IP: A response to an IP posting

[Dave Farber <farber () central cis upenn edu>]

Posted-Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 17:36:54 -0500
X-PGP-Fingerprint: 01107BAB1C85F1B49358D98FEAD4339E
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 14:36:41 -0800
To: farber () central cis upenn edu
From: Stephan Somogyi <somogyi () digmedia com>
Subject: A response to an IP posting
Cc: somogyi () digmedia com


Mr Farber,


a colleague of mine forwarded an item from your interesting-people list
that I feel compelled to respond to. I've enclosed my note below
and would like to request you forward it on to the list.


Regards,


Stephan


- - - - -


Van Hefner wrote:


> I absolutely do NOT support these Nazi wacko's views, but banning over
> 1,400 providers Homepages with no regard to content is eerily
> reminiscent of Hitler's tactics during the 30's and 40's. I guess they
> feel that the end justifies the means.


Mr Hefner's comments comparing the German law forbidding the
dissemination of Nazi propaganda to Hitler's activities display a
staggering lack of perspective. His missive also illustrates how
ill-equipped many, but most assuredly not all, Americans are to
function in a global electronic environment.


In December, when the Munich prosecutor's office began an investigation
into whether CompuServe was liable for the content it conveyed between
netnews and CIS subscribers in Germany, the majority of netborne
comments I saw cried "Censorship!", proceeded to vilify most things
German, and clearly blamed the German federal government for the
perceived transgression.


However, when a Tennessee district attorney began investigating and
subsequently prosecuting a Milpitas, Calif., couple based on content
that their BBS was offering, I did not see anyone, within or outside of
the US, claim that this DA's actions reflected a policy of the US
government.


While the law forbidding dissemination of Nazi propaganda as well as
revisionism with regard to Nazi atrocities is part of German criminal
law, it might also be useful to note to all those complaining about
German law that the German constitution (Grundgesetz) was reviewed by
all three western allies along the way to taking effect in 1949.


It seems to me that a double standard is being applied here. Where
other nations' laws are deemed beneficial to US interests, they are
generally deemed good laws. Extradition treaties, such as the one that
allowed a South American drug lord to be bundled off the US after he
was caught in Mexico, are a good example. Even the German data privacy
laws, widely held to be the most comprehensive and protective of
individuals' rights, are considered to be exemplary by many here in the
US.


But when other nations' laws run against the sensibilities of people
here in the US, typical reactions tend to run along the lines of
"gawdang furriners," instead of thinking about why those laws might
exist. In the case of the law forbidding the dissemination of Nazi
propaganda, it stems from a desire to make sure that the facts about
what happened while Hitler was in power are known. Revisionism about
that time is intolerable.


Webster's 10th's definition of censorship is relatively judgement-free,
yet use of the word evokes a particularly strong reaction in American
culture. The US Constitution's First Amendment's origins can be found
both in the fact that the colonies' original settlers were fleeing
religious persecution as well as later on resisting the British Crown's
suppression of revolutionary information. This deeply rooted aversion
to information control is understandable in American culture. Yet
similar tolerance for the unique features of other countries' legal
infrastructures are generally lacking; it seems that most American
net.inhabitants would see their First Amendment forced down the throats
of the rest of the world.


The sovereignty of nations is a useful concept, even in the electronic
world. I must presume that US residents would not want to be subject to
content-related laws in effect in Saudia Arabia or Singapore -- both of
which are nations considered friendly to the US -- yet many of those
residents feel that they should do the same unto other nations. It is
precisely this attitude that is going to make schemes such as China's,
detailed in yesterday's Wall Street Journal, increasingly prevalent, as
nations decide to limit incoming information as close to the source as
possible.


I've been to Ploetzensee and other sites of Nazi atrocities and seen
what Nazi Germany did. It would behoove those who lack the ability to
visit such memorial sites to at least spend some time thinking, or even
researching, before they take the cheap shot of comparing lawful
actions in non-US sovereign states that do not violate the commonly
accepted notion of human rights to the deeds of the Nazis.


_______________________________________________________________________
Stephan Somogyi               Senior Editor               Digital Media