated that "A book, pamphlet or web page calling for the murder of a group of people, repulsive as it is, is not illegal under this rule. Standing on the proposed victim's doorstep, addressing an angry armed mob, would be." Perhaps. But by stating this on a website, a book, a pamphlet or something else, they waive a few of their opponents' rights again, among them security of person, life, liberty, thought and opinion for starters.
I agree that there should be freedom of speech online and everywhere. I agree that all opinions should be valued, whether I agree with them or not, and that debate should be allowed. BUT when it comes to infringing on any of the rights of other people, that freedom is and should be waived. Anti-abortion sites telling me about the horrible process of abortion and about why they believe that abortion is wrong are great. Anti-abortion sites that advocate in any way that people who don't agree with them or people that condone abortion should be dealt with violently, AND supplying the "tools" (as you say) to do so, should be taking off the internet, and I stand with the courts 100% on that.
Note: This is immaterial to my own beliefs and opinions about the issue of abortion.
From: call@ [206.161.114.225]
Date: Thu Feb 25 22:44:48 1999
Dear Ms. Spaink,
Most Americans do not value freedome of speech to the point where terrorism is protected. We value all types of freedom, and terrorism stifles all types of freedom. Terrorizing abortion providers stifles their freedom to practice medicine within the law, as well as stifling women's freedom to have access to abortions. Until any movement crosses the line into terrorism, all opinions should certainly be able to be expressed without penalty. But terrorism, more than perhaps any other injustice, will end the entire American dream of freedom of thought and expression. I, as an American, value that above all else.
Sincerely, Mrs. Flynn
From: waterfoul@juno.com [max2p58.albany.albany.net]
Date: Thu Feb 25 22:22:43 1999
Why do you nut-job pro-lifers always have to go psycho on the rest of the civilized world? I'm not going to give you my position on abortion, because I think the heart of your argument rests on entirely different principles than the common argument. Combating a practice of killing people by threatening to kill the people responsible for the abortion is the same king of numbskull behavior that has the known world struggling with issues of the past such as slavery, racism, classism, sexism, religious and political persecution. As human beings, we have brains developed for logical thinking and civil behavior, among other things. Why not try to use some of these wonderful abilities to try and think out all the issues behind a question before you try to answer it. Thats all. Im not even going to get into the fact that you are enciting others who have no real capability to understand civility or morals into commiting morally reprehensible acts. thanks
From: michiels@xs4all.nl [asd-port273.dial.xs4all.nl]
Date: Thu Feb 25 21:11:52 1999
Dear Karin,
Nothing new under the sun. Read Chomsky about the Frenchman Faurisson. In what book ?
keep up the good work, bibi
Michiel Schweitzer
From: gwbrink@yahoo.com [gw.megaplex.nl]
Date: Thu Feb 25 16:41:15 1999
Karin,
You are really sick!
You are talking about the great value of freedom of speech, but at the same time you rape this freedom.
I can accept your so called pro-live point of view, and I think that you, just like the anti-abortion groups have the right to express your opinion.
But what is really disgusting is that it was NEVER your intent to make this action out of "love" for freedom of speech.
YOU ARE SICK!!!
Please remove the Blue Ribbon link from this site, because it does not represent what you stand for.
Gerwin Brink
For those who can read dutch this is the e-mail "conversation" Karin and I had:
>Je wekt de suggestie dat je met de namen en adressen hebt gerommeld,
>wat ik me vervolgens afvraag is waarom deze vorm van censuur?
Information warfare. Zorgen dat nieand weet welke gegevens betrouwbaar zijn.
>Zijn er dan wellicht toch zaken, zoals het noemen van namen en
>adressen, die niet onder de vrijheid van meningsuiting vallen?
Deze lijst valt er volgens mij zeker onder.
>Of is je bedoeling niet om voor de vrijheid van meningsuiting op te
>komen, maar om jou pro-abortus overtuiging te ondersteunen door de
>weerzinwekkende acties van sommige anti-abortus activisten te tonen?
Juist... Zolang zo'n site bestaat, kun je laten _zien_
wat voor opvattingen ze d'r op nahouden...
From: LadyDydan@c3net.net [p10t1du18.c3net.net]
Date: Thu Feb 25 13:41:41 1999
You are right, free speech is a good thing and I applaud anyone who has the balls to stand up and say what they feel with conviction. However, I disapprove of the Nuremberg site not because it promotes the pro-life agenda but the WAY in which it does so. Let's face it: not everyone on this planet is a well-adjusted functioning member of society. There are fringe groups and individuals crazy enough to actually act on what others say. IMHO, the Nuremberg site went over the line when it started posting addresses, phone numbers, social security numbers and names and photos of abortion doctors children. Sorry I seem to be confused here: why do I need to know some doctor in Texas' kids names and what they look like? How is that pertinent to the abortion debate? Words are a powerful tool and it the RESPONSIBILITY of each individual to not only stand up for what they believe, but to accept the repercussion of what actions may result because of their words. The Nuremberg files makes the classic mistake many fringe group Christians seem to make...so quick to judge others yet unwilling to accept their own shortcomings...seems miles away from the message of love and peace their Messiah preached, eh?
From: jeroen@rdc.net [diode.rdc.nl]
Date: Thu Feb 25 12:31:14 1999
Just a thought: Suppose I show people a gun, and tell them that this is a leathal weapon in the wrong hands, that it's all wrong and it should be banned.
Then, to point out how absolutely right I am, I would show the danger of the gun by killing some people with it.
This is what Spaink is doing.
From: r_kurpershoek@compuserve.com [tisnix.xs4all.nl]
Date: Thu Feb 25 11:21:44 1999
When neo-nazi, white supremacist web sites are banned in the US (or, for that matter, in Germany) will you copy those, too?
This action of yours is just PC masturbation coated with the flimsiest of Free Speech/5th Amendment arguments.
R. Kurpershoek, Amsterdam
|
