ovo

France bans internet Nazi auctions – A French judge has ruled that the US Internet Service Provider Yahoo! Inc must make it impossible for French users to access sites auctioning race hate memorabilia. In a landmark ruling, Judge Jean-Jaques Gomez gave Yahoo! Until 24 July to comply with his order. Existing French law prohibits the selling or display of anything that incites racism. [...] Yahoo said it condemned all forms of racism but added the case raised significant questions. A lawyer for the internet service provider said the real question was whether a French court had jurisdiction over the English-language content of an American website.

Yahoo!, Inc. v. LICRA, 169 F.Supp. 2d 1181 (N.D. Cal. 2001) – “Although France has the sovereign right to regulate what speech is permissible in France, this Court may not enforce a foreign order that violates the protections of the United States Constitution by chilling protected speech that occurs simultaneously within our borders. The reason for limiting comity in this area is sound. ‘The protection to free speech and the press embodied in [the First] amendment would be seriously jeopardized by the entry of foreign judgments granted pursuant to standards deemed appropriate in [another country] but considered antithetical to the protections afforded the press by the U. S. Constitution.’ Bachchan v. India Abroad Publications, Inc., 585 N. Y. S. 2d 661, 665 (Sup. Ct. 1992). Absent a body of law that establishes international standards with respect to speech on the Internet and an appropriate treaty or legislation addressing enforcement of such standards to speech originating within the United States, the principle of comity is outweighed by the Court’s obligation to uphold the First Amendment.”

Convicted Murderer Sues Wikipedia, Demands Removal of His Name – Wikipedia is under a censorship attack by a convicted murderer who is invoking Germany’s privacy laws in a bid to remove references to his killing of a Bavarian actor in 1990. Lawyers for Wolfgang Werle, of Erding, Germany, sent a cease-and-desist letter demanding removal of Werle’s name from the Wikipedia entry on actor Walter Sedlmayr. The lawyers cite German court rulings that “have held that our client’s name and likeness cannot be used anymore in publication regarding Mr. Sedlmayr’s death.” [...] Jennifer Granick, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, says German publications must also alter their online archives in a bid to comport with laws designed to provide offenders an avenue to “reintegrate back into society.” [...] Granick said the First Amendment protects San Francisco-based Wikipedia.

Simon Sheppard and Stephen Whittle are citizens of the United Kingdom who operate a web site in California, USA called heretial.com (previously at OVO).  The content of their website is considered illegal ‘hate speech’ in the UK but is not illegal in the USA. Sheppard and Whittle applied for asylum in the USA but were instead extradited and are now in prison. The ‘Heretical Two’ did not enjoy the protection of the First Amendment that others have found in similar situations.  No evidence was presented at their trials that any ‘racial hatred’ had resulted from their website. No evidence was presented at their trials that anyone had accessed the website other than the single police officer who had downloaded the website for the purpose of the prosecution.  Is free speech only for those in the right who speak with a pleasant tone?  What nation’s laws govern US websites?

Wikipedia, Smedley Butler:

Smedley Darlington Butler (July 30, 1881 – June 21, 1940), nicknamed “The Fighting Quaker” and “Old Gimlet Eye”, was a Major General in the U.S. Marine Corps and, at the time of his death, the most decorated Marine in U.S. history.

During his 34 years of Marine Corps service, Butler was awarded numerous medals for heroism including the Marine Corps Brevet Medal and the Medal of Honor twice. Notably, he is one of only 19 people to be twice awarded the Medal of Honor, and one of only three to be awarded a Marine Corps Brevet Medal and a Medal of Honor, and the only person to be awarded a Marine Corps Brevet Medal and a Medal of Honor for two different actions.

In addition to his military career, Smedley Butler was noted for his outspoken anti-interventionist views, and his book War is a Racket. His book was one of the first works describing the workings of the military-industrial complex and after retiring from service, he became a popular speaker at meetings organized by veterans, pacifists and church groups in the 1930s.

In 1934, he alleged to the United States Congress that a group of wealthy industrialists had plotted a military coup known as the Business Plot to overthrow the government of President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Wikipedia, War is a Racket:

War Is a Racket is the title of two works [...] by retired U.S. Marine Major General Smedley Darlington Butler [...] in which Butler frankly discusses from his experience as a career military officer how business interests have commercially benefited from warfare.  After he retired from the Marine Corps, Gen. Butler made a nationwide tour in the early 1930s giving his speech “War is a Racket”. The speech was so well received that he wrote a longer version as a small book with the same title that was published in 1935 by Round Table Press, Inc., New York. The booklet was also condensed in Reader’s Digest as a book supplement which helped popularize his message.

War is a Racket as a free text online, a book to purchase from Feral House or in a dramatic reading.

Wikipedia, Business Plot:

The Business Plot was a reported political conspiracy in 1933 which involved wealthy businessmen plotting a coup d’état to overthrow United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt. In 1934 retired Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler testified to the McCormack-Dickstein Congressional committee that a group of men had approached him as part of a plot to overthrow Roosevelt in a coup. In the opinion of the committee these allegations were credible. One of the purported plotters, Gerald MacGuire, vehemently denied any such plot. In their report, the Congressional committee stated that it was able to confirm Butler’s statements other than the proposal from MacGuire which it considered more or less confirmed by MacGuire’s European reports. However, no prosecutions or further investigations followed. While historians have questioned whether or not a coup was actually close to execution, most agree that some sort of “wild scheme” was contemplated and discussed. Contemporaneous media initially dismissed the plot, with a New York Times editorial characterizing it as a “gigantic hoax”. When the committee’s final report was released, the Times said the committee “purported to report that a two-month investigation had convinced it that General Butler’s story of a Fascist march on Washington was alarmingly true” and “It also alleged that definite proof had been found that the much publicized Fascist march on Washington, which was to have been led by Major. Gen. Smedley D. Butler, retired, according to testimony at a hearing, was actually contemplated”.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt was no stranger to fascism.  He was a friend to Sir Oswald Mosley, as shown in this photograph (mirror) as well as Lady Mosley.  Sir Mosley was the founder of the British Union of Fascist.  Fascism as an economic plan, as a ‘third way’ that was neither communism nor capitalism, is not unlike what President Roosevelt established in his New Deal.  No implication is made or should be understood that the New Deal or Sir Mosley’s BUF also included the excesses of fascism found in Germany or other fascist-by-name countries.  No implication is made or should be understood that OVO supports fascism as an economic plan or in any other manifestation.

“War is father of all, king of all. Some it makes gods, some it makes men; some it makes slaves, some free.  We must realize that war is universal, and strife is justice, and that all things come into being and pass away through strife.” – Heraclitus.

When openly gay college student Matthew Shepard was targeted, tortured and murdered in 1998 the story made national headlines. Soon after, MTV sent a camera crew down to Charleston, South Carolina searching for a redneck or two who might offer some insensitive remarks about homosexuals for their “True Life” series. They found one. Me. I was a student at the College of Charleston and as the lone conservative writer at the school paper, was asked to participate in the television tapings. I remember telling MTV I believed Shepard’s murderers should receive the death penalty. I also told them, when prodded, that I believed homosexuality was “against God.” It’s a comment I’ve regretted ever since. My first regret stems from the blasphemous assumption that I could know the mind of God and secondly, that I had portrayed gay men and women as somehow lesser children of that God. Despite my youthful ignorance, there is nothing more obvious to me today than the fact that the overwhelming majority of homosexuals are born gay. It is nature, not nurture and certainly no choice. [...]

Most violent crime is born of some sort of hatred and examining motive is certainly crucial in any criminal investigation. But “hate” – for gays, minorities, women, chivalrous men – is still just a thought, and should not be itself, a criminal action. Criminalizing the thought behind a violent act sets dangerous precedent and gives special justice to special groups and lesser justice to victims of similar crimes who do not belong to those groups.

Article continues at link.  How is freedom of speech defended on the left, on the right, and at the extremes of each?  How does that change over time?  Are you ready to go this far to defend freedom of speech?  How about this far?  How far, my friend?

Nick Griffin of the [British National Party] has been gagging to appear on Question Time, because it is a test of his continental-style strategy of normalising and legitimising the extreme right. On the model of the Italian National Alliance, Jean-Marie Le Pen’s Front National and Pim Fortuyn in the Netherlands, Griffin is attempting to yank his party into greater acceptability and live down its Mosleyite roots of confrontation and street violence. Since the BNP’s objectives have not changed – and they remain racist – that is a very good reason to be sceptical about the BBC’s decision to give him a platform. However, the issue is one of thresholds. The BBC has judged that two MEPs in a nation-wide election entitles the BNP to a voice on Question Time, just as previously a similar threshold elevated Ukip and the Greens. The BBC’s duty of impartiality is too important to have broadcasting executives decide that some opinions are acceptable and others are not, providing of course that those opinions are within the law (notably in avoiding incitement to racial hatred or violence). Therefore I do not myself criticise the BBC for making the invitation, even though I am acutely aware that extending such democratic rights to a party that does not respect them is paradoxical. [...]

The issue here is different to the old “no platform” policy. I would not appear at a meeting organised by the BNP, and nor would I extend an invitation to them. It is no part of the business of an elected liberal to drum up larger audiences for our most reviled opponents. They are welcome to their freedom of speech, but they can choose their own street corner and their own soapbox without my help. But the BBC has decided to invite Griffin, and I fear that Thursday night’s excitement would not have been called off just because the Liberal Democrats decided not to participate. Better surely to champion the great British values of moderation and tolerance rather than give bigotry the only say.

Article continues at link, with much to recommend it. I am not a member or supporter of the BNP, and I don’t expect them to fare well on the television show Question Time. I am a supporter of public debate. I believe people’s words and actions speak for themselves. I believe accurate judgments are best gained by access to source materials and not second-hand opinion. The contradiction of offering a debate platform to someone who would not do the same to you is an important one. It is exactly the reason the tradition of debate is superior to the ‘no platform’ policy. If you can articulate why it is superior, you will have advanced in your defense of free speech.

Having said that, a few comments on Huhne’s article. Huhne compares the BNP to the Italian National Alliance, Front National and Pim Fortuyn in the Netherlands. But only the BNP has limitations on the race of who can join, so the comparison is not entirely accurate. Huhne writes about confrontation and street violence and incitement to racial hatred or violence. Are these all the same thing, or points along a continuum, or actions that always and only appear as a set? The heart of public debate is confrontation, and there’s no getting around some of that confrontation being awful. Incitement to racial hatred is illegal in England and in much of the world, but not in the USA. I do not support ‘hate speech’ laws for the same reason I do support public debate. I do not believe hate speech leads to violence (in the street or otherwise) any more than I believe love songs lead to love. Huhne talks about Mosley and Pin Fortuyn, who did know about street violence. Watch a film of Mosley in 1936 trying to march down Cable Street. Look at a photograph of Mosley in 1962 as he speaks to a crowd. Marching, speaking, violence – but who is committing the violence, and against whom, and for how many decades? Free speech has its contradictions, and Mosley had some practical lessons in these contradictions by being put in prison (along with his wife) for years without charge or trial. Pin Fortuyn had fewer experiences with street violence, but one was enough. Again, who is committing the violence and who is speaking their mind?

No matter your beliefs, at some point in its evolution it got in your head because you or someone else proposed it at a time when it was a heresy. All religious founders are by definition people who were heretics of their time. Science progresses by questioning what has come before, not by observation of what is. I sometimes feel frustrated (even confronted and incited) by other people, but the knowledge that belief is a market of ideas and not a battleground of ideas gives me calm. I am glad the BNP will appear on Question Time and that has nothing to do with my general dislike for the nationalists, racists or television.

Amnesty International comes in two flavors.  First we have Irrepressible.info, an Amnesty International campaign:

Chat rooms monitored. Blogs deleted. Websites blocked. Search engines restricted. People imprisoned for simply posting and sharing information. The Internet is a new frontier in the struggle for human rights. Governments – with the help of some of the biggest IT companies in the world – are cracking down on freedom of expression. The web is a great tool for sharing ideas and freedom of expression. However, efforts to try and control the Internet are growing. Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right. It is one of the most precious of all rights. We should fight to protect it.  The more people take part the more we show that freedom of expression cannot be repressed.

And second we have Freedom of Speech Carries Responsibilities for All, an Amnesty International public statement:

The right to freedom of expression is not absolute – neither for the creators of material nor their critics. It carries responsibilities and it may, therefore, be subject to restrictions in the name of safeguarding the rights of others. In particular, any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence cannot be considered legitimate exercise of freedom of expression. Under international standards, such “hate speech” should be prohibited by law. AI calls on the government officials and those responsible for law enforcement and the administration of justice to be guided by these human rights principles in their handling of the current situation.

What is the ‘current situation’ mentioned in the above quote?  Was it the publication of twelve editorial cartoons, most of which depicted the Islamic prophet Muhammad, published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten on 30 September 2005? Or was it the murderous response of thousands of Muslims around the world after the publication of twelve editorial cartoons?  Again, from Freedom of Speech Carries Responsibilities for All:

Newspaper editors have justified the publication of cartoons that many Muslims have regarded as insulting, arguing that freedom of artistic expression and critique of opinions and beliefs are essential in a pluralist and democratic society. On the other hand, Muslims in numerous countries have found the cartoons to be deeply offensive to their religious beliefs and an abuse of freedom of speech. In a number of cases, protests against the cartoons have degenerated into acts of physical violence, while public statements by some protestors and community leaders have been seen as fanning the flames of hostility and violence. [...] AI also calls on those working in the media to act with sensitivity and responsibility so as not to exacerbate the current situation. This incident highlights the power and reach of the media and AI calls on those in the media to apply greater political judgement, taking into account the potential impact of their output and the range of often competing human rights considerations involved. While AI recognises the right of anyone to peacefully express their opinion, including through peaceful protests, the use and threat of violence is unacceptable. Community leaders must do everything in their power to defuse the current atmosphere of hostility and violence. Culture and religion are of central importance to many people’s lives, but they cannot be used as an excuse to abuse human rights.

Amnesty International presents ‘the current situation’ as a controversy.  On the one hand are cartoons and on the other hand are murderers.  Both sides are equally worthy of respect and should talk it out.  But they are not equally worthy of respect.  Murdering people over cartoons is never worthy of respect, not in any circumstance.  It is never a controversy, it is never open to debate.  It is absolutely wrong, in a world where much is morally ambiguous.  The comics did offend some Muslims, perhaps even deeply.  I think some of the cartoons may have been drawn and published with that goal in mind.  And even then, murder over cartoons is not justified.  The publication of cartoons is a peaceful expression of opinion and a peaceful protest.  Every Muslim on the entire planet should be free to make offending cartoons (even deeply offending cartoons) about anything they like.  Amnesty International does condemn the use and threat of violence and urges community leaders must do everything in their power to defuse the current atmosphere of hostility and violence.  That’s an organization I can support.  Amnesty International does consider freedom of expression as a fundamental human right.  I can get behind that too.  But shame on Amnesty International abandoning its own principles when it comes to “hate speech.”

Why is the right to freedom of expression not absolute?  If freedom of expression is not absolute then what is it other than a lack of freedom of expression?  The Bible and the Quran call for the murder of non-believers.  If we are to respect a believer’s freedom of superstition, we do so by respecting their freedom of speech.  And if we respect their freedom of speech, we must respect the freedom of speech of others.  Absolutely.  All the way up to these pesky heretics, who are now serving time in prison exclusively because of words and pictures they published on the internet.  I say freedom of expression is a fundamental human right. It is one of the most precious of all rights. We should fight to protect it. The more people take part the more we show that freedom of expression cannot be repressed.  What do you say?

I think that the people who approach the social sciences with a ready-made conspiracy theory [...] deny themselves the possibility of ever understanding what the task of the social sciences is, for they assume that we can explain practically everything in society by asking who wanted it, whereas the real task of the social sciences is to explain those things which nobody wants – such as, for example, a war, or a depression. (Lenin’s revolution, and especially Hitler’s revolution and Hitler’s war are, I think, exceptions. These were indeed conspiracies. But they were consequences of the fact that conspiracy theoreticians came to power – who, most significantly, failed to consumate their conspiracies.)

It is one thing, I am told, to defend the free speech rights of Holocaust deniers; but to engage and defend the content of their views, however cautiously – well, that’s another matter. Smoky’s over the line, says the one consumed with electric suspicion. And questions must follow. What are your motives? Do you hate Jews? Do you still beat your wife? Of course, the abstract argument is fine as far as it goes. It’s just that it doesn’t go very far. If we are serious, the next question must, at some point, intrude. Put another way, if people are being sent to jail for expressing ideas and writing words – and they are – it is only natural and fair to ask: what are those ideas? What are those words? When does a thought expressed become a crime? When it is incitement? When it is a lie? Could it be more complicated? Or less? My position is simple. I believe that you absolutely have to get your fucking hands dirty. I am convinced this is ultimately a matter of decency, and I mean this without irony. [...]

Decades ago, when the works of Henry Miller and William Burroughs and Hubert Selby and Jean Genet and other “literary outlaws” were at issue, expert witnesses lined up to testify as to the redeeming merit of every presumed obscenity. Sometimes the good guys won, and sometimes they lost. But such recourse is largely denied to today’s class of thought criminal. When Ernst Zundel’s lawyer attempted to defend the credibility of her client’s presumptively criminal views, they locked her up. Thus a game is rigged. Grove Press isn’t going to step up this time. It’s easier to sign the petition and shrug. If the lying fuckers should’ve known better, if they’re as bad as CP traders, if they only stoke the embers of a special hate – then a problem may filed away with an asterisk, that might as well be a swastika.  A subject has become inseparable from the stigma that latches. In lieu of discourse, one finds crass signage and deflective satire. A genuine controversy is held hostage by the nuanced strictures of dinner-party form, by the huff and heat of the latest never forget editorial. Yet the noise can only mask a familiar authoritarian gesture. The greatest taboo of our age is sustained in the synchronized cultural choreography of finger-wagging, sometimes from the professoriate, sometimes from the judge’s bench. You are being admonished. You are being told not to consider that there could be a second possibility. You are being told, in so many ways, not to look. And it’s only too easy to abide. All you have to do is read from the script you’ve been handed. Tell yourself it’s of a class with snuff porn or whatever agreed-to boundary. Console yourself with anti-hate sugarplums and bubbles and Frankfurt-schooled excuses. Play it safe. You will have their blessing. Yet something is wrong. Because people are in prison for writing and selling books. Once again, the public library etagerie is arranged for your edification. Construction paper letters stapled to the tackboard. Mark Twain and D.H Lawrence chain-locked in the display case. Harry Potter facing off against familiar cartoon christian enemies. Newsclips about southern school-board busybodies wringing hands over Heather’s two mommies. Banned Books Week as nostalgia, as distraction. As crude extortion, really – once you know what’s missing. And you don’t even feel the chill.

People are in prison for writing and selling books.

Article continues at link.

Sibel Edmonds has a story to tell. She went to work as a Turkish and Farsi translator for the FBI five days after 9/11. Part of her job was to translate and transcribe recordings of conversations between suspected Turkish intelligence agents and their American contacts. She was fired from the FBI in April 2002 after she raised concerns that one of the translators in her section was a member of a Turkish organization that was under investigation for bribing senior government officials and members of Congress, drug trafficking, illegal weapons sales, money laundering, and nuclear proliferation. [...] John Ashcroft’s Justice Department confirmed Edmonds’s veracity in a backhanded way by twice invoking the dubious State Secrets Privilege so she could not tell what she knows. [...] But on Aug. 8, she was finally able to testify under oath in a court case filed in Ohio and agreed to an interview with The American Conservative based on that testimony.

“During my work with the FBI, one of the major operational files that I was transcribing and translating started in late 1996 and continued until 2002, when I left the Bureau. [...] The monitoring of the Turks picked up contacts with [Douglas] Feith, [Paul] Wolfowitz, and [Richard] Perle in the summer of 2001, four months before 9/11. They were discussing with the Turkish ambassador in Washington an arrangement whereby the U.S. would invade Iraq and divide the country. The UK would take the south, the rest would go to the U.S. They were negotiating what Turkey required in exchange for allowing an attack from Turkish soil. The Turks were very supportive, but wanted a three-part division of Iraq to include their own occupation of the Kurdish region. The three Defense Department officials said that would be more than they could agree to, but they continued daily communications to the ambassador and his defense attaché in an attempt to convince them to help. [...]

“So these conversations, between 1997 and 2001, had to do with a Central Asia operation that involved bin Laden. Not once did anybody use the word ‘al-Qaeda.’ It was always ‘mujahideen,’ always ‘bin Laden’ and, in fact, not ‘bin Laden’ but ‘bin Ladens’ plural. There were several bin Ladens who were going on private jets to Azerbaijan and Tajikistan. The Turkish ambassador in Azerbaijan worked with them.  There were bin Ladens, with the help of Pakistanis or Saudis, under our management. Marc Grossman was leading it, 100 percent, bringing people from East Turkestan into Kyrgyzstan, from Kyrgyzstan to Azerbaijan, from Azerbaijan some of them were being channeled to Chechnya, some of them were being channeled to Bosnia. From Turkey, they were putting all these bin Ladens on NATO planes. People and weapons went one way, drugs came back. (Was the U.S. government aware of this circular deal?) 100 percent. A lot of the drugs were going to Belgium with NATO planes. After that, they went to the UK, and a lot came to the U.S. via military planes to distribution centers in Chicago and Paterson, New Jersey. Turkish diplomats who would never be searched were coming with suitcases of heroin.”

Article continues.  More on Sibel Edmonds from her official website, Wikipedia, History Commons, CBS News, Let Sibel Edmonds Speak, and National Security Whistleblowers Coalition.

The Heretical Two are Simon Sheppard [Wikipedia] and Stephen Whittle (Luke O’Farrel).  Their web site is heretical.com.  Previous OVO editorial about The Heretical Two here.  Their words speak for themselves.  Their words  and many of the sites listed below contain words and images I find in error and cruel.  It remains that words and images never hurt anyone.  It is wrong to imprison people for ownership or publication of words or images.  It is maddening that these two are in prison while the governments that put them there are releasing known murderers (US / UK).   Their freedom of speech is no different from that of Jews, Christians and Muslims, no different from political or sexual minorities, no different from yours.  Throw away the freedoms of one and you can be sure the freedoms of the others will not be far behind.

• Antiquity: Anonymous authors pen The Bible.  This work is quoted at heretical.com.
• 1851: Arthur Schopenhauer writes On Women. This work is quoted at heretical.com.
• 1853: Charles Dickens writes The Noble Savage. This work is quoted at heretical.com.
• 1857: Charles Darwin writes The Variation of Plants and Animals under Domestication. This work is quoted at heretical.com.
• 1875: Charles Darwin writes The Origin of Species. This work is quoted at heretical.com.
• 1884: Sigmund Freud writes Über Coca. This work is quoted at heretical.com.
• 1912 (circa): H. P. Lovecraft writes On the Creation of Niggers. This work is quoted at heretical.com.
• 1920: H. L. Mencken writes In Defense of Women. This work is quoted at heretical.com.
• 1925: Adolph Hitler writes Mein Kampf.  This work is quoted at heretical.com.
• 1926: Sir Arthur Conan Doyle writes The Adventure of the Three Gables. This work is quoted at heretical.com.
• 12 June 1942 – 1 August 1944: Ann Frank writes The Diary of a Young Girl. This work is quoted at heretical.com.
• 1940 (circa): Rudyard Kipling writes The Burden of Jerusalem. This work is quoted at heretical.com.
• 1941: Ivan Pavlov writes Lectures on Conditioned Reflexes. This work is quoted at heretical.com.
• 1956: Jens Bjerre writes The Last Cannibals.  This work is quoted at heretical.com.
• 1960: George Lincoln Rockwell writes In Hoc Signo Vinces, including an essay called The Swastika.
• 1964: Roald Dahl writes Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. This work is quoted at heretical.com.
• 1976: A. K. Chesterton writes Facing the Abyss. This work is quoted at heretical.com.
• 1979: Douglas Adams writes The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.  This work is quoted at heretical.com.
• 1980: John Money writes Love and Love Sickness. This work is quoted at heretical.com.
• 1980: Clark Howard writes Zebra. This work is quoted at heretical.com.
• 1984: Isaac Asimov writes Counting the Eons. This work is quoted at heretical.com.
• 24 March 2005: What is heretical.com? by $14 Worth of Sex.
• 1987: Graham Smith writes When Jim Crow Met John Bull. This work is quoted at heretical.com.
• 1989: Tales of the Holohoax published [archive.org 22 September 2009]
• 1993: Niggers Over America by R. Crumb published in Zap Comics.
• 14 November 1994: R. Crumb regarding his comic Niggers Over America: “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.”
• June 1999: Simon Sheppard and David Hannam distribute about 1,500 copies of Our Politicians Are Traitor Criminals. [heretical.com 4 November 2009]
• 8 June 1999: Simon Sheppard and David Hannam are arrested for the distribution of Our Politicians Are Traitor Criminals.  [heretical.com 4 November 2009]
• 19 July 1999: Simon Sheppard is considered for early release on the condition of electronic tagging.  He is rejected for early release because “‘you have stated that you have no intention of obstaining from your offending behaviour, i.e. racist and sexist.”  [heretical.com 4 November 2009]
• 1 August 1999: Simon Sheppard appeals his rejection for early release.  “I am sorry that you disagree with the decision, but the fact is that, because of your views regarding incitement to racial and sexual hatred, you are viewed as danger to the public and to women and people from ethnic minority backgrounds in particular.”  [heretical.com 4 November 2009]
• 8 August 1999: “My heartfelt thanks to all those who have written to me in prison and who have sent postal orders, which are keeping me in small luxuries like chocolate and a cigar at the end of every day to celebrate its passing. The large number of letters I have received have made a great difference to my morale during this ordeal; and I know the support I have been shown has made an impression on the prison authorities. Following assaults by other prisoners I am now segregated. I am reading prodigiously and managing to remain cheerful and optimistic for the future. – Simon Sheppard” [heretical.com 4 November 2009]
• 2 January 2000: Simon Sheppard (and David Hannam?) are charged with Publishing or Distributing racially inflammatory material, Possession of racially inflammatory material and other charges for the distribution of Our Politicians Are Traitor Criminals.  [heretical.com 4 November 2009]
• 6 January 2000: David Hannam pleads guilty to all charges for the distribution of Our Politicians Are Traitor Criminals.  He is sentenced to three months in jail.  [heretical.com 4 November 2009]
• 14 June 2000: Simon Sheppard is sentenced to nine months imprisonment for the distribution of Our Politicians Are Traitor Criminals.  [heretical.com 4 November 2009]
• January – February 2002: Robert Frenz quoted: “Although listed in the ‘links’ folder, Simon Sheppard deserves another plug. Visit his http://www.heretical.com site. On it you’ll find a reproduction of Lincoln Rockwell’s famous BOAT TICKET which were popular hand-outs during the 1960s.”
• 7 March 2005: Whittle writes Dumb Niggers and Gloating Sheeneys.
• 1 June 2005: Whittle writes Hells Bells.
• 10 July 2005: Whittle writes Make Niggers History.
• 7 September 2005: Whittle writes Diversity = Death.
• 15 January 2006: Whittle writes Three Parasites and a Funeral.
• 10 February 2008: Simon Sheppard was found guilty and sentenced to 9 months imprisonment by Alex Linder.
• 4 June 2008: LA Times reports Whittle and Sheppard straight and true by Guessedworker.
• 28 June 2008: Earliest comment regarding Tales of the Holohoax at archive.org.
• 12 July 2008: Holocaust denier convicted of trying to incite race hate online by Rob Preece.
• 14 July 2008: Sheppard found guilty of eleven counts of ‘race hate.’ Whittle found guilty on five counts relating to internet publishing. Charges include: possession of Tales of the Holohoax on 30 March 2005, possession of Tales of the Holohoax on 12 April 2006, publishing Tales of the Holohoax, publication of Dumb Niggers and Gloating Sheeneys, publication of Hells Bells, publication of Make Niggers History, publication of Diversity = Death, publication of Three Parasites and a Funeral, publication of Niggers Over America, publication of When the Goddamn Jews Take Over America, publication of Boat Ticket #2, publication of The Swastika, publication of Auschwitz Holiday Report, publication of Evil Zionist Kikes, publication of Kike Windchimes, distribution of Don’t Be Sheeple, possession of Don’t Be Sheeple on 4 July 2007, possession of Tales of the Holohoax on 4 July 2007.  No evidence is presented at the trial that any ‘racial hatred’ had resulted from the internet material. No evidence is presented at the 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.  [heretical.com 22 September 2009]
• 14 July 2008: Fugitives from Injustice by North West Nationalists.
• 16 July 2008: Race-hate pair flee to US for political asylum by Rob Preece.
• 16 July 2008: Race-hate pair flee to US for political asylum by John in Basel.
• 16 July 2008: The ‘Heretical 2′ Claim Political Asylum in the USA by The International Campaign for Real History.
• 20 July 2008: Heretical Two Seek Political Asylum in U.S. by Jeff Davis.
• 20 July 2008: One Law for Them? by Sarah Maid of Albion.
• 21 July 2008: Sheppard has seven charges considered related to printed material. The jury is unable to reach a decision.  [heretical.com 22 September 2009]
• 22 July 2008: Britain’s Political Refugees in the USA – The Heretical Two! by North West Nationalists.
• 24 July 2008: Latest News on the British Asylum Seekers in the USA – Heretical Two! by North West Nationalists.
• 24 July 2008: In Other Bizarre British Free-Speech Cases by Brendan Kiley.
• 24 July 2008: Update on Heretical Two! Donations Please by North West Nationalists.
• 25 July 2008: Re: The Heretical Duo & Closing the Border Between the UK and Ireland by North West Nationalists.
• 26-27 July 2008: Sheppard and Whittle leave England.  They fly to Ireland, then the United States.  They surrender to authorities in Los Angeles International Airport as a way of seeking political asylum. [heretical.com 22 September 2009]
• 31 July 2008: The Heretical 2, Asylum Seekers the Refugee Industry Won’t be Fighting for by Nicholas Stix.
• 28 July 2008: The Heretical Press Website by Arthur Cristian.
• 31 July 2008: Fund Holder for Heretical Two by North West Nationalists.
• July 2008 – June 2009: Sheppard and Whittle are held in Santa Ana Jail by the Department of Homeland Security.  Correspondents were asked not to place return address stickers on envelopes as all letters with labels of any kind were sent back marked unauthorized. Sheppard and Whittle can only send two replies per week and so used heretical.com to thank people who had written messages of support and requested they kept writing. [heretical.com 22 September 2009]
• 2 August 2008: Update on Heretical Two by BPP WD by John in Basel.
• 2 August 2008: The Heretical Two by ironwand.
• 2 August 2008: The Heretical Two by Jack Black.
• 5 August 2008: Heretical Two – Latest News! by North West Nationalists.
• 6 August 2008: Lady Renouf Speaks About the Heretical Two by  John in Basel.
• 7 August 2008: Heretical Two Appeal Fund by North West Nationalists.
• 11 August 2008: Simon Sheppard & Steve Whittle Seek Asylum Over Thought Offense Charges by jailingopinions.com.
• 22 August 2008: Heretical Two – Latest News! by North West Nationalists.
• 23 August 2008: Heretical Two Requests for Political Asylum by hereticaltwo.nfshost.com.
• 9 September 2008: Payment Problem to Heretical Two by John in Basel.
• 12 September 2008: Online race hate pair who fled to US launch appeals by Rob Preece.
• 17 September 2008: Sheppard and Whittle have their first immigration court hearing.  Bruce Leichty is their defense attorney.  The residing judge claims she did not have the power to release Sheppard and Whittle under the defensive procedures adopted by the US authorities. [heretical.com 22 September 2009]
• 17 September 2008: The Heretical 2, Requests for Asylum and Letters from Santa Ana Jail by Nicholas Stix.
• 29 September 2008: Jailed British “Heretics” Hire Asylum Lawyer by hereticaltwo.nfshost.com.
• 5 October 2008: Dear Mr. Huhne by Kate Dermody.
• 14 October 2008:  Sheppard and Whittle have an ‘asylum-only proceeding.’  Immigration Judge Rose Peters resides.  Sheppard and Whittle attempt release before the ruling, which is denied by the Judge. [heretical.com 22 September 2009]
• 18 October 2008: Heretical Two Denied Bail Hearing by Alex.
• 21 October 2008: “Heretical Two” Denied Bail by Paul Ballard.
• 24 October 2008: No Remedy for Jailed British ‘Heretics’ by GWR.
• 13 November 2008: Sheppard and Whittle have a ‘calendar meeting’ of the Immigration Court.  Judge Peters set the merits (main) appeal for three afternoons in blocks of four hours from 2 pm on March 10, 12 and 24 of 2009. [heretical.com 22 September 2009]
• 8 December 2008: Sheppard retried in his absence in Leeds Crown Court, England.  Six charges are considered, one charge is dropped.  [heretical.com 22 September 2009]
• 22 December 2008: Sheppard retrial in his absence in Leeds Crown Court, England deferred to 5 January 2009.  [heretical.com 22 September 2009]
• 5 January 2009: Sheppard retrial in his absence in Leeds Crown Court, England continued.  Professor Rabkin argues Jews are a religion and not a race.  [heretical.com 22 September 2009]
• 6 January 2009: Sheppard retrial in his absence in Leeds Crown Court, England continued.  Jury deliberates.  [heretical.com 22 September 2009]
• 8 January 2009: Sheppard retrial in his absence in Leeds Crown Court, England continues.  Sheppard found guilty on three counts relating to Tales of the Holocaust and later in the day by a majority verdict on two charges relating to Don’t be Sheeple.  [heretical.com 22 September 2009]
• 8 January 2009: Guilty verdicts in retrial for race hate pair who fled to US by Yorkshire Post.
• 8 January 2009: Two guilty of inciting racial hatred against Jews by The Crown Prosecution Service.
• 9 January 2009: Race-hate pair face jail after mocking Holocaust by Rob Preece.
• 9 January 2009: ‘Forthright’ opinions play down Holocaust by Rob Preece.
• 11 January 2009: Help The Heretical Two by Paul Ballard.
• 24 January 2009: Simon Sheppard & Stephen Whittle, “The Heretical Two” by Andy.
• 21 February 2009: “Holocaust Fundamentalism” and the War on Dissent by Mark Green.
• March 2009: Police Close In on Race Hate Duo by Awaiting a Western Renaissance.
• 10 March 2009: Main Hearing against Sheppard and Whittle in their absence in Leeds Crown Court, England.  Lasts 90 minutes and concerned documentation.  [heretical.com 22 September 2009]
• 12 March 2009: Sheppard and Whittle, wearing handcuffs and leg irons, have asylum hearing before Judge Peters.  Sheppard and Whittle present their own case.  The US Government is represented by attorney Miss Myers. Sheppard and Whittle speak of their experiences at the hands of the British police and Crown Prosecution Service.  English counsel Adrian Davies confirms and gives evidence about the relevant provisions of English law (the Public Order Act 1986, as amended) and the English Court’s assertion of jurisdiction over web pages hosted on a server located in Torrance, California.  Court adjourned to 1pm 24 March 2009.  [heretical.com 22 September 2009]
• 14 March 2009: Sympathy for the “Heretical Two” by Chip Smith.
• 24 March 2009:  Sheppard and Whittle, wearing handcuffs and leg irons, make closing arguments for asylum before Judge Peters.  US Government attorney Miss Myers makes closing arguments against asylum.  Judge Peters reserves judgment.  [heretical.com 22 September 2009]
• 28 March 2009: Police close in on race hate duo by This Is Hull and East Riding.
• 28 March 2009: Holocaust-Denying Brits Languish in Santa Ana Jail, Become Worldwide Far-Right Celebrities by Gustavo Arellano.
• 30 March 2009: Sheppard retrial in his absence in Leeds Crown Court, England continues.  Hearing deferred until 15 May 2009 to await the decision of the American asylum court.  [heretical.com 22 September 2009].  [heretical.com 22 September 2009]
• 31 March 2009: US asylum case of web race-hate pair ‘could drag on’ by Rob Preece.
• 14 March 2009: Sympathy for the “Heretical Two” by Chip Smith updated.
• 29 March 2009: Monday Sentencing for Heretical Two by Mia.
• 5 April 2009: Sheppard and Whittle lose their appeal for asylum.  Sheppard and Whittle given thirty days to appeal.  Sheppard declines opportunity to appeal.  [heretical.com 22 September 2009]
• 5 April 2009: “Dear Harold: You were right. Our asylum claim has been denied, as has witholding of removal. We were thinking of appealing and sticking it out, but really this place is replete with people hanging on hoping for a miracle that’s never going to happen, and we don’t want to join them. Our barrister told us when he visited to testify for us that this immigration judge, Rose Peters, has granted asylum to an IRA murderer who had killed two policemen, supposedly on political grounds, so that’s the level of hypocrisy we’re up against. Better we think to go back to England, face the music, and get it over with. The ground for refusing asylum was that our prosecution in the UK did not constitute persecution (i.e. the government attorney and the IJ, both women, agree with it. The government attorney even argued against the First Amendment.) I believe that because this is a subjective assessment it is quite difficult to appeal against, and we could spend years taking it through various courts. Best wishes, Simon Sheppard & Stephen Whittle.” [Nationalists Online]
• 15 April 2009: “Heretical Two” British Dissidents Simon Sheppard And Stephen Whittle Reportedly Denied Political Asylum by White Reference.
• 15 April 2009: Heretical Two Denied Political Asylum in USA by GWR.
• 17 April 2009: Race-hate pair who fled to US refused asylum by Rob Preece.
• 6 May 2009: What the Heretical 2 Case Says about the Federal “Hate Crimes” Bill by Nicholas Stix.
• 18 May 2009: Another Letter from Stephen Whittle of the Heretical 2 by Nicholas Stix.
• June 2009: Refugee Week by Awaiting a Western Renaissance.
• 3 June 2009: Men bedeviled in bid for sanctuary by Dana Parsons.
• 4 June 2009: ‘Heretical Two’ to be Deported from USA by GWR.
• 4 June 2009: Persecution is Complicated: An Update on the “Heretical Two” by Chip Smith.
• 5 June 2009: Race-hate Britons seeking asylum in U.S. to be deported after judge rejects ‘free speech’ plea by Mail Foreign Service.
• 10 June 2009: Race hate pair set to be deported to Britain by Rob Preece.
• 16 June 2009: Sheppard and Whittle deported from the United States.  [heretical.com 22 September 2009]
• 17 June 2009: Sheppard and Whittle arrive in London.  They are arrested, taken briefly to Leeds Court, then sent to prison.  [heretical.com 22 September 2009]
• 18 June 2009: Heretical Two Appear at Leeds Crown Court by GWR.
• July 2009: Web Racists to Appeal Unsafe Sentence by Awaiting a Western Renaissance.
• 10 July 209: Sheppard and Whittle appear at Leeds Crown Court.  Sheppard is sentenced to four years and ten months.  Sheppard’s sentence is twelve months concurrent on the three counts relating to ‘Tales of the Holohoax’, followed by a consecutive sentence of twelve months in aggregate on the two counts relating to ‘Don’t Be Sheeple’, followed by two years and six months in aggregate on the eleven Internet counts, followed by four months on the Bail Act charge.  Whittle is sentence to two years and four months.  [heretical.com 22 September 2009]
• 10 July 2009: Pair jailed for web race crimes by BBC.
• 10 July 2009: The neo-Nazi ‘asylum seekers’ by BBC.
• 10 July 2009: Landmark ruling as internet race-hate fugitives locked up by Olwen Dudgeon.
• 10 July 2009: Key victory for human decency by Yorkshire Post.
• 10 July 2009: Heretical Two Jailed for ‘Race Hate’ Crimes by GWR.
• 10 July 2009: Two jailed for online racial incitement [first listing] [second listing] by Index on Censorship.
• 10 July 2009: A Couple of Whining Bitches by Big Mental Disease.
• 11 July 2009: Cosmodromium Supports Heretical.com by James D. Sass.
• 12 July 2009: Two Writers by Chip Smith.
• 13 July 2009: Sheppard and Whittle imprisoned for free speech in UK by James Edwards.
• 14 July 2009: Court of Appeal (Richards LJ, Jack J and HHJ Baker QC) give leave to appeal against conviction on all the Internet counts but refused leave to appeal with respect to the hard copy counts.  Full appeal to take place in 2009 and to take a day.  [heretical.com 22 September 2009]
• 14 July 2009: Quest for justice that goes beyond borders by Denis MacShane.
• 14 July 2009: Jailed race-hate pair win go-ahead for appeal by Rob Preece.
• 25 July 2009: Why does Britain ignore antisemitism? by Denis McShane.
• 29 July 2009: Heretical Two Win the First Round by James Brewster.
• 31 July 2009: Forfeiture hearing against Sheppard and Whittle before Judge Grant at Leeds Crown Court.  Sheppard and Whittle physically attacked on their way to court.  Sheppard fears his jaw is broken.  This is not the case although he still had difficulty eating several days later.  Judge Grant decides every contested point against Sheppard.  Judge Grant orders the forfeiture and destruction of office equipment which Simon had serviced.  An appeal is lodged against forfeiture of the printers, computers and other office equipment.  [heretical.com 22 September 2009]
• 31 July 2009: The Heretical Two by Trevor Blake.
• 1 August 2009: The Heretical Two by Klint Finley.
• 1 August 2009: Heretical Two in Court Again by GWR.
• 20 August 2009 – 13 December 2009: Niggers Over America by R. Crumb exhibited by David Zwerner Gallery in New York City. Sheppard had been found guilty of race hate crimes for publication of Niggers Over America by R. Crumb.
• September 2009: freethehereticaltwo.com by various authors.
• 22 September 2009: Heretical Two Timeline by Trevor Blake.
• 22 September – 5 October 2009 (circa): Message from Simon Sheppard. “I feel fortunate in being in Armley prison for a cause and for standing up for my beliefs, rather than incarcerated for some sordid, drug-induced crime. It is obvious that three-quarters of the people are here due to government incompetence or indifference, either through allowing the import of enormous quantities of heroin or failing to provide employment. The establishment’s love affair with globalization and failure to confront obvious problems of over-population are chiefly at fault. I am doing reasonably well at present though dreading another change of cell-mate. Recently I had three different cell-mates in as many days, and a proportion are complete head cases, making me feel like a resident psychiatrist. I console myself that I am making a sacrifice for my people and although I would obviously rather not be here it is superior to being a a POW in a Japanese wartime camp, or interned for the duration of the World War 2 under Britain’s 18B Regulations. I will come through this ordeal one day. I am still held as a category B ‘remand prisoner’ in Armley Prison, Leeds – pending the appeal to the High Court in late Autumn 2009 on internet publishing charges.”
• 2 October 2009: British “Heretical Two” hire US asylum lawyer by Club of Now.
• 12 October 2009: Me and the H-Bomb Part Two: The Gas Chamber of Samuel Crowell by Chip Smith.
• 17 October 2009: Blogs from all over teh interwebs by Kevin Slaughter.
• 18 October 2009: Amnesty International, Two Flavors by Trevor Blake.
• 28 October 2009: Jack Hunter, Hate is Not a Crime by Trevor Blake.
• 30 October 2009: (circa): Stephen Whittle moved from HMP Leeds to Everthorpe Prison. [heretical.com 30 October 2009]
• 5 November 2009: Simon Sheppard and Stephen Whittle by Threatened Voices.
• 27 December 2009: Prosecution of the Heretical Two by James D. Sass.
• 3 January 2010: Canaries in the Coal Mine by Jack Donovan.
• 24 January 2010: The Heretical Two by eccnineten.
• 29 January 2010: “The appeal against conviction on internet publishing on a foreign website has been lost. Fortunately, the appeal judges ruled the sentences were excessive and reduced Simon Sheppard’s sentence by a year to 3 years and 10 months and Stephen Whittle’s sentence by six months to 1 year and 10 months.” [heretical.com]
• 31 January 2010: Heretical Two Lose Appeal, But With Sentence Reduction by James Fulford.

You may have noticed that people who convert to religion after the age of 20 or so are generally more zealous than people who grew up with the same religion.  People who grow up with a religion learn how to cope with its more inconvenient parts by partitioning them off, rationalizing them away, or forgetting about them.  Religious communities actually protect their members from religion in one sense – they develop an unspoken consensus on which parts of their religion members can legitimately ignore.  New converts sometimes try to actually do what their religion tells them to do.  I remember many times growing up when missionaries described the crazy things their new converts in remote areas did on reading the Bible for the first time – they refused to be taught by female missionaries; they insisted on following Old Testament commandments; they decided that everyone in the village had to confess all of their sins against everyone else in the village; they prayed to God and assumed He would do what they asked; they believed the Christian God would cure their diseases.  We would always laugh a little at the naivete of these new converts; I could barely hear the tiny voice in my head saying but they’re just believing that the Bible means what it says…

How do we explain the blindness of people to a religion they grew up with? Cultural immunity. Europe has lived with Christianity for nearly 2000 years. European culture has co-evolved with Christianity. Culturally, memetically, it’s developed a tolerance for Christianity. These new Christian converts, in Uganda, Papua New Guinea, and other remote parts of the world, were being exposed to Christian memes for the first time, and had no immunity to them. [...]

The reason I bring this up is that intelligent people sometimes do things more stupid than stupid people are capable of.  There are a variety of reasons for this; but one has to do with the fact that all cultures have dangerous memes circulating in them, and cultural antibodies to those memes.  The trouble is that these antibodies are not logical.  On the contrary; these antibodies are often highly illogical.  They are the blind spots that let us live with a dangerous meme without being impelled to action by it.  The dangerous effects of these memes are most obvious with religion; but I think there is an element of this in many social norms.  We have a powerful cultural norm in America that says that all people are equal (whatever that means); originally, this powerful and ambiguous belief was counterbalanced by a set of blind spots so large that this belief did not even impel us to free slaves or let women or non-property-owners vote.  We have another cultural norm that says that hard work reliably and exclusively leads to success; and another set of blind spots that prevent this belief from turning us all into Objectivists.

A little reason can be a dangerous thing.  The landscape of rationality is not smooth; there is no guarantee that removing one false belief will improve your reasoning instead of degrading it.  Sometimes, reason lets us see the dangerous aspects of our memes, but not the blind spots that protect us from them.  Sometimes, it lets us see the blind spots, but not the dangerous memes.  Either of these ways, reason can lead an individual to be unbalanced, no longer adapted to their memetic environment, and free to follow previously-dormant memes through to their logical conclusions.    (To paraphrase Steve Weinberg, “For a smart person to do something truly stupid, they need a theory.”  Actually, I could have quoted him directly – “stupid” is just a lighter shade of “evil”.  Communism and fascism both begin by exercising complete control over the memetic environment, in order to create a new man stripped of cultural immunity, who will do whatever they tell him to.)

Article continues.  High recommendations to Less Wrong and Overcoming Bias. – Trevor