Date: Sun, 25 Feb 96 14:51 CST
From: Cu Digest (email@example.com)
Subject: Cu Digest, #8.17
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 96 23:51 MET From: Patrick Goltzsch
Subject: File 5--Re: Cu Digest, #8.16 - File 6 In re: Subject--File 6--Re "Myths (?1)" in CUD 08.15 > Concerning your role in the Zundel case, I just wish to ask > you what justification you have to enforce your > US-constitutional rights upon citizen from countries with > different constitution and values? These words seem inappropriate: no one has been forced to accept to US-law in Germany. People still have the opportunity to read the Zuendel pages if _they_ want to. It is a personal decision to evade German law. > Though some Germans may > not care for Nazi propaganda flowing into Germany, broad > agreement here (based on our historical experiences) is > that we do NOT wish such inflow; did you observe how > non-German media react when another house with people > seeking asylum is burning, whether ignited by Nazi racists > or as consequence of an incident (as recently)? Even if there was such a broad consensus (don't count on me) it does not justify censorship. Apart from that the Zuendel pages don't flow into Germany, they are actively imported. > Could you > please instruct me how our society may cope with racist > material if not by making import of such material a > criminal offense (as in our Penal code)? Of course: information, argumentation, enlightenment. The trouble with these paragraphs is that they tend to suppress a much needed process called "Vergangenheitsbewaeltigung" (coming to terms with the past). The law makes it comfortable to deal with these lies by simply placing a taboo on the whole complex. There is no need to argue with the nazis, you just have to call the police. For the time being the Zuendel pages are not a criminal offence. There is only the suspicion of the prosecutors in Mannheim that the pages might be an offence to German law but no judge has confirmed their view. > I agree with you > that such flow may hardly be technically controlled, but > law formulates (at least in this case) a general consensus > and is their of educational help. Law as general consensus? > Generally: would you understand that enforcing your > US-constitutional rights upon non-US citizen may be > understood as an act of agression, more clearly "network > imperialism"? Dont you regard non-US citizen as "network > Indians" whom you must baptize at your prize? The CDA has passed the US-Congress last week. Am I a "network imperialist" if I choose to use four letter words in a posting to a newsgroup, say alt.culture.internet? And this time the words will _flow_ into the US. Will I have to clean my web-page because according to US-standards it might be indecent? I would rather term the imposition of a national laws - whether CDA or German penal code - on citizens of other countries in such a way. > Btw: do not misunderstand me. I am in favour of as free > information flows as possible, but within given constraints > which derive from culture, history and other elements of > national consensus. Obviously culture and national consensus are phenomena which are put into question with the possibility of an international exchange of information. The point you make here would lead to a halt of the flow of information. You couldn't even post a cooking recipe for "Wiener Schnitzel" because you might offend people who abhor pork. And worse: there are about 140 countries: how do you know, when you break the law in one of these? The only answer to the question can be to discuss the "national consensus". If this process leads to a result a government can try to make it a global consensus. If this fails, then the country has to either accept it or act like the Chinese.