RE: Re: Censorial leftists (Was: Interesting article)

This post has a strange deja vu to it. I can remember back in the '60s when revolutionary wannabes would talk of the glorious peoples paradise while living in their comfortable suburban homes. How the workers' education system was open to all, no one was unemployed...

Now it has come full circle. Singapore is capitalist, so loss of freedoms can be glossed over. Many of us on this list would already be subject to the law for postings critical of government. People are in jail for looking at Penthouse on the net. Here we worry about filtering in libraries, they have whole country filtering. We worry about hate speech codes, they prohibit anything 'promoting racial or religious disharmony' (don't publish the Bell Curve there..), what good is being able to afford a printing press when you need the government's permission to publish. A few years back, at least, there were pictures in the airport of approved haircuts, you could not enter the country if your style did not conform. No first amandment, no fourth, no fifth, and don't even think about getting a gun permit.

It is amazing that people who are so offended by *government action* would gloss over a government that intrudes itself into so many areas of private life.

We are appalled by those who would sell their freedoms for perceived safety. Is it less  foolish to sell *fundamental* freedoms for a few bucks more income? 

Jay

==========================
   >From:    	frissell@panix.com
   >To:        	"J. Lasser" <jon@lasser.org>
   >Cc:        	fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu; cypherpunks@toad.com
   >Subject:    	Re: Censorial leftists (Was: Interesting article)
   >Date:    	Fri, Dec 5, 1997  5:31 AM
   >
   >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
   >
   >At 03:02 PM 12/4/97 -0500, J. Lasser wrote:
   >
   >>And Singapore survives quite well being a totalitarian capitalist
   >>society. Sure, you can pick nits and claim that Singapore's not entirely
   >>capitalist, but it's more capitalist than this country and certainly
   >>less free, too.
   >>
   >>The fact of the matter seems to me to be that most people are perfectly
   >>satisfied to be passive consumers. While they like to be free, that
   >>means free to make purchasing decisions. They also like to be safe, and
   >>if they have to lose civil liberties to be safe, then they're all for
   >>it. Just so long as they can buy what they want. That seems to me to
   >>describe the essence of the Singapore problem, and I'd bet it holds true
   >>for the U.S. (and many other places) as well.
   >
   >Forty years ago Singapore was poor and at risk of being wiped out by Malays 
   >or Commies or both.  (Maylays killed 1 Meg of their own Chinese in the '60s.) 
   > I'm sure that a few decades of being rich and safe will engender in that 
   >population a liking for social freedom.  They are currently more economically 
   >free than we are.  We rate 5th and they are 2nd or 3rd on the two indices of 
   >economic freedom.  They have many personal freedoms as well.  They have 
   >speech restrictions but are quite outspoken in any case.  The gum and 
   >spitting and smoking restrictions are no different than the smoking bans and 
   >such we are coming to live under.  We have one-party rule too.
   >
   >DCF  
   >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
   >Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
   >Charset: noconv
   >
   >iQCVAwUBNIdmioVO4r4sgSPhAQGt+AQAuKrTJTWfuUjDSNZO7l0ZyKFJ1UViAU+v
   >IsnmkcSoFSYok+1Etzo/x7t2z1wY9zVN5Smi2w2kzZRoymLS41LMZW7DvBEob7yw
   >Ur18j2fLdYG2hIkcXiAkQaTY96SYfmLRnIESc107Xtmgt00OTVBfDyi3QUbwID0v
   >349sPDAohIs=
   >=ceec
   >-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
   >
   >
   >

At 01:43 PM 12/05/1997 -0500, Duncan Frissell wrote:
>I don't think that Singapore is a fabulous place to live but its total 
>freedom is probably greater than Germany or France.  
>Our total freedom in the US is greater than Singapore's.

Depends on what you're measuring, and how you add non-commensurate
quantities together.  Singapore, for instance, kills drug dealers,
and informs you about that on the papers they hand you when you
enter the country.  I'd consider that a fairly blatant limitation on freedom.
The US occasionally kills drug dealers, and only very rarely if they
haven't committed other crimes, and in general seldom kills other criminals
in spite of the number of politicians who are Tough On Crime.
As far as I know, neither France nor Germany currently has the death penalty,
and they probably have fewer extrajudicial executions than the US.

The US currently won't arrest you for belonging to a political party,
now that the Anti-Communist laws have been trashed in the courts.
France and Germany will only arrest you for belonging to a few
political parties, and allow a lot of political parties that they
don't arrest you for membership in.  Singapore, if I remember,
held one of the leaders of a major opposition party in jail for
a couple of decades under Lee Kwan Yew, and makes it hard for 
opposition parties to organize and grow.

Singapore lets you work when you want to work, as long as you're
not doing a politically incorrect job like selling chewing gum or dope.
Germany doesn't really mind you selling dope, as long as your
shop is closed by 18:30 weekdays and earlier on Saturday :-)
(Don't think your customers are allowed to order pizza late, either...)

You can feel safe walking down the streets of Singapore at night.
A nice letter to the San Francisco Chronicle pointed out that the
author also felt very safe walking down the streets of Amsterdam.
Safety doesn't require a tyrannical police state or closed value system.

Without economic freedoms, it's difficult to preserve political and
lifestyle freedoms, especially if the economic limitations go beyond
stealing a lot of your money and into micromanaging how you spend it,
e.g. forbidding unlicensed purchases of printing presses or radio stations.

Without political freedoms, it's difficult to preserve economic freedoms;
if you can't organize and vote out a corrupt or big-spending government,
you're stuck between being constantly ripped off, violent revolution
(which is an expensive activity, especially if guns are hard to get),
or evading government officials (whether it's the Mexican system of
usually small bribes to avoid bigger problems, or the Italian system of
rampant cheating on high income taxes, or the Cypherpunks system
of keeping your income invisible and out of reach.)

Usually, tyrannical governments also want to rip off your money,
and corrupt governments want to keep you in your place politically
so they can continue receiving graft.  Occasionally some society
will be stuck with a tyrannical government that realizes it'll have
more power by letting its people make money, or a greedy do-gooder
society that doesn't mind what you do in your spare time as long
as you pay your taxes.  These situations may happen on the way down
(the greedy do-gooder government officials can't paying themselves
high salaries while collapsing the economy so they go for bribery),
or on the way up (tyrannical but honest leader kicks out corrupt 
small-timers and mafiosi and the people get more economic freedom
and more predictable if still limited personal freedom.)
				Thanks! 
					Bill
Bill Stewart, bill.stewart@pobox.com
PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF  3C85 B884 0ABE 4639

> Germany doesn't really mind you selling dope, as long as your
> shop is closed by 18:30 weekdays and earlier on Saturday :-)

20:00 weekdays, 16:00 on Saturday.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

At 06:44 AM 12/5/97 -0500, jay holovacs wrote:
>This post has a strange deja vu to it. I can remember back in the '60s when 
revolutionary wannabes would talk of the glorious peoples paradise while 
living in their comfortable suburban homes. How the workers' education system 
was open to all, no one was unemployed...

I don't think that Singapore is a fabulous place to live but its total 
freedom is probably greater than Germany or France.  Our total freedom in the 
US is greater than Singapore's.

It has just been getting attacked by those who accept the greater freedom 
violations of many other countries including many of those in the EU.

Germans lack many speech and association rights.  Germany has asked the US to 
arrest and extradite Americans for speech crimes.  They have mandatory 
address registration with the government (as does Singapore).  On the other 
hand, Germans have very restrictive labor and commerce laws, high taxes, and 
other laws that Singapore doesn't have.  Germany has mandatory 
"certification" (licensing) for almost every job in the country.  Singapore 
has some of these sorts of restrictions too but because of its other economic 
freedoms, it is freer than Germany.

Germany steals 50% of GDP and blows it on cigareets and whiskey and wild, 
wild, women.  Singapore steals only 20% of GDP (and requires an additional 
20% mandatory personally-owned retirement savings from salaries).  
Singaporeans are thus freer to use their own money than Germans.  

Singapore is unfree in many ways but freer than many other countries not 
usually attacked as tyrranies.

DCF 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv

iQCVAwUBNIhLNoVO4r4sgSPhAQG/4QQApynCOtYCD/S6O1hXeBf6fLXTRJzPuplL
ebyU12jz1Hfg8q92xAzxi74n2SGT8nNeGtFbroFLY9cP1wn8kN9mH25UpkiDq77Q
pEGgpVD0pc855ZXhzbqPyvzolwL8Xq37xvRTS8b84lbv8O0YY1mkhEm8z//9ILY/
pT0RtwulpiY=
=0j+/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

At 02:09 AM 12/06/1997 +0100, Peter Herngaard wrote:
>Mr. Frissell asserts that Germany lacks rights
>such as freedom of speech and association.  This is not true.
>The German Basic Law provides for everyone the right to freedom of speech,
>religion and association.
>However, Germany prohibits hate speech i.e. National Socialism and 
>incitement to racial, religious and national hatred.

Germany also prohibits the publishers of Radikal,
and people who support mirror sites of their magazine.
Radikal isn't hate speech, though it does advocate
opposition to the power structure.


				Thanks! 
					Bill
Bill Stewart, bill.stewart@pobox.com
PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF  3C85 B884 0ABE 4639

Hallam-Baker wrote:
  <nothing>

  Hallam-Baker obviously thinks that he can thwart my insightful,
barbed diatribes against him by posting empty messages to the
CypherPunks list, thereby giving me no grounds for my [last month's
CypherPunk phrase of the month here] attacks on him.
  While this clever ruse may have worked if I was in my usual under-
medicated psychotic state, it just so happens that I am currently in
an over-medicated psychotic state, and able to leap tall logic with a 
single bound.

  Halam-Bakker is obviously following the orders of his Puppet Masters
to take advantage of the old adage, "I don't care what they say about
me, as long as they spell my name right." He thinks that he can raise
his reputation capital by spelling his name right in empty messages
which give no one an opportunity to point out the evil intentions which
are subliminally lurking in his posts to the list.

  Well, I'm wise to your little game, H-B.
  I dare to 'say something' in your _next_ post.
  I double-dare you...

TruthMonger

Reply to Duncan Frissell:

Mr. Frissell asserts that Germany lacks rights
such as freedom of speech and 
association.
This is not true.
The German Basic Law provides for everyone the right to freedom of speech,
religion and association.
However, Germany prohibits hate speech i.e. National Socialism and 
incitement to racial, religious and national hatred.
The reason for this exception is the German history.
While I do strongly disagree with the German goverment on free speech, to 
lie about
the holocaust and to promote hatred, I understand why they have this law.
It should be noted that the ban on National Socialism was first imposed 
by the
allied nations, including The United States, 
after World War Two.
The democratically elected parliament of the new republic chooses
to continue this policy known as Radikalenerlass.

Peter Herngaard shaped the electrons to read ...

<deleted>
> If the German people desired  to abolish the Radikalenerlass they could  
> do so simply by changing their goverment precisely as U.S. citizens could 
> abolish use of capital punishment against minors.
> Is there any difference?
> Finally, it's unfair to lump Germany, whose privacy laws are better than 
> the Danish, in with a dictatorial police state like Singapore.

"Dictatorial police state"?  I take it that you are well informed.  Statements
such as yours do not warrant a response as you are so totally wrong that no
amount of rational discussion can change your viewpoint - or can it?

> In Germany you can in fact criticize the goverment without risk of 
> prosecution for seditious libel, that you cannot in Singapore.

You *can* critise the SG govt.  The idiots who claim to be the SG govt are
however very sensitive (i.e. have very thin skins) to anyone who makes false
criticisms.  That is the way they have choosen to play the game.  The SG
govt would not allow say the National Enquirer to publish stuff that attack
the govt especially if none of it is backed up with facts.  We are on a fine
line here.  In the US, the general principle is that once you are in the
public domain, you are fair game.  Anything can be thrown at you.  Here,
however, that is not the accepted rule-of-thumb.  Yes, the person may be in
public domain (holding public office), but these politicians will want to make
sure that what ever is out there about them or their policies are truths 
(partial or full as the purpose may be), but once they sense utter untruths,
they run behind the courts and sue people.  

What I have said so far is in the ideal case.  Lately, Singapore govt has 
become more and more tolerant to criticisms and are now willing to discuss
the reasons behind the criticisms to see if there are misconceptions that 
can be addressed.

> I also suppose that the standard for privacy protection is lower in 
> Singapore than in Germany.

Our privacy laws are a joke.  I do know that there are moves by the same
govt to put into place good solid privacy laws in the next year.

> Germany does not practice a blocking regime on the InterNet 
> similar to  that Singapore does, since that would be in contrary to the 
> constitutional ban on censorship.

Which has been circumvented by using alternate proxies or www.anonymizer.com.
Check www.sintercom.org/hunt/rahunt.html for more info.

> Yours sincerly

Regards.
-- 
Harish Pillay                             	  h.pillay@ieee.org
Singapore      *** Ask me about Linux *** http://home.pacific.net.sg/~harish

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Sun, 7 Dec 1997, Harish Pillay wrote:

[...]

> > In Germany you can in fact criticize the goverment without risk of 
> > prosecution for seditious libel, that you cannot in Singapore.
> 
> You *can* critise the SG govt.  The idiots who claim to be the SG govt are
> however very sensitive (i.e. have very thin skins) to anyone who makes false
> criticisms.

IIRC the peaple who decide weather these criticisms are false or not (the
judges) are quite biased towards the goverment.  If my memouries of a
recent news story are correct, a recent judment against the goverment
was a great shock to every one.

I have also have heard that the sueing by the goverment is aimmed at
driving thouse who critiscise it into bankrupsy and thus unable to hold
office.

[...]

> > Germany does not practice a blocking regime on the InterNet 
> > similar to  that Singapore does, since that would be in contrary to the 
> > constitutional ban on censorship.
> 
> Which has been circumvented by using alternate proxies or www.anonymizer.com.
> Check www.sintercom.org/hunt/rahunt.html for more info.

Its not wather the taticks where effective or not that is importent.  It
is the fact that the goverment attempted.

- -- 
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia see the url in my header. 
Never trust a country with more peaple then sheep.  ex-net.scum and proud
You Say To People "Throw Off Your Chains" And They Make New Chains For
Themselves? --Terry Pratchett.  I do not reply to munged addresses.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: noconv

iQCVAwUBNIuSnaQK0ynCmdStAQGRDAP/XoIgOJveVLu09zcBHKtwLP9Y8yt0ZHQ+
/vAofLi+kUtGaeStbvXt2FtdwiRR19xOhmM3mHSDSTIVV6jyBgKu0z0ikiXn+vFk
QaEjqw1OJL9SZzPeNw539+pGCbQjKwBEmjij/OPRXLzDPsXjNJfYxLSm+WQ3tc3G
jDu6/jqqmdQ=
=Od5x
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

At 02:09 AM 12/6/97 +0100, Peter Herngaard wrote:
>Reply to Duncan Frissell:
>
>If the German people desired  to abolish the Radikalenerlass they 
could  
>do so simply by changing their goverment precisely as U.S. citizens 
could 
>abolish use of capital punishment against minors.
>Is there any difference?

There is a difference, in that calling for the abolition of laws 
banning 'hate speech' can easily be labelled as 'hate speech' in 
themselves. Further, since it is never popular speech which needs 
government protection, the odds are good that the majority of those 
who would call for the abolition of such laws are those who wished to 
engage in such speech -- and thus, by calling attention to 
themselves, they could risk jail.

The reason such laws do not exist in the US is NOT because 'the 
people' do not want them -- I daresay a popular vote would install 
them in a heartbeat -- but because the government is NOT a democracy, 
and the 'will of the people' runs up against the Bill of Rights, 
which serves to protect people from the government, and from each 
other.

While I'm sure there are at least some ideaological free speech 
absolutists in Germany, I'm betting they're a smaller group than they 
are even in the US -- Germany has no real history of free speech, 
compared to the US, and Europe in general has a history of placing 
the collective good ahead of individual liberty. While a US 'leftist' 
will, for the most part, cede the right of even his enemies to speak 
(this is changing lately, but it used to be true, and there's still a 
few old lefties about), my exposure to German and other European 
leftists indicates that they approve strongly of laws banning 
'racist' or 'hateful' speech -- while the American left has its roots 
in the anarchists of the 19th century, the European left has grown 
from the totalitarians of the 20th century.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv

iQA/AwUBNIiqdjKf8mIpTvjWEQI24ACfX33Yo1UFlM5CyHW/lQqqzjbBUvgAoObC
W9x8sXsD1LHjgH7vk2n76OcH
=3Apc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Fri, 5 Dec 1997, Lizard wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> At 02:09 AM 12/6/97 +0100, Peter Herngaard wrote:
> >Reply to Duncan Frissell:
> >
> >If the German people desired  to abolish the Radikalenerlass they 
> could  
> >do so simply by changing their goverment precisely as U.S. citizens 
> could 
> >abolish use of capital punishment against minors.
> >Is there any difference?
> 
> There is a difference, in that calling for the abolition of laws 
> banning 'hate speech' can easily be labelled as 'hate speech' in 
> themselves. 
I think it's true for banana republics.
However, as far I know itsn't illegal in Germany to call for the abolition
of all hate laws.
But calling for the abolition of human rights is certainly against the law.
Changing or amending the Basic Law is not impossible.
The distinction is very narrow since those
who call for abolition of the hate laws, at least in Germany, at the same 
time
advocate expulsion of non-whites or the establishment of a dictatorship.

 >

> Further, since it is never popular speech which needs 
> government protection, the odds are good that the majority of those 
> who would call for the abolition of such laws are those who wished to 
> engage in such speech -- and thus, by calling attention to 
> themselves, they could risk jail.
Yes. But taken another European country such as Denmark
this is not illegal.
In fact, I and surely other free speech advocates would prefer abolition
of the criminal statute against hate speech.
> 
> The reason such laws do not exist in the US is NOT because 'the 
> people' do not want them -- I daresay a popular vote would install 
> them in a heartbeat -- but because the government is NOT a democracy, 
> and the 'will of the people' runs up against the Bill of Rights, 
> which serves to protect people from the government, and from each 
> other.
Yes. But if the majority of the voting population *really* wanted
to install a hate speech censorship regime, they coould elect
a House and a Senate being able
to change or amend the Bill of Rights.
It seems that criminalization of "flag desecration" 
to many is what hate speech is in Europe.

> While I'm sure there are at least some ideaological free speech 
> absolutists in Germany, I'm betting they're a smaller group than they 
> are even in the US -- Germany has no real history of free speech, 
> compared to the US, and Europe in general has a history of placing 
> the collective good ahead of individual liberty. 
I agree, and I am more in favour of the First Amendment than the European 
Convention of the Protection of Human Rights.
As I pointed out in another thread the European approach to freedom of 
speech is
majoritarian not libetarian.
The backtracker nations are France and Ireland who  have no excuse for 
censorship neither of hate speech nor pornography.
I do not know much about German free speech activists.
But I  subscribe to the view that there are less free speech absolutists 
there
than in the U.S.
But to be fair to Germany, they do not censor pornography as heavily as 
Ireland where X-rated 
movies are illegal along with blasphemous and seditious libel.
France, the country of "liberty, equality and brotherhood" is in fact 
more censorious than Germany in regard to imported publications.
For example, the Interior Minister can order the seisure of any "foreign" 
publication, without a prior court order, if it is in the national interest.
This censorship law is very old but is still used.
Scandinavia and Netherlands are the most liberal countries in Europe both 
in regard
to hate speech and pornography.
For instance, Denmark allows the Rudolf Hess march and the broadcasting 
of Mein Kampf on local radio
that woould not be allowed in other European countries.
Denmark is also a haven for distribution of NSDAP/ao literature to 
Germany, Great Britain and the rest of the world.
I suppose the White Power enthuasiast can get everything he/she desires 
in Denmark without having to order it by mail from Hilsboro West Virginia 
(The National Unemployance) or Lincoln Nebraska (Gary Lauck's NSDAP/ao).
Fortunately I am not a White Power enthusiast-)
But I know from reliable sources tht The International Jew by Henry Ford,
The Turner Diaries by William L. Pierce and WHITE POWER by George Lincoln 
Rockwell all are fairly legal, though not widely available, to every 
racist loser.
In addition, we do not prohibit pornography, and obscenity is a 
non-existent legal category.
Although I can live without hardcore pornography and White Power, I don't 
think my country is much oppressive compared to funny France and Ireland.



 > While a US 'leftist' 
> will, for the most part, cede the right of even his enemies to speak 
> (this is changing lately, but it used to be true, and there's still a 
> few old lefties about), my exposure to German and other European 
 > leftists indicates that they approve strongly of laws banning 
> 'racist' or 'hateful' speech -- while the American left has its roots 
> in the anarchists of the 19th century, the European left has grown 
> from the totalitarians of the 20th century.
This is entirely true.
However, there are few left-wingers in Europe who oppose censorship,
including myself, who oppope any censorship even of hate speech and 
tobaco advertising.
However, also the traditional right-wing "liberals" 
and "conservatives" 
endorse strict censorship of hate speech.
The reason why I do not support any anti-racst organization, except 
Nizkor, is that most such "human rights" advocacy groups in Europe are in 
favour of censorship.
In Denmark, The People's Movement against Nazism (Folkebevaegelsen mod 
Nazisme) is represented by amongst others people who 
honour Joseph Stalin and who support censorship
of any even peaceful advocacy of racial superiority.
Ironically, they justify their demand for censorship with the Convention 
of The Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
and The Convention on Civil and Political Rights. 
The United Nations is a threat to freedom of speech in particular in Europe
where we have no gaurantee of freedom of speech with similar strength as 
that the First Amendment provides.
It was shocking to observe that states such as China, Nigeria, Pakistan  
can influence freedom of speech
from within the U.N. under
cover of "elimination of all forms of racial discrimination."