For a general comment about this thread, see the critical dialogue sample threads Introduction: Hillary and Ronald.
Hey guys, sorry to keep flooding your message boxes with more petitions. I don't know if I know enough about this issue, but if you are interested in making it harder for neo-nazis to communicate over e-mail read on.
>>A group of neo-nazis are trying to form a newsgroup on Usenet called rec.music.white-power, so that they can get their message of hate out to young people using the Internet. Newsgroups are public discussion areas on the Internet and their formation requires enough support from the Internet community.
>>EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU HAS ONE VOTE when it comes to creating a new Usenet group. I hope you will vote NO and thereby tell these Nazis you don't want their stuff on the net. Below is the procedure, please repost my plea and get the NO vote out. This is my personal opinion. If you want to see the official call for votes, you can read in news.group or ask me for a copy of the notice calling for votes.
>>Do _not_ vote twice - that would constitute voting fraud.
>>HOW TO VOTE:
>>Send E-MAIL (posts to a newsgroup are invalid) to: music-vote@sub-rosa.com
>>This is an impartial, third-party vote taker.
>>Do not REPLY to THIS message, if you are trying to vote. Please do not assume that just replying to this message will work. Check the address before you mail your vote. Your mail message should contain only one statement:
>>I vote NO on rec.music.white-power
>>I REALLY HOPE YOU VOTE NO!
>>Vote counting is automated. Failure to follow these directions may mean that your vote does not get counted. If you do not receive an acknowledgment of your vote within three days contact the votetaker about the problem. It's your responsibility to make sure your vote is registered correctly.
>>Here's what Canada's George Burdi, of the neo-Nazi Heritage Front, had to say about this vote, on February 21, on his RESISTANCE mailing list:
>>"There is a call for votes coming on rec.music.white-power in the next week or so, and you will be notified in a special issue of RREN exactly what to do. FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS TO THE LETTER. Let me be perfectly blunt and state that we have more than enough "net-nazis" to win this thing hands-down. But every one of you must vote YES! And just voting yes means nothing unless you do it properly. So you have been forewarned. The instructions are coming to your email box soon, and they are not complicated. Just follow them as told, and we will have a WP music newsgroup finally!"
>>If Mr. Burdi's confidence disturbs you, please give this letter the _widest_ possible distribution, and help us deliver the largest NO vote in the history of UseNet.
>>If you would like more detailed information on why you should vote no, check out http://nizkor.almanac.bc.ca - although it should be noted that the Nizkor Project has no connection to this personal plea."
>>Gary Romalis
Because we don't hold the same views as them, we have the right to deny them freedom of expression. Prohibiting things we don't want to hear sounds like censorship....
Dick
Hillary, Dick, and all,
I don't remember offhand who said it but there's a great quote that goes something like: "I may not agree with a single word you say, but will defend unto the death your right to say it." Its that whole ACLU thing again. The email that Hillary sent us was particularly disturbing in light of the recent communications bill signed by the white house, yadda yadda yadda, you remember the debate on the list and I'm sure you had it elsewhere as well. The point is, a liberal should place the first ammendment above cougars, spotted owls, Burma and grapes when it comes to causes for which to fight. What am I talking liberals--as if we were the only ones interested in defending the various freedoms of expression. Anyway, don't vote or even vote yes--every lunatic, revolutionary, or racist (depending upon who you talk to) has a right to have a special interest newsgroup, even one with the prestigious rec.* name (don't kid yourself, there are already many alt.whatever.insecure.whitepower newsgroups out there. You're not stopping the spread of the evil empire by voting no). Just a few thoughts. Welcome back from Spring Break, and I hope y'all had as good a time as I did (ask Leeann about a killer concert at Dartmouth and Ted about the Hard Rock Cafe in NYC.)
Sincerely, Kurt
As I wrote this e-mail, I had started it with a ambivalent if not leaning towards anti-No vote response. But after I wrote it, it made so much damn sense that I made up my mind. Please read on and respond, I am interested in what people have to think about this.
Why is there a vote? Is a vote "no" taking away freedom of speech? I don't think so. Surely other newsgroups have been turned down, if you read the letter this vote thing sounds like a natural kinda deal. How many of you would, if, say, the newspaper (free speech in the newspaper, no?) was asked, demanded by a group of neo-nazis to get a vote from its subscribers as to whether or not to have a neo-nazi columnist in the editorials every week. Sure, you don't have to look at the page, and you don't have to read it, but how many of you would vote yes? I sure as hell wouldn't. I'd vote no, and not feel like I am denying anything. Is this kinda the same thing? I mean, we are all subscribers to the net, and the question is, do we want a white-power voice on the net, or not? Homepages for white power are not banned, neither is e-mail. I think that voting no would be sending a mesage of generalized, overall intolerance for the kind of crap that the neo-nazis support. It's not a censorship, it's an american NIMBY (not in my back yard) response to the Neo-nazis.
>>Newsgroups are public discussion areas on the Internet and their formation requires enough support from the Internet community.
Check that out! I have nothing against free speech, but will I give them support? No I will certainly not. Think about the newspaper analogy and see if you will vote no. I did.
--Marvin "first amendment is good" X____
Ronald and Dick, you made good points. It is everyone's right to believe what they want and be able to discuss it. I found the foward interesting and thought maybe others would too. I guess I didn't realize that by sending the foward, people would associate the message of it with me. When I first read the message, my first reaction was to email the list given and vote no. It really scares me, that it was so easy for me to want to deny those people the right to freedom of speech and belief, just because I really don't agree with them. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.
I missed you Rinc and hope you had a good break. (by the way I have copies of all those pictures I took at Screw your Roomate. If you remember being in a picture I took and want a copy please come by and get it.) Love you guys!
--Hillary
Hey guys
I'm afraid I'm gonna have to disagree with Marvin on this one. As far as his newspaper analogy goes, I would probably not be opposed to a columnist who expounded views contrary to my own much in the same way that I am not opposed to the white-supremacist-newsgroup. Its been my experience that being exposed to people with different views than me has helped me clarify my own opinions. It helps define exactly what I _don't_ believe in. (This is why I often listen to Rush Limbaugh...)
Furthermore, it is censorship, like it or not. I do not own the Internet. Using Netscape I've probably not even viewed 99.9% of it, and I think that goes for most of us. We would have to go out of our way to find this newsgroup and be offended by it. It is not quite in our own "backyard." THe e-mail we received was not so much an egalitarian attempt at majority rule so much as it was a concerted effort to squash the rights of a few. Let them have their newsgroup, just so long as they're not burning crosses in our electronic backyard.
--thanx
Bobby "late for class" X____
>>1. Is the "namespace" appropriate? I.e., Does the purpose of the proposed group fit within the purpose of the hierarchy to which it would be added?
The editorial states that the newsgroup is political and not music related because the venues explored to gain support.
1) if you were a Nazi, you probably would expect support from like-minded people and not much else
2) plenty of music is political.(REM's Ignore Land for one, Midnight Oil's Panganeenee, or whatever, is another example) If the music has a message it is still a type of music
>>2. Is there a _need_ for the proposed new group?
Does anybody really _need_ a newsgroup discussion area? If people want to talk about an issue/topic/hate plans/etc. and a forum for that doesn't exist where people know they can go to vent/explore/learn/relate then there is a NEED for one. Just because the discussions on other music forums were never dominated by white supremicist music lovers (THANK GOD) doesn't mean there aren't a minority out there that would like to express themselves on a certain issue. Perhaps they were never interested in those groups because of the different music types they encompassed, or they were not well recieved when they did post so they stopped.
Yannie
Okay guys, to revisit the issue that I think is very important, not as itself, but as an example for something that I find extremely disturbing in our society at the moment: we are all so scared to act because of the first amendment! Now, realize that I am not saying the #1 is bad, it's just that we pretend that it is the source behind all these issues and sometimes it is NOT. Case in point, the nazi newsgroup issue.
If you spend more that five minutes looking at it, which I suspect most of you haven't, you will realize that it is purely a political issue, not a censorship one.
Further, Mr. Kleim could, at any time, without a vote, without discussion, create "alt.rock-n-roll.white-power." Neither Mr. Kleim, nor any of the other Nazis on the net, ever did this. If his sole concern was the creation of a white-power music group, _or_ if there was a legitimate _need_ for such a group, then it could have been created, years ago.
Take a look! At any time, a discussion group can be made to talk about white power music WITHOUT a vote. so why do they want a rec.music group? For the very reason of the VOTE.
What they WANT is for there to be some possibility for us to shut them down, and have it not happen, so they can say to the young disgruntled teens: "Look! we have more supporters than dissenters, we're not as unpopular as you think... the net community (the only one that counts in this day and age) supports, as a whole, the idea of our music! c'mon and join!"
What I want is for a kid to be thinking about this kind of neo-nazi b.s. and then have someone point out to them (it sure as hell won't be the nazis) "Look, the net community voted Two hundred thousand to sixty (okay, exagerration, but you get my point) AGAINST their kind of crap. You will not gain friends by joining these people, even though it looks like you might."
I'm sorry if my adamant stand against spreading neo-naziism offends some of you, but I sure hope it doesn't. Guys, don't shove the first amendment where it doesn't belong, don't be afraid of acting now because you think it's going to be violated. This is a POLITICAL issue, one designed purely to create more propaganda for the white-power folks. Help me stop them, please.
--marvin "forgive, but never forget" x____________
(if you're wondering, my middle name today is the motto of the Holocaust Foundation)
--Happy Passover!!!!!!!!