OVO

If a website is hosted in the United States but authored in another country, which country’s laws should apply to the content of that website? If a web site in favor of independence for Tibet were hosted in the United States but authored in China, which country’s laws should apply to the content of that website? What about a website in favor of women’s rights were hosted in the United States but authored in Iran? Most people I know would say that the free speech laws of the United States should trump the non-free speech laws of other countries. Most people I know would say that these websites should be allowed to continue to exist and that their authors should not be subject to criminal charges, either in the United States or in any other country. But when the free speech in question is in error or insulting then there are differences of opinion among those I know. Some laugh, some scowl and move on, some call for the free speech to be censored, some call for those practicing free speech to be punished.

England has laws that make ‘race hate’ literature illegal. The United States does not have such laws. Simon Sheppard [Wikipedia] of England publishes the website heretical.com out of Torrance, California. On Friday July 14, 2008 Sheppard was found guilty of eleven counts of ‘race hate’ relating to heretical.com. According to heretical.com the website was subject to British and not USA law because it was ‘available in England and Wales.’ What other websites originating in the USA are subject to British law because they are available in England and Wales? Perhaps my own, ovo127.com? Am I endangering my chances of visiting England again with this post?

Simon Sheppard and an author published at heretical.com, Luke O’Farrell, fled England and came to the United States seeking asylum in July 2008. According to heretical.com they argued that heretical.com was ‘irony, satire and parody of political correctness, intended in good humour and for the stimulation of debate.’ According to heretical.com “No evidence was presented at the [asylum] applicants’ trial, during June and July 2008, that any ‘racial hatred’ had resulted from the internet material. No evidence was presented at the applicants’ trial that anyone had accessed the relevant internet pages other the single police officer who had downloaded the website for the purpose of the prosecution.” Upon arrival in the United States, Sheppard and O’Farrell were taken into custody. They appeared before Judge Rose Peters in March 2008. Judge Peters had previously granted asylum to UK citizen Sean O’Cealleagh. O’Cealleagh had been found guilty of aiding and abetting the Corporal killings [Wikipedia] in which two British Army soldiers were abducted, beaten, stripped and shot. Judge Peters wrote: “The court has come to the conclusion that there are problems with this conviction, which leads me to the belief that the conviction was a purely political offence. Everything in this case from beginning to end labels this as political.” The Corporal murders were videotaped and show real men dying [Wikipedia]. The Heretical Two wrote words and published pictures. Judge Peters reserved judgement regarding Simon and O’Farrell, apparently not finding their words and pictures a purely political offence in the way that abducting, beating, stripping and shooting soldiers is. The Heretical Two were sent back to England. Sheppard received a sentence of four years and ten months, O’Farrell received a sentence of two years and four months.

To quote The Hoover Hog:

If you would like to know what criminal speech sounds like, Sheppard and [O'Farrell]‘s words still pulsate with harmful potential on the Heretical website. Perhaps you will be offended, or bemused, or provoked, or simply bored. It doesn’t much matter at this point. The law has spoken. Two writers have been imprisoned for expressing thoughts and we should breathe easier. Persecution is just a noisy watchword anyway. Free speech is about Henry Miller and Lenny Bruce and Salman Rushdie and those Muhammad cartoons. It is important to understand the difference.

To help my readers understand the difference, here are the charges that put these two men in prison…

• Possession of publication of a comic book titled Tales of the Holohoax. Tales of the Holohoax is a comic book available at the Internet Archive.
• Publication of two comics by R. Crumb, Niggers Over America and When the Goddamn Jews Take Over America. The former was recently exhibited at David Zwirner Gallery in New York City. Regarding them both, Crumb said “I just had to expose all the myths people have of blacks and Jews in the rawest way possible to tilt the scale toward truth.”
• Publication of Dumb Niggers, Gloating Sheeneys, Hell’s Bells, Make Niggers History, Diversity = Death, Three Parasites and a Funeral by Luke O’Farrell. Publication of Boat Ticket #2 and The Swastika by George Lincoln Rockwell. Publication of Auschwitz Holiday Resort, Evil Zionist Kikes and Kike Windchimes by Ohrdruff. Possession and publication of The Psychology of False Messiahs and Illusory Utopias by Simon Sheppard.

The Heretical Two are in prison, why not Crumb and the owners of the Internet Archive? Perhaps you have at some point in your life owned a comic book that is in error or is insulting, such as Viz (quoted at heretical.com)? Other books that might get you in trouble because they also appear at heretical.com are The Bible, the works of Glenn Wilson (among the 10 most frequently cited British psychologists in scientific journals), Charles Darwin, Sigmund Freud, Ivan Pavlov, Douglas Adams, Isaac Asimov, Roald Dahl, A. C. Doyle, Rudyard Kipling, H. L. Menckin, Monty Python, H. P. Lovecraft, Arthur Shopenhauer, Wally Wood, Winston Churchill, Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, Josef Stalin and others. Are the owners and publishers of works by these authors and artists also due for some jail time?

The term “free speech” appears around 12,000 times at boingboing.net but there is no mention so far of the Heretical Two at boingboing.net. Amnesty International defines prisoners of conscience as “men, women or children imprisoned solely for the peaceful expression of their beliefs or because of their race, gender or other personal characteristics” and states “Amnesty seeks the immediate release of all prisoners of conscience.” But Amnesty International have not yet taken up the case of the Heretical Two. The Comic Book Legal Defense Fund writes they are “dedicated to the preservation of First Amendment rights for members of the comics community” but they have not yet taken up the case of the Heretical Two. The American Civil Liberties Union writes they are the “guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country.” But the ACLU has yet to mention the Heretical Two. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, published by the United Nations, reads “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” But the UN has yet to support the Heretical Two.

The Heretical Two have appeared in the mainstream media. In the USA the Orange County Weekly, The Stranger and the Los Angeles Times have mentioned them. In the UK the BBC, the Guardian and the Yorkshire Post have mentioned them. If there are other articles, I don’t know about them. I’m not sure that more press would help the Heretical Two at this point. But it might help others to learn how tentative their freedom of speech is, and to appreciate it all the more. I do not agree with what the Heretical Two have published and I do not support their being jailed. I am taking a risk writing this blog post in support of free speech, free speech with all its errors and insults. What will you risk?

Followup: The Heretical Two Timeline by Trevor Blake.