Terrorism has become the new Communism.

Patrick, I generally agree with you on the subject of the word "cyberterrorism," but in this case I think the word is apt. The Internet Haganah CLAIMS to have been going after sites that provided information for terrorists, on how to do fun things like assassinate world leaders and build a bomb belt so that you too can have an exciting and rewarding -- albeit short -- career as a suicide bomber.

Mitch, the "cyberterrorists" reference was to the suspicion that other bloggers were being 'targeted' by the DOS attack.

ie, the act of 'cyberterrorism' would be the DOS attack against a weblog.

Taking a weblog down via a DOS is not terrorism, unless you're also afraid of floating dandelion seeds and lint.

The word people are groping for is "sabotage."

The trouble is that terrorism, same as sabotage, used to be a tactic used by everyone, but now is turned into a noun and being used as code for Islamic fundamentalist whackos. When Bush says "the terrorists," he does not mean members of the IRA, Operation Rescue, or even Tim McVeigh's little friends. He means Al Quaida, Hammas and crew.

So once you code it that way, yes, it was an attack by terrorists-in-the-Bush-sense, which is a gutless way of saying Islamic fundamentalist saboteurs.

It is useful to remember when we were actually terrified as a baseline comparison.

What Kathryn Cramer said.

Mitch, I'm not disputing Internet Haganah's claims to be going after actual terrorists. I am disputing the notion that DOSsing somebody's web site, whether it's Internet Haganah or the Cool Astronomy Picture of the Day, constitutes "terrorism."

For one thing, the fact I write a weblog that frequently criticizes Republicans does not mean that every misfortune that befalls my weblog--or every passing Internet vandal that does something unpleasant to it--is automatically an act of Republicanism.

For another thing, claiming to be a victim of "terrorism" because someone DOSsed your weblog strongly suggests an unlovely attempt to grab a piece of the moral seriousness that we grant to the experiences of actual victims of terroristic attacks.

For another thing, having your web log DOSsed isn't terrifying, unless you are a really, really big sissy.

For another thing: Sheesh.

Patrick, how can you say that, with cyberwarriors from Tennessee to Provincetown standing proudly shoulder to shoulder and staring down the enemy from their decks? Hell, Islam can just attack New York again - it won't shake 'our' resolve to bring back the crusades, except in Saudi Arabia, of course.

Hell, I say we find another secular country that speaks islamic and bomb the shit out of it, just to let them know we're serious.

er, fervent.

Patrick wrote: "For another thing, claiming to be a victim of "terrorism" because someone DOSsed your weblog strongly suggests an unlovely attempt to grab a piece of the moral seriousness that we grant to the experiences of actual victims of terroristic attacks."

Especially when the actual target was someone else's weblog, and you're just on the same server.

Patrick, sheesh yourself. I agree with you 100 percent on the overuse of the word "cyberterrorism," but my initial reading of your post was that you were referring to the targets of the Internet Haganah, not the perpetrators of the DOS attack.

This is further confused by the fact that the people who perpetrated the DOS attack are supporting the people who are using the Internet to post instructions on suicide bombings, assassination and other legitimate terrorism. If you act with the intention of removing obstacles to terrorism, you're a terrorist.

Note: Dissent is not terrorism. Failure to abide by every edict of the police or Homeland Security is also not terrorism. Fighting terrorism does not require subservience to government.

I'd write more about this but your evocation of lint and dandelion seeds is terrifying. They're horrible! They're so fuzzy!

And, you know, I, bitter person that I am, don't buy it.

A DDoS is an annoyance, not terrorism, because, you know, life fucking goes on if you webserver is down. Life doesn't go on if your lungs are filling with fluid after you've been hit with anthrax. And *any* organization that claims such automatically goes onto my "Not just wrong, quite possibly dangerous list."

Furthermore, I have *real* doubts about them being the target. Either they moved *very* quickly, and thier "terrorists" are very, very, very dumb to not have noticed (Hint: It's really hard to hide the IP address and network of a accessible webserver that you want people to see) or someone's not telling the whole truth.

And, you know, we have enough corruption in the namespace. Why the hell is an .il domain registered to someone living in Carbondale, Illinois? (hint #2: .il is *not* the country code for the state of Illinois.)

Who is a terrorist? The suicide bomber is a terrorist. The person who sits at home and watches the news of the bombing and cheers is not a terrorist, so long as cheering is all he does. Likewise, the Palestinians who celebrated in the streets after 9/11 were not terrorists simply for celebrating.

But the people who drive suicide bombers to their targets are terrorists, because they knowingly and directly aid terrorism. Likewise for the handlers who provide training to the suicide bombers. Likewise for the people who design and make the bomb belts.

If the Newsday account is accurate, then the perpetrators of the DOS attacks are as much terrorists as any noncombatant can be. Erik and Patrick, you're right that the direct harm caused to the victims of their DOS attacks is slight. I should know, I was one of them; my web site, like the Nielsen Haydens', was brought down by the attack. The DOS attacks were terrorism, not because of the direct harm they caused, but because their goal was to support the training of terrorists.

That is, of course, if it happened the way Newsday said it did. Erik, you seem skeptical. Why?

Disclosure: I am a journalist, I work for the TechWeb webzines and I may do an article on this.

I have American cousins, mostly from the more placid parts of the US (though one did work on AWACS at Boeing), and there were a few odd contrasts. My parents, when they visited shortly after Mt. St. Helens blew, were startled by cops with guns. My cousins, when we drove past an RAF base on the way to Lincoln, were puzzled by the odd carpark layout at the main gate.

I perhaps shouldn't have told them it was to make it hard to drive in a car-bomb.

We're used to different things, depending where and when we live. Before 9/11, how would you have thought of "cyberterrorism"?

Mitch Wagner: I have to disagree. Directly participating in a terrorist crime makes you a terrorist, but not everything that a terrorist does is terrorism. In this case, I go with those who used the word "sabotage".

Mitch, did you feel the same way when Al Jazeera was hacked beyond belief during the invasion of Iraq? Or was that just good patriots stopping propaganda?

I'm with Patrick on this one. It may be an annoyance, sabotage or illegal, but it's not terrorism.

Mitch:

Let's assume that someone wants to take Internet Haganah down because of the site's alleged efforts to suppress information on the Internet about how to plan and execute suicide bombings.

Suppose this "denial of service" attack took the form of seeking a court order to close Internet Haganah down.

Would a lawyer who argued before a judge to request such an order be a terrorist?

While visiting the HM status forums the night of the outage I was amazed at how many people were convinced that since the site the attack was aimed at focused on terrorists that any attack on them was obviously, and unquestionably by TERRORISTS.

Yeah, maybe so-called cyber-terrorists, in league with Al Qaeda, tried to silence Internet Haganah, but it is also possible that it was just some geek who thought it would be cool to push the buttons of the 'terrorist behind every bush crowd'.

Jane - The denial of service attacks on Al Jazeera were wrong. Al Jazeera is not a propaganda organ, it's a legitimate news organization, and it's based in Qatar, one of our staunchest allies in the region and one of the most progressive nations there.aaAnd no I haven't stopped beating my wife because I never beat her in the first place.aaAlan Bostick - No I would say the lawyer is not a terrorist. One big difference is whether you are working within the law or outside it. Also, the law presumes that everyone is entitled to representation, which means that somebody has to represent the bad guys.

On the other hand, there are, somewhere, probably people and organizations dependent on internet access. For those, DDoS attacks are disaster. As the world gets more and more netted, the risks get greater.

As I've been saying for years now, technical and legal efforts are needed to prevent such abuse. I figure I may end up waiting more years, though, before I see it done.

The KKK burns crosses on the lawns of black citizens. Gays are ambushed and beat up. Swastikas are painted on temples. And the same people who are reluctant to call these 'hate crimes' are often the first to scream "bias" when a news source reports about these things, and yell "terrorism" when an Arab or a Muslim so much as gives them a dirty look.
People have lost perspective.

I rolled my eyes about most in that article was this:
"There were stories going on we needed to report and we couldn't do anything."
My first thought was - DELUSIONS OF GRANDEUR.

Humanity has not been seriously injured because someone's personal web site was down for a couple of hours.

Mitch,

So your definition of "terrorist" is "working ... outside [the law]" Whose law?

Would that make the French Resistance terrorists? The Boston Tea Party? The ANC?

Playing the "these are terrorists/those are freedom fighters game" is silliness. Terrorists cause terror, either by killing people or threatening to kill people.

Providing information to people who may or may not do these things? So long as the websites are hosted in the US, this goes under the 1st Amendment, and it's no more terrorism than, oh, say, manufacturing firearms is terrorism. Information, religion, weapons--pick your Amendment, it isn't what you have, it's what you do with it.

A DOS on a website isn't terrorism because no one's terrorized. It is, however, sabotage and censorship. The Internet Haganah is a bunch of cybercensors who just got a return volley of cybercensorship in terms of a DOS attack, and they're apparently having another one, since I can't reach their site at the moment.

It's cybercensorship, not cyberterrorism.

Kevin - The Internet Haganah says it's MO is to identify terrorist sites, find out who's hosting the sites, and notify the hosts. The hosts then voluntarily kick the sites out. That's not censorship, that's everybody exercising their free speech rights.

Pressuring corporations to cut off access to questionable works smells pretty close to censorship. When your free speech is asking someone to muzzle someone else's free speech, I think you're a censor.

Well, I'm not so sure about that. Indeed, I think categorically defining that sort of thing as "censorship" opens up not just a can of worms, but a whole case of cans. A fully-loaded palette of cases. All loaded up onto the forklift, and ready to go.

The point I wanted to make was that having your weblog DOSsed isn't terrifying. It's probably aggravating. It may well be unjust. It's arguably wrong. But calling it "terrorism" presents a face to the world that, I submit, the rock-'em, sock-'em Blog Warriors On Terror might not want to present. Ya know?

Does anyone else find it ironic that a site claiming to be a terrorist watchdog has named itself after an underground military organization?

That said, there's a way for both sides to be right. It could be that the people performing the DOS attacks are cyberterrorists--people who run web sites that aid terrorism--but that doesn't mean that the attacks themselves constituted terrorism. Catalano could well be concerned that cyberterrorists are targeting her for a denial-of-service attack.

With another google, I take back what I said about the Haganah--wikipedia says that they did not engage in terrorism during the mandate. So nothing wrong with the name "Internet Haganah."

Today's New York Times has run an article on a group calling itself "Movement for Islamic Reform in Arabia" (MIRA). Eerily, the Times article notes that the "Movement" has started a radio station, but says nothing about what it broadcasts. So I went looking. What did I find? The Movement's own site, which is in Arabic--no help there. And fourth down in the links is, indeed, Internet Haganah, whose site cannot be reached. Not much luck in further digging--lots of conflicting information.

Terrorism? No. But the work of terrorists, yes, most likely. And, y'know, I'd be pretty damn scared if Islamic terrorists were attacking my web site. Not because of the attack on the site itself (though we need to concern ourselves with the integrity of the network), but because that attack might be followed by an attack with real bullets.

Wikipedia is not a reliable source, especially on controversial issues. It's sort of a volunteer operation, and depends on the quality and bias of the volunteer.

Zizka--True. However, the Wikipedia entry at least provides some evidence that I had confused the Haganah with the Irgun and Lehi, who (as it says) did commit terrorist activities during the Mandate. And it certainly proves that I didn't have enough evidence for my snarky remark, so I stand by my retraction (ha ha).

The Haganah was separate from Irgun and Lehi/The Stern Gang, definitely, and acted more like a regular army. There were definitely cases where Haganah coordinated its activities with those other two organizations, though, notably the Deir Yassin massacre--in which the Haganah basically said, "Go to it, boys."

So now the definition of terrorism means that people have to actually die? Or at least be actually terrified?

Expecting "terrorism" to involve "terror" is like expecting "homophobia" to include "uncontrollable fear". The definition most people use goes something like this:
"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

If the August blackout in Northeastern US and Canada was caused by a saboteur, it would not have been terror, because no one died? I would say that an event like that would fit the above definition to a tee.

I can't help but think that
1. This is all jolly good because the victim is Internet Haggnah, who are a bunch of uppity Jews anyway. If it had been, oh, Al-Jazeera, then we would all be screaming from the rooftops about freedom of speech. No?
2. If the DOS attack was against my ISP, the result would be pretty intimidating: I would not be able to work, earn money, or access my banking info, among others. If my work was web-based, this would be even more so, an equivalent to blowing up my building and equpment, while no one was there. Um, talk to a sci-fi writer or something, they may help out how "plugged-in" the average North American is these days.

Angua, the definition in Merriam-Webster is "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion".

Even your definition (American Heritage, perhaps by way of Dictionary.com?), a DOS attack against an ISP isn't terrorism, because it doesn't involve the use of force or violence. No matter how web-based your work might be, it's still not even remotely in the same league as actually blowing up an actual building.

Some of the people who contribute to this forum can tell you first-hand what it's like to have the building you work in blown up by terrorists. I'm pretty damn sure it's nothing at all like having no net access for a few hours.

My working definition of terrorism is "acts of violence undertaken for purposes of political communication". I see this as distinct from a military attack, where there is some military strategic or tactical purpose.

As I've attempted to post here twice, I do believe I was, simply, wrong to defend the use of the word cyberterrorist. A DOS attack is not a terrorist attack, because it does not terrify.

angua, the attack doesn't fit the definition of terrorism you yourself cited because no force or violence was used or threatened. The DOS attack was not a terrorist attack, although it was, apparently, an attack in support of terrorism.

The Internet is essential to my livelihood and because of that I have e-mail with five Internet service providers. One of them is on the same host used by the Internet Haganah; I know from past experience that it is only consumer-grade reliability, and so I don't rely on it at all. I have a cable modem and two separate dial-up accounts independent of the cable modem. I have a Wi-Fi card that enables me to work in any hotspot. In other words, I have made PLANS for what to do if my Internet access goes out, and I suggest you do the same.

Your suggestion that Patrick, Kevin, Matt, etc., are anti-Semitic for rejecting the word "cyberterrorism" is ridiculous and offensive. I've known Patrick and Kevin for years, and they've never shown any anti-Semitism to me. I don't know Matt Weiner, but I suspect a guy named Matt Weiner has seen the inside of a shul or two. I don't know if this is the case with you, but some Jews see any criticism of Israel and its supporters to be anti-Semitism, that sort of paranoia is unfounded and harmful to Jews and Israel. I find it best to assume anti-Semitism only when all other possible explanations have been exhausted. In practice, that means I only conclude anti-Semitism in the face of explicit evidence. Your assuming anti-Semitism here makes you look like an idiot and a troll.

(One of my guilty pleasures is reading the newsgroups for my favorite TV shows. The other day I was reading the "E.R." ng and came across a message with the subject line, "George Clooney to make guest appearance" [or something like that.] I said, "Hey, that looks interesting," and opened the message -- only to find that the subject line was a trick, and the message was a short, nasty and crude anti-Semitic statement. Four years ago I would have been shocked and troubled for a long time, but that was then and now the only reaction I could muster was, "Aww, I guess this means Clooney isn't visiting 'E.R.' again after all." I mean, hateful drive-by Usenet idiots are pretty common, but the return of Dr. Doug Ross, that would be something.)

I was being too prissy when I said Patrick and Kevin have never shown me any anti-Semitism. They are not anti-Semitic, and I am offended anyone would suggest they are, and offended that anyone would suggest I would be so foolish as to associate with anti-Semites.

Mitch--

Thank you.

Angua--

My personal hobby horse is the 1st Amendment, in particular the freedom of speech and freedom of the press business. What this boils down to is my belief that journalists are cool and censors are creeps.

Al Jazeera are journalists, and journalists are cool. Even prats like Bill O'Reilly.

The Internet Haganah are censors, who I find creepy by definition. Their personal religion is immaterial.

Your second example is likewise ridiculous hyperbole. A DOS attack being like blowing up the building while no one is there? Try more along the lines of sticking Krazy Glue in the lock of someone's apartment--annoying vandalism that keeps you from doing your work, but not permanently or even for a particularly long time.

Elevating petty vandalism to terrorism makes me wonder if the country should go to Code Red in a few days, since there are bound to be countless incidents of random egging and smashing of jack-o'-lanterns come Friday.

This is all jolly good because the victim is Internet Haggnah, who are a bunch of uppity Jews anyway.

I'm going to leave "uppity" lie and smell, because it's just cheap rhetoric (have you actually read any Terry Pratchett?) but I've seen Patrick in the past deal quite harshly online with actual antisemitism and weighing that against your difficulties with the dictionary I'd give him the benefit of the doubt.

Assuming I felt some.

Kevin - So why is it wrong to pressure another party to cease speech that you find offensive? We should certainly tolerate diversity of thought and disagreement, but each of us has a line of what is unspeakable.

Who decides where the line is? Each of us decides for ourselves. You can go out to an Internet service provider and say, "Look at this terrible site you are hosting! You are morally obliged to stop hosting that site immediately!" The Internet service provider then has a choice of taking down the site or telling you to buzz off.

"Free speech" doesn't mean speech without consequences. If I say something that is offensive to many people, I fully expect them to be offended -- and occasionally to take action on that offense.

You have a right to say what you want -- but I have a right to say what I I want too, and that can include trying to persuade people that they should not provide a platform for your speech.

What the Internet Haganah said it was doing was simply notifying Internet service providers when the ISP was hosting a terrorist site. The ISP then chose to voluntarily cease hosting the site. Of course, at this point I only have the Internet Haganah's word for that, but I haven't seen anything to contradict it.

The Internet Haganah was not acting as censors. The narrow definition of "censorship" applies only to government entities, the more commonplace, sensible definition requires authority and control of the medium being censored. An editor censors his or her own newspaper, but an editor can't censor someone ELSE'S newspaper. He can denounce the other newspaper, call for a boycott of advertisers, try to organize demonstrations against the other newspaper -- but the other newspaper can print whatever it wants.

No, Julia, I've never read any Pratchett. In fact, I haven't read any books, ever. Finally someone's found my secret. The 2,000 papery items on my shelves with fancy little black marks? Only for decoration. "Read"? What that? Obviously, I *must* be an illiterate moron, since one opinion I posted on one web site does not fit in with Julia's. Anything else you've divined from that post? My view on renaissance poetry? My shoe size?

Oh, and my "dictionary difficulties" are perfering Dictionary.com to Merriam-Webster for 2 AM Googling? God, how will I ever live with myself?! The shame, the horror, the wailing, the gnashing of teeth...

On the other hand, for the grown-ups in the audience...

OK, I think you are right. I still think that people don't need to die or be "terrified" for it to be "terrorism", but I'll accept that some violence should be involved. I was looking at the "intimidation" part of the definition, but, I guess, if it's just intimidation of not allowing you to work or keep in contact with others, it's not bad enough to be considered terrorism. Now, can we agree that a private individual disagreeing with another private individual is not "censorship"? And that your 1st Ammendment applies only to the government censoring speech and press?

And I do apologize sincerely if I implied that anyone was anti-Semitic. That was not my intention. (If it was, I would have said something along the lines of, "You are an anti-Semite, 'put name here'." Us illiterate morons tend to say what we mean.)

The Internet Hagganah is one of a group of web sites that I call "uppity Jew" websites for a reason -- they are very pro-Israeli, very anti-anti-Semtitism, usually pro-Iraq-war, sometimes anti-Islam, and quite loud about it. These websites (1) do not represent the views of most posters here and (2) do not really hold a view which is uniquely suppressed or censored in the States. So, I still believe that most posters here would worry about, say, Indymedia being censored a lot more that they would worry about LGF being censored. It has nothing to do with, say, LGF owner being Jewish (he isn't), and much to do with how difficult it is to support freedom of speech for views opposite to one's own. I hope this clarifies my meaning.

Perhaps you could make "Jingo" your first try.

In return, I'll take a look at the dictionary you perfer.

I've read it, Julia. And the rest of them, except whatever is out in hard-cover only. Also the complete works of William Shakespeare, many French and Russian classics in the orginal, a variety of non-fiction on history and politics, and, well, lots of other books, too.

I aplogize profusely for not interpreting them the Julia way, the one single obvious correct way of looking at the world. I will try better next time.

"And I do apologize sincerely if I implied that anyone was anti-Semitic. That was not my intention."

Oh, baloney. It was exactly your intention, you crass liar.

If you're going to play the game this way, wail with it. Don't lash out with little halfhearted punches and then claim you didn't mean it.

You meant to impute bad faith and Jew-hatred. You tried a slur, it didn't impress anyone, and now you're backtracking because you vaguely sense that your game's been called.

As for my opinions regarding (1) Indymedia and (2) worldwide anti-Semitism, well, you certainly do look silly sitting there in the middle of the garden with your jaws firmly clasped around the wrong end of the stick. Here's a hint: It's not my job to cure you of your comic-book simplicities and unwarranted assumptions.

Of course I meant to impute bad faith. I still believe that the "censorship"/hacking of the web sites would have brought out more/some outrage had a different bunch of web sites been involved (though I still conceed it's not terrorism per se). The fact that posters see censorship in what Internet Hagganah does, but not in what the hackers do when they shut down IH is the kind of thing I mean.
If I had meant to impute Jew-hatred, I really would have said so.

Angua:

"Of course I meant to impute bad faith. I still believe that the 'censorship'/hacking of the web sites would have brought out more/some outrage had a different bunch of web sites been involved (though I still conceed it's not terrorism per se). The fact that posters see censorship in what Internet Hagganah does, but not in what the hackers do when they shut down IH is the kind of thing I mean."

Me, October 25, 2003, 11:08 PM:

"Indeed, I think categorically defining that sort of thing as 'censorship' opens up not just a can of worms, but a whole case of cans. A fully-loaded palette of cases. All loaded up onto the forklift, and ready to go."

Me, right now:

Angua, you're a disgrace to the causes you claim to represent.

Indeed, I'm not at all sure you're not an agent provocateur charged with discrediting crusaders against online anti-Semitism. Goodness knows if I'd been charged with that task, I'd want lots of dittohead repeaters at about your level of quality.

The fact that posters see censorship in what Internet Hagganah does, but not in what the hackers do when they shut down IH is the kind of thing I mean.

As far as I know, Internet Haganah is not a news site. (I'd never heard of it before this thread, so I'm willing to be corrected.) From a quick scan through, it's what I describe as a nutter's website. It's particular brand of nuttiness appears to be the belief that there really is a vast anti-Semitic conspiracy out there, and that the US State Department is part of it.

I believe that everyone has a right to their own nutter's website and other forms of free speech. But if, as has been alleged above, IH make a point of trying to deny to others the freedom they claim for themselves, it does take away a lot of my sympathy with their problems about DOS attacks.

Al-Jazeera is a reputable news organisation. It has been viciously attacked physically (the US military have bombed Al-Jazeera offices in Iraq and in Afghanistan), verbally (how many times have US politicians claimed that Al-Jazeera is a "mouthpiece for terrorists"?), and with DOS attacks. Al-Jazeera journalists have been arrested by US forces in Baghdad, I just saw on the news. This kind of persistent assault on an international news organisation is something that should concern everyone.

That nutters who don't believe in free speech for others are themselves being deprived of free speech, as appears to be the case with IH, is not of such public concern as the attacks on al-Jazeerah because IH is not an international news organisation: it's a bunch of nutters. Yes, I think IH ought to be allowed to publish what they like: no, I would not support any DOS attacks on their server or on any other. But asking people to care equally about a bunch of nutters versus an international news organisation (a news organisation which is really under attack by the US, not merely as a conspiracy theory but with arrests, bombed buildings, and dead staffers for proof) is just nutty.

Mitch--

There is a strong and not very subtle difference between saying "These people suck rocks, and I take exception to everything they say and stand for" and the insidious and perfidious practice of using every hook, crook and trick necessary to make government officials and/or merchants do your censorship for you.

Certainly, everyone has what they consider unspeakable. My trouble is that to me, the unspeakable act is censorship. Hearing the IH brag about how they got other people to censor sites they disagree with gets my hackles up. It may not be illegal, but I certainly find it immoral.

The censorship scenario is old and easily understood by all parties: Party X disapproves of something Party Y is doing, and tells merchant Z what Y is doing, with the understanding that if Z does not put a stop to it, X will do his best to influence A through W to boycott Z; Z may have been unaware of Y's questionable practices, or may have been turning a blind eye so long as Z was being paid cold hard cash, but will bank the cost of the loss of Y's revenues versus the possible loss of A through W's business; then, unless Y is a particularly lucrative client, or the actions X is objecting to are so trivial as to be laughable (and thus not have any serious risk of the loss of A through W), merchant Z will proclaim they are shocked--shocked!--to find out what Y had been doing behind their respectable facade, and quickly sever business ties with them.

It's blackmail by pantomime, and I don't think it's too much of a stretch to call those who engage in such practices censors.

Kevin Andrew Murphy,

I think perhaps I am misunderstanding you, because it sounds like you're just describing a boycott, and I don't see what's wrong with a boycott, and with trying to convince others to join your boycott.

I don't like our local newspaper, and refuse to buy it and also try to convince others not to purchase it. If I had the financial muscle, would it be wrong for me to tell a local company that I won't do business with them as long as they run ads in the paper? After all, in a way my support of the local company turns into support of the local newspaper as the company can afford more/better ads through my support, and if I am really opposed to my paper, then I should at least make it clear to the local company why I will not be supporting them?

Michelle,

But how would you know that a local company places ads in the despised paper unless you are secretly reading the despised paper?

But to put the boycott business into an analogous situation with regards to a newspaper, let's say that a newspaper is like a web service provider, and individual web pages are like paid ads. You--an outside party--have decided you don't like a particular ad, and threaten a boycott of all the newspaper's advertisers unless the newspaper refuses to accept future ads from that advertiser.

That looks and smells and acts like censorship, and so I call it that.

The trouble with fighting against censorship is that you are always protecting the scoundrels and whackos, since those are the ones at the forefront. Today people come after the "How to Make a Bomb Belt, Junior Achievement" and "Goats and Grannies Fetish" sites, tomorrow they go after the "How to Service your Rifle" and "Gay Personals" pages.

A couple years ago censors flexed their muscles and put pressure on eBay, making it so you can't sell any Nazi or swastika-related items or historic documents, excepting coins and stamps (big cash cows) and obviously fictional movies (a loophole to sell the Indiana Jones movies, but not Triumph of the Will). Of course, this has ended up with a scenario where it is also against the rules to sell a video of an important anti-Nazi period film like "Night and Fog" (which violates both the "no real Nazis" and "no dead bodies" rules) but you can sell crateloads of "Ilse, She-Wolf of the SS."

Kevin wrote: That looks and smells and acts like censorship, and so I call it that.

Hmm, personally I'd call it coercion, and possibly blackmail. Censorship, as I understand it, is what Guiseppe Verdi and Heinrich Heine experienced, where everything they published went first past a government-appointed censor.

There is a certain argumentative benefit in calling something censorship, in that censorship is a democratic "swear word", and one doesn't have to argue that it's wrong, only that it's the right term. On the downside, it can infect discussions with definitionitis -- because it may not be the right word -- and then it's perhaps better to argue from first principles why something is wrong, rather than getting the "censorship" hammer out.

First they came for the Napster users, and I did not speak out because every time I tried to go to that page, the pop-up ads covered my whole screen and made my browser crash.
Then they came for the DeCSS distributors, and I did not speak out because my inbox was flooded with herbal Viagra and Nigerian scam messages.
Then they came for the Diebold memo servers, and I did not speak out because my ISP had been taken out in a massive denial-of-service attack.

Kevin Andrew Murphy,

Spies of course. If I'm going to make myself that rich then of course I'm also going to give myself lots of spies.

But seriously...

But to put the boycott business into an analogous situation with regards to a newspaper, let's say that a newspaper is like a web service provider, and individual web pages are like paid ads. You--an outside party--have decided you don't like a particular ad, and threaten a boycott of all the newspaper's advertisers unless the newspaper refuses to accept future ads from that advertiser.

I think I get your point here, but have another question--what if I went around to every single other advertiser and asked them to join my campaign? Got them *all* to say that if the paper continued to print ads by "Bob's EZ Spam Service" they'd stop advertising at the paper.

Do I not have the right to do so?

The difference I suppose is that in this example I am not shutting doen Bob's business, just removing one avenue of advertising?

In which case... Does not an ISP have the right, as a private business, to not host certain types of pages if they don't want to? (This is a serious question, I really do not know the answer.)

If they do have the right to host who they please (and not host who they do not please), then would there not be a good business opportunity there for a company who *would* host such a site? And is that not what The Principality of Sealand does? (Though even they have things they won't host I believe)

And the e-bay banning of nazi memoribilia reminds me of a long discussion once about the morality and ethics of using scientific and medical data gleaned from nazi medical experiments. Are there not occasions where you should draw the line and say "this one thing should not be?"

In other words, is the slippery slope really that slippery?

Michelle--

In regards to the question of organizing a boycott by the advertisers, do you have the right to pressure the paper to drop the ads for the kosher butcher shop, because you're a militant Christian vegan and find the exsanguination of chickens offensive on many levels? Or maybe just a garden-variety anti-Semite with enough clout in the community to pull off this action?

With ISPs, I expect at some point they're going to be regulated like public utilities, and not allowed to discriminate, or to be sued for hosting sites who other people want to discriminate against. Same as your phone service, so long as you're not doing anything illegal, you don't get it cut off or denied.

With the Nazi memorobilia, saying "This one thing should not be" is the very definition of a slipperly slope, since everyone's individual tolerance levels are different. If everyone gets to ban whatever they disapprove of, you are very quickly left with nothing, because there is always someone to disapprove of anything.

Kevin Andrew Murphy,

Unfortunately, I think that someone would have the right to organize a boycott based on anti-semitic or racist reasons. Free speech is free speech, yes? That doesn't make it good or right, but as private citizens I do think they have the right to say and organize as they please. I may not like it if someone boycotts a store for racist reasons, but that is substantially different from trying to burn down the story.

I'm not sure how I feel about the regulation of public utilities and regulation of the internet in general. I don't like the fact that nasty things involving young children are out there, and that predators wander chat rooms looking for young kids, but I don't think that American regulation will change any of that. They'll just move elsewhere, where they can get away with it.

Regarding the slippery slope, the reason I asked is because I am not sure that it works as advertised most of the time.

Why I wonder this is because I was just reading a paper comparing Kevorkian deaths to Oregon PAS deaths to "typical deaths" (The Gerontoligist 2001), and despite the fact that people claimed PAS would lead to the devaluation of human life, especially the devaluation of aged human life, it does not seem to be working that way, which led me to wonder in what cases the fear of slippery slope fails to come true. In some cases it is a wedge in the door that allowed people to bust through, but not always.

In other words, is it possible that we as a society DO in fact have the ability to sometimes say "just this one thing" and leave it at that? And if that is so, then should we not look more critically at every slipperly slope argument and see if it will indeed lead to where we fear, or whether things may not be as bad as we fear?

I'm sorry if that is confusing and wordy, but I'm struggling with the idea, and that makes it difficult.

For the last 10 years that I've been significantly active online in forums, I've seen the word 'censorship' used more times than you could shake 50 sticks at. Almost none of those times have I thought it was used correctly.

Censorship is not just some private organization saying "You can't say that here." It's not some private organization saying to a second organization "I won't support you if you let Group Foo say this here." Private organizations have a right to exclude. Private persons or organizations have the right to tell another organization the terms under which they will or won't support them.

In the former case, the person whose speech has been forbidden in one forum is not being silenced altogether, merely told to seek another forum. A person who is told a post is off-topic in a specific forum is not being censored, he is merely being told to do it somewhere else. A person whose site violates an AUP and subsequently loses the site because the ISP enforces that AUP is not being censored -- hell, he was told in the first place to not do it there -- but merely being told to take it elsewhere.

"But!" I hear people cry. "But what if they run out of elsewhere to take it!"

I've yet to encounter such a thing. One web site closes, another 9 open. Some sites have AUPs that allow everything and anything to be displayed. Some people pony up for their own IP and computer equipment -- and I've yet to hear of anyone being shut down by their DSL or T1 or cable modem provider for anything short of provable illegal activity or violation of terms of service that were explicitly laid out before the fact.

In the case of boycotts... telling someone "I won't support your business if you let this activity continue" is not in any way forcing that business to accede to that demand. It's offering the business a choice: stick to allowing foo or choose to disallow it so you get the business of the protestor. While it's true many businesses will pick the latter choice, no one is forcing them to. I don't think that you can make a case for censorship when there's a choice involved.

The problem is, like 'terorism', 'censorship' is a word whose impact has been seriously worn down. Anyone who doesn't get to say what they want where they want when they want regardless of circumstance, prior agreement, or factors that may even have nothing to do with the content of their speech cries "Censorship!" and people believe it.

So what will we call it if, say, the government outlaws specific ideas to be expressed? Is not having your letter to the editor published the same thing as being put in jail for saying the President is the anti-Christ? Is having to go through the trouble of finding an ISP with a more liberal AUP or leasing a line and providing your own computer equipment on the order of being shot for supporting a frowned-upon political ideal?

Michelle,

I think the "slippery slope" is more of a slippery teeter-totter. The pressure to ban things is countered by pressure to permit things, which if unchecked leads to an "anything goes" scenario.

With public amenities, in a democratic society, they need to be public, even if privately owned and operated. Restaurants are no longer allowed to put up "No Blacks" signs, and even though there are gay bars, you are not required to prove sexual orientation to go in and get a drink.

The trouble with "we, as a society" with the internet is that there comes a question of which society you're talking about? Your local mores and legal codes? Those of the US? Those of the English-speaking world? Those of the whole world?

The Nazi memoribilia w/eBay ran afoul of the fact that eBay was expanding into the German and Israeli markets, where it was not only against local mores but local legal codes to fly Nazi flags and dress up in SS uniforms. Contrast that with the San Francisco goth club scene, where it's really hard to do anything shocking anymore, so a friend of mine and his girlfriend arrived in letter-perfect Hitler Youth costumes and play-acted for the evening, asking "Is this the Party youth social?"

Now, while I think that people in Israel have every right to be scandalized by us decadent goth costumers, when they start working to ban what people can show and sell to each other in other countries halfway around the globe, it goes a little too far. Today the Nazi memorobilia, tomorrow the bikinis and Baywatch pinups, assuming we get the Saudis on eBay. Or if you really want to cause some eBay havoc, the highest Saudi religious authority has already done fatwas banning Pokemon and Barbie. (They also declared Pokemon and Barbie "Jewish" and no, I'm not making this up.)

"Just this one thing" is never just this one thing. The Israelis want to ban swastikas and Nazi memorbilia. The Saudis want to ban Pokemon and Barbie. And on and on. Everything found somewhere on the globe is unspeakable somewhere else.

Kevin Andrew Murphy,

I thought private clubs could do just that? Allow only people who are members in? Hence the uproar over the Augusta golf (er.... Don't know golf terms) game (?) not allowing women on the courses. So you could make a private members only restaurant and allow only those of "your kind" in. I thought also that was why the boy scouts could keep out gays. (And so on and so forth for many examples)

As far as I am concerned, the "we" of the interent means that one country can regulate businesses that work within their borders. The US can regulate all US ISPs, but no one else. That seems reasonable enough.

Regarding e-bay, my understanding of your description (and I could be wrong) is it seems like the Israelis and the Germans said that if you want to do business in our country, you have to follow our rules, otherwise you can't do business in our country. Am I misunderstanding? So if e-bay had the option of removing Nazi stuff OR not existing in Germany and Israel, then they had a choice, yes? They could have chosen not to function in Germany, to block all German or Israeli addresses, and if that is the case, then I don't see that as wrong, since they made a market based decision: the number of customers in Israel and Germany is greater than the number of customers who by Nazi stuff, therefore we'll follow their wishes.

If the Nazi memoribilia people had more money, then e-bay might have chosen in the other direction, right?

So I don't see it as one country dictating terms to a business in another country, I see them offering a choice or us or them. And that seems reasonable to me. It might not be polite, but I do think they should have the right to take their marbles and go home if they so choose, where in this case the marbles are the millions of users who might frequent e-bay.

(Assuming that my understanding of the situation is correct.)

The problem with the idea that every country policies its own little section of the internet is that the 'net just is by nature international. It's not as easy as saying "Okay, all these IP addresses belong to Israel, so we won't let them view Nazi pariphenalia." because there's always the possibility of numerous false positives or missed IPs.

Even on a practical (let alone moral) level, individual countries shouldn't be trying to police the Internet. Let them police users in their own locales. The only thing they should reasonably expect a given company to do is not willingly and knowingly sell good or services to someone in a locale where it is not legal to purchase those goods and services (or, likewise, from a locale where it's not legal to do so).

Michelle--

Well, I just looked things up, and after the brouhaha with the French lawsuit two years ago, it appears that eBay has chosen a third option: lip service.

The "prohibited item" policies clearly lists Nazi memorobilia as stuff they reserve the option to cancel at any time, but they're not. So you can get SS daggers, posters, helmets, pins and so on, including this listing:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2199945212&category=36046

with the following entertaining line:

No sales to Germany,Italy ,France or any other terrorist organizations!

Tina--

In agreement with your last post. Local law enforcement is the best way to deal with it.

Kevin Andrew Murphy - "In regards to the question of organizing a boycott by the advertisers, do you have the right to pressure the paper to drop the ads for the kosher butcher shop, because you're a militant Christian vegan and find the exsanguination of chickens offensive on many levels? Or maybe just a garden-variety anti-Semite with enough clout in the community to pull off this action?"

Yup, and I have a right as a newspaper owner to tell the boycott-organizers to buzz off. Likewise, as a regular citizen, if someone comes to me with a boycott I disagree with -- or find offensive -- I can tell them to go fly a kite. Like I said: everybody's exercising their rights of free speech here.

>>With ISPs, I expect at some point they're going to be regulated like public utilities, and not allowed to discriminate, or to be sued for hosting sites who other people want to discriminate against. Same as your phone service, so long as you're not doing anything illegal, you don't get it cut off or denied.

And you see this as a GOOD thing? I do not trust the government to enforce fairness on the Internet. The government will step in to be sure that ISPs give equal treatment to all responsible people and views. And the government gets to decide who's "responsible."

>>With the Nazi memorobilia, saying "This one thing should not be" is the very definition of a slipperly slope, since everyone's individual tolerance levels are different. If everyone gets to ban whatever they disapprove of, you are very quickly left with nothing, because there is always someone to disapprove of anything.

What's that line that fantasy fans are fond of quoting, about summoning demons from the misty darkness, or something like that? Also, the Jerry Seinfeld joke about TAKING a reservation, vs. HOLDING it?

Anybody can place a ban on selling Nazi memorabilia on eBay, but only eBay -- and government entities -- can actually enforce that ban. You and I may find the ban offensive and badly implemented, but it's eBay's system and their right to decide what gets sold on it, and what can't be sold.

Michelle - "Unfortunately, I think that someone would have the right to organize a boycott based on anti-semitic or racist reasons."

They have a right to ATTEMPT to organize such a boycott. As a matter of fact, I'm sure a great many people are attempting to organize boycotts like that right now, or have them under way. Not very effective, are they?

"I'm not sure how I feel about the regulation of public utilities and regulation of the internet in general. I don't like the fact that nasty things involving young children are out there, and that predators wander chat rooms looking for young kids, but I don't think that American regulation will change any of that. They'll just move elsewhere, where they can get away with it."

The problem with that kind of government regulation is that your definition of "nasty things" and mine might differ. Consider this site, for instance. I think gay pride is a swell thing -- and because you're here, I suspect you do too. But I'm sure there are a great many people who would like to see gay pride sites banned.

Tina - " ... the person whose speech has been forbidden in one forum is not being silenced altogether, merely told to seek another forum."

This is a change of subject, but one character I notice who keeps cropping up in online forums is the guy who has an Important Message That Must Be Told!

I participate in a mailing list for ... let's say it's about butterfly collecting, to protect the guilty. Now, I enjoy topic drift and off-topic posts as much as the next guy but there was this ONE GUY who kept on posting at great length about the war in Iraq, how much he hated the Bush administration, etc. etc. etc. When people tried to get him to stop, he said, "How can you people talk about butterfly collecting at a time like this! Aren't you interested in the crisis facing our nation?!" He even tried to make it appear that his discussion was actually ON-TOPIC, talking about how many butterflies have been killed in the war on Iraq and due to Bush's other policies.

We pointed out that a SEPARATE list had been set up specifically for such circumstances, for butterfly collectors interested in talking about politics, and why didn't he take his posts there? He said when he posted there nobody responded. (I was trying to be diplomatic, so I said: wasn't that a CLUE, big fella, that nobody was interested in what you have to say?)

I went on and on at some length on the butterfly collecting list, attempting to convince the transgressor of the error of his ways. I wonder now, as I often do in such situations, if I might have gotten more results for less effort if I had simply been candid: "Yes, I AM interested in the crisis facing our nation -- I'm just not interested in anything YOU have to say about it, because you are a moron."

As for the Kevorkian deaths, I'm very suspicious of Dr. K, I think he may well be a serial killer in doctor's clothing. I haven't looked into this very closely, but I've seen reports that he's really a hard-sell kind of guy on the death thing, and not too respectful of buyer's remorse, either. I do think we need a national policy about when euthanasia is appropriate, but I don't think Dr. K is necessarily the example we should be following.

(When we faced this decision with my own mother, we decided that we would be willing to withhold treatment from her -- to sign a DNR order -- but we would not be willing to withhold food and water, or to take more active measures. The doctor told us that withholding food and water would involve no suffering for my mother, I said, yeah, right, I remember when I was eight years old and the doctor said my flu shot wouldn't hurt, either.

(I also remember when my mother was healthy and whole of mind, she signed an order saying that no "heroic measures" should be use to resusciatate her. We all thought that was swell and very progressive of Mom -- but when the time came to actually make decisions on her behalf, we found the order to be completely useless. I mean, "no heroic measures"? What the fuck does that mean? Okay, we've established that if Superman or Spider-Man or some other hero wants to swoop in and save her, we should say, "Sorry fella, but Mom signed this here 'no heroic measures' order. Would you like a latte instead?" But what does "no heroic measures" mean in the real world?)

As to whether Dr. K has led to the devauation of human life, it's still early. Ask me again in 50 years. I suspect, however, that the answer is yes.

Kevin - You're mixing up two different things when you cite Israel and Germany banning Nazi memorabilia, and the Saudis banning Pokemon and Barbie. Those are examples of GOVERNMENTS banning some types of speech and commerce, and I agree with you there: bad idea.

What we've been discussing here is PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS making decisions to organize boycotts.

The difference is that private individuals and entities can apply pressure on each other, but governments can make outright bans.

And you may laugh at eBay's little fig-leaf of a ban on Nazi memorabilia -- hell, it IS laughable, you have EVERY RIGHT TO LAUGH -- but my years in the corporate workspace has taught me the value of having rules in place that you never enforce. Sure, it's irrational, silly and inefficient, but we humans are rational, silly and inefficient creatures.

Ebay has managed to sell whatever they want, and get the French and Germans off their backs. In a perfect world, they'd've fought the order and won -- but they might've lost, and they only have a finite amount of time and energy and a finite number of battles they can fight.

Mitch Wagner:

My definition of nasty things is pretty well definited: Anything that involves harm to an unwilling individual or a child.

Regarding Kevorkian, the paper I read was an comparison of the deaths in which he was involved compared to Oregon PAS. Huge difference. Only 25% of his "patients" had terminal illness. That is (in my opinion) pretty scary.

Has he devalued human life? As you say, it's too soon to tell, but I think that he may in fact have helped, only because people have started talking about end of life care, and there has now been more interest in funding hospice care, and researching palliative care.

I'm sorry about your mother, although I do have to say that your doctor was right. (First though, I'm neither a gerontologist nor a hospice worker, but I have done a fair bit of research on the subject both for school and on my own, and if you would like I can recommend further resources. Although my interest is Environmental Health, almost all my papers and projects have been in the area of end of life care.)

With many terminal illnesses, there can be a loss of both appetite and thirst, and far from being painful for the patient, this may in fact be part of the palliative care and may help to reduce pain and suffering. If you have further question I would recommend that you get in touch with a hospice in your area, or if you like I can recommend some resources you could read.

You might check out:
http://www.nahc.org/HAA/ Hospice Association of America
http://www.abhpm.org/ American Board of Hospice and Palliative Medicine
http://www.nho.org/ National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization

And living wills vary from area to area, and at least in this area you can be quite specific if your desires, detailing precisely what you would and would not like to happen. This too is something a hospice worker or doctor should be able to explain. And if your doctor does not explain it to your satisfaction, then find another doctor or administrator who will explain it to you. It's important.

Also, there is a difference between euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS). PAS is legal in Oregon and it basically allows a doctor to prescribe a lethal does of medication for a patient. Very different from what Kevorkian did.

Regarding Nazi memoribilia, I just wish that we lived in a world where there wasn't a desire to own any. But until we do, e-bay should follow the rules of the states and countries where it operates. If it does not want to follow those rules and laws, then it doesn't have to sell items in that country.

Any items, or just those items that violate the ban? It may be illegal to sell Barbies and Pokemon cards to Saudi Arabia, but it's rather ridiculous for a company to have to ban their sale worldwide just so you can sell the Saudis a toaster.

With Nazi memoribilia, there are all sorts of reasons why someone would want to own some. A collector of German militariana would have a pretty glaring hole in his collection if he didn't include weapons and medals from that period, and ditto with the coin and stamp collectors. Artifacts always have more than one context for them to be viewed in.

It's up to the company. If they can manage a way not to sell just the items in that country, then that's great. If they can't find a way around it, then they have the choice of removing the items or chosing not to move their company to Saudi Arabia.

I'm not sure that "so I can collect the whole set!" is a good enough rationale for an individual to collect Nazi memoribilia. Museums should collect these things, because we need to understand the depths to which humanity can sink, but just because it's there...

I mean, I could say that I need plutonium and uranium, because I'm collecting all the elements in the periodic table, but is that a good enough reason to let me have them? (And I need lots, because my collection has to be the largest and most complete of any private periodic collection.)

Michelle - Thanks for the links to the palliative care resources. Fortunately, it's not something that's top-of-mind for me ... for now at least.

I'm enough of a libertarian to be uncomfortable with your statement, "e-bay should follow the rules of the states and countries where it operates. If it does not want to follow those rules and laws, then it doesn't have to sell items in that country." I think conscience should be a higher authority than law.

You say: "I'm not sure that 'so I can collect the whole set!' is a good enough rationale for an individual to collect Nazi memoribilia. Museums should collect these things, because we need to understand the depths to which humanity can sink, but just because it's there..."

Many museums started out as private collections for the idle wealthy.

If I decide I want to start a collection of World War II memorabililia, why should the government have the right to tell me that I can collect the artifacts of every nation that fought in that war except for Germany?

Mitch--

I hope you don't need Palliative care resources any time soon, but if you do I hope you are able to find people who are able to help you.

As far as companies following the rules of the country where it does business. As far as I am concerned, large companies tend to be amoral--it is to easy to pass the buck, and the consequences for not following social mores are next to nil. In fact the consquences for breaking laws is frequently nil. Take EF Hutton, Enron, Tyco etc.

In other words, the larger the group, the less likely consience is to be a guide, (In my opinion anyway) so we do need laws to regulate business and commerce, to keep them from behaving unethically and harming others. Of course even the laws we do have seem to be ineffective, but it's an attempt.

As far as Nazi memoribilia, I fear I am expressing myself badly, and figuring it out as I go along. Sorry. I suppose that if one wanted to, they should be allowed to collect nazi memoribilia, but should it be made so easy? I think that is what I was reacting to with e-bay. They make it so that anyone with a computer and a credit card can purchase reminders of a painful time with little effort and little or no thought.

It brings to mind the discovery that a commonly used anatomy text book may have used the bodies of death camp victims as subjects. See: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=31704)
Should such a book continue to be used? Should medical discoveries that we made in the death camps be used?

All of this is material that should be considered and pondered, and I fear that ready and easy access to such materials allows one to ignore the history completely. In other words, do we want to live in a society where for many the swastika is no longer disturbing and upsetting?

Michelle: "It brings to mind the discovery that a commonly used anatomy text book may have used the bodies of death camp victims as subjects. See: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=31704)
Should such a book continue to be used? Should medical discoveries that we made in the death camps be used?"

Let me rephrase the question for you: Should people be allowed to suffer and die today because information that could save them was obtained in Nazi concentration camps?

"All of this is material that should be considered and pondered, and I fear that ready and easy access to such materials allows one to ignore the history completely. In other words, do we want to live in a society where for many the swastika is no longer disturbing and upsetting?"

I'm more concerned with sanitizing the past.

I'm reminded of movies made today, set in the past, which attempt to make the past conform to today's notions of what is right and wrong, thus glossing over the fact that today's gains have been hard won.

Michelle--

We already live in a world where, for many, the swastika is neither disturbing nor upsetting. The Koreans in particular have been using the swastika for thousands of years, and didn't give it up because of atrocities that occured on the other side of the globe sixty years ago. Indeed, some are even oblivious to that facet of history--I had a roommate once who'd just moved here from Korea and one day came out of her room wearing a pretty gold swastika necklace. I had the unfortunate task of mentioning to her that there would be some people in the US who would ascribe a different meaning to it than "good luck."

As far as Nazi memoribilia, I fear I am expressing myself badly, and figuring it out as I go along. Sorry. I suppose that if one wanted to, they should be allowed to collect nazi memoribilia, but should it be made so easy? I think that is what I was reacting to with e-bay. They make it so that anyone with a computer and a credit card can purchase reminders of a painful time with little effort and little or no thought.

What war hasn't been a painful time? And whose pain and whose thoughts?

The "Well, if we can't ban it outright, can we at least make it difficult?" business is an old ploy, and not one I respect. Making people have to jump through hoops is simply another way to make a ban. Nazi items should be no more difficult to obtain than any other historic documents or artifacts, and as with all things, it's up to the individual to decide what it means to them.

Mitch:

I actually knew the full implications of the question when I asked it, and I have struggled with it. If we are willing to say that the end does justify the means in this case, do we not then encourage others to use all means foul and fair to achieve their ends? Tuskeege was okay, because we achieved valuable medical knowledge from it seems to be the message here. Too bad about all the suffering and death, but we got what we wanted.

In essesnce, there are two arguments: Throwing the Baby out with the bathwater, where we fail to gain anything from the tragedy, and the future encouragement of other madmen, who will see that the ends do in fact justify the means.

Optimally, it should be the decision of those who were abused as to whether their suffering should be used to help others, but I don't think that's possible here.

Mitch & Kevin:

I see what you are saying, and I'm not unwilling to be convinced that I am in error, I just have not yet seen an argument to convince me otherwise.

The selling of nazi German items seems to me to be profiting from the suffering and death of others, and I just have a hard time beleiving that should be acceptable. I mean, I refuse to eat fast food because of the way employees all the way down the line are treated, and profiting off the the deaths of others seems a far worse thing to me.

I read about the resurgenece of neo-naziism in Europe, and hate gangs (in the US, Europe and elsewhere) that use the symbols of fascist Germany as part of their campaigns in current times, and it horrifies me. I just consider whether it is possible for such groups to allow such symbols to mean nothing, and wonder whether those groups, with a good leader, to ever gain power and implement their wishes and desires.

It's easy to say that could never happen again, but I look around the world and see much I thought would never happen, and then begin to worry.

At what point do these worries switch from foolish censorship to a serious problem we must consider and fight?

Michelle, there's an obvious (glib?) answer to your question:

At what point do these worries switch from foolish censorship to a serious problem we must consider and fight?

At the point at which the people involved start carrying out acts that harm others.

In other words, if a skinhead wants to wear a swastika, that's his business; if he attacks minorities, that's assault, and gets him thrown in jail. During the trial, the fact that he collected Nazi memorabilia could be used as evidence that the attack was part of a larger pattern, rather than a random one-time incident, and so merits more serious treatment. But wearing a swastika and not attacking anyone shouldn't provoke any legal response.

I think you're falling into a trap of thinking "evil people used these symbols, and we don't want to experience such evil again, so to keep the evil people out of power, we should ban such symbols". I don't believe things work that way. Banning symbols of the last great evil will do nothing to prevent the next evil, which will come up with new symbols anyway.

On the "fruits of evil" question, I think if I were the victim, I'd view society benefiting from my suffering as a form of memorial; throwing away the data would strike me as disrespectful of my suffering. I understand how people can feel uncomfortable about benefiting from evil; you don't want society to decide "well, something good came from it, so that makes it OK." But throwing away the data is a form of forgetting about what happened.

But then, I can think of no situation where I personally would choose less knowledge over more, whatever the question. I guess if the victim themselves didn't want the data used, I wouldn't be able to ignore their wishes, but I'd try to persuade them that helping others is a better commemoration than trying to forget what happened.

Jeremy:

Thank you, that bit on censorship did help quite a bit. It still bothers me, but I do comprehend the importance of free speech.

As far as fruits of evil, in the situation it would, I suppose, be up to Holocaust survivors to determine what was to happen with the information. But I do worry whether other crackpot 'scientists' and 'doctors' will see that as implicit consent to experiment on humans.

Michelle,

There's not a thing on this earth not tinged by someone's suffering. You can't walk three steps without treading on the graves of the dead, or using something that someone somewhere was exploited to make or to get to your door.

Every medical advance and lifesaving technique came about because someone suffered and someone took notes, trying experiments and unorthodox procedures in hopes of alleviating that suffering and saving their lives. The Nazi experiments or the analogous US ones with the syphilis or exposing US troops to nuclear radiation? The actions are criminal, but the data is the same as that which would have been legitimately obtained through happenstance, and it would be equally criminal for doctors to deny someone treatment so as to not use the tainted data. If you know that X is the proper treatment, you do it.

I'll also admit that the whole "profitting" question is an intensely personal one for me, since I'm half German, and my mother was raised up in Germany during the war. My grandfather died in it. He was in the last wave of conscripts, when they were taking everyone, even economics professors, but it was his wise investments (mostly German railroad stocks) that put me through college.

Somewhere there is likely to be a posthumous medal. Certainly there are piles of photographs, all stuffed in photo albums excepting my grandfather's last portrait, the one my grandmother had the photographer silkscreen out the Nazi armband so she could legally display it after the war.

I have to admit that I'm intensely creeped out by that silkscreening, forcing a widow to choose between having no final picture of her dead husband at all or a picture that was never actually taken.

Nazi memoribilia is another way of saying WW2 German memoribilia. I'm not going to sell mine because its my family history, but if I were truly hard up? Somewhere there's a college student who, instead of inheriting railroad stock, got a box of SS medals and an unpublished picture of his grandfather shaking hands with Hitler. I doubt the feelings these conjure up are more painful for anyone than him, but he has every right to sell them to pay his tuition.

Michelle - I think we need to have it both ways - we need to fight vivisection performed on humans AND use all possible data to improve healthcare.

To suppress the data obtained from human vivisection is simply to add one atrocity on top of another.

I do not see where using the information collected in human vivisection is in any way discouraging the practice.

"The selling of nazi German items seems to me to be profiting from the suffering and death of others, and I just have a hard time beleiving that should be acceptable. I mean, I refuse to eat fast food because of the way employees all the way down the line are treated, and profiting off the the deaths of others seems a far worse thing to me."

Ah, but the Nazis aren't profiting from the sale of wartime memorabilia, are they, unless you assume that anyone with Nazi memorabilia to sell is probably a Nazi or sympathizer. I expect much of the memorabilia was plundered from the battlefield, anyway, by Allies, and that the people selling the memorabilia are innocent collectors.

Bear in mind that there was, fairly recently, a small but thriving trade in Jim Crow artifacts among affluent blacks. This was going on in the 1990s, Oprah Winfrey was a huge collector, and for all I know it's still going on today. Affluent blacks of today saw it as a symbol of how far they had come, that they could afford to collect artifacts of their past oppression.

I am concerned about sanitizing history because it is happening RIGHT NOW. Neonazis are, thank goodness, a fringe movement, but sanitizing history is mainstream. You routinely see movies and TV shows set in the early 20th Century, and earlier, that portray racisms as if it never happened. One of my pet peeves is smoking: in the early 20th Century, more than half of adult Americans smoked, and yet TV shows and movies set in that period never seem to portray that.

You're asking for an argument to allow sale of Nazi memorabilia, and on the contrary I say to you that it is up to YOU to present an argument for banning it. I see no reason to assume that allowing sale of Nazi memorabilia will lead to an increase in Naziism. And the evidence of history shows that when you try to suppress speech, you simply drive it underground and make it stronger.

If neo-Nazis are out there trading in Nazi memorabilia, I don't want them underground - I want those vermin out in the open where I can keep an eye on them.

"As far as fruits of evil, in the situation it would, I suppose, be up to Holocaust survivors to determine what was to happen with the information."

What gives Holocaust survivors the right to dictate medical treatment for other people?

"But I do worry whether other crackpot 'scientists' and 'doctors' will see that as implicit consent to experiment on humans."

Those crackpot scientists and doctors can be discouraged from experimenting on humans using the law, politics and military force, if necessary, as we are already doing. Using the results of Nazi experiments is not the same thing as condoning those experiment.

When I was a daily newspaper reporter, part of my responsibility was to take obituaries over the phone. I got friendly with one of the funeral directors, a colorful guy with an accent straight from Brooklyn. I asked him how he was doing one day, and he said, "Great! Business is great! I got 'em stacked up in the reefer!"

I said, "Um, Joe, you're a FUNERAL DIRECTOR. If your business is great, then that means a lot of people DIED. Is that actually, y'know, GOOD?"

He said, "I ain't a philosopher, Mitch, I just do my job."

And he was good at it, too -- if I had fallen over dead at that time, I'd've wanted him to handle the arrangements, especially if I had keeled over in a newsworthy fashion. He handled the funeral arrangments for ANY celebrity deaths that happened to occur in that small town; for instance, he handled Karen Anne Quinlan's funeral.

P.S. My opinion on right-to-die cases and physician-assisted suicide is informed by an interview I heard on NPR a couple of years ago, with a doctor who pointed out that terminally ill patients are ALREADY committing suicide, and doctors are ALREADY helping them, but it's all sort of unspoken. The doctor will take pains to point out to the patient exactly what dosage of painkillers is lethal, and other circumstances that will induce death -- all in the name of safety, of course, the doctor is just telling the patient what NOT to do.

The doctor in this interview said that physician-assisted suicide guidelines are needed simply so that the patient and doctor are not flying alone through this territory, but rather have the guidance of other people who faced the same decision.

Still, I am concerned that the RIGHT to die will become the OBLIGATION to die. I am concerned that the old and sick will find themselves pressured to sign physician-assisted suicide agreements by family members who are eager to get them out of the way.

Michelle, if we use "but can crackpots interpret this action as support for their point of view" as a criterion, our situation is hopeless. No matter what we do, some crackpot is going to think that our actions validate their nuttiness; that's why they're called "crazy".

Okay, I'll accept the point that if the families give permission, we should have the right to use such information as was obtained through all means foul and fair.

BUT

I am not convinced that we have the right to use the results of nazi experiementation without the explicit consent of any survivors. It is their suffering, and we do not have the right to set that aside lightly just because it will benefit us.

To me, to do so is akin to telling someone who suffers from a rare illness that they MUST donate their body to science, for the good of all who will follow. Yes, we should try to convince them, but it is not our place to force them.

I've read discussions here about copyright of artistic works, and how long such copyrights should extend past death. Why should artists be allowed to copyright their words beyond their death if we do not allow families to control images and information stolen from the bodies of thier loved ones after death?

If we can claim ownership of our thoughts and ideas, then why should we not have similar ownership over the pictures and information taken from our bodies?

And that does not even consider any religious issues involved. Some faiths believe that all body parts must be buried together, or that if at all possible burial must occur within a certain time after the death. We are talking about not just a violation of their body, but a violation of their faith and effecting what they believe will happen to them in the afterlife.

As far as right to die and physician assisted suicide, I strongly beleive that much of the problem is due to the undertreatment of pain and a fear by doctors to use the tools they have at hand to treat pain.

Concepts such as terminal sedation (sedating a patient into unconsciousness until the death to treat suffering at the end of life), the double effect (treating a patient with stronger and stronger dosages of medication to treat pain, despite any life shortening effects this may have), terminal dehydration (many patients at the end of life do not feel thirst or hunger and this refusal of nutrition and hydration can hurry the end of life without causing suffering to the patient), and so forth should be common knowledge to doctors, and this knowledge should be made available to families and patients, but it isn't.

You're right to worry that there is a very fine line between can and should in the right to die, and I think that is why we need to better use the tools we already, before we start looking for new tools to fix the problem.

In my opinion anyway.

Michelle,

Medical data is simply that, data, and arguing about the ethics is mostly moot in this case because the cat is already out of the bag. Doctors use what they learn, and teach what they know. The doctors who treated the survivors of the Nazi experiments, as part of that treatment, obviously had to read the patient's medical history. Ergo, the data that the Nazi's put down went into the bag of those doctors and their students.

Then there's the plain fact that the fruits of these experiments were put into use by ordinary physicians who had no knowledge of their provenance, who of course wrote notes and passed the knowledge on to other doctors.

The notes and files are already out there, and complaining about it at this point is simply noise.