Freedom of speech on the information highway
The Simon Wiesenthal Centre recently announced that OHver, B.C., was the Internet hate capital of Canada. The centre and both the Pacific and National divisions of The Canadian Jewish Congress called on the government to take more action towards ridding the Internet of such sites. White supremacy and hate sites are, of course, offensive and disturbing. Our first reaction is to want them banned. However, there are two serious problems with this approach: one, it is not technologically feasible, and, two, censorship caimot eliminate hatred.
Since the government regulates the phone utilities and the Internet uses phone lines. Dr. Michael Elterman, chair the CJC Pacific region, would like the government to use its B^HMH regulator^'muscle to -remove both pomog- ; raphy and hate from ; owK the Internet. This ,
is difficult. - jiSRHire
The Internet is, as j its name would im- ' ply, a networked environment. Just as ; your right arm will \ compensate if you ; hurt your left arm, t every block you put \ up on the Internet ; can be circumvented ——
- other areas of the network compensate. From a technological standpoint it is incredibly difficult to block someone's access to a site they are intent upon visiting. This method of restricting access will only block out the most novice of computer users.
Assuming that the reason we want to censor the Internet is to protect children from accessing inappropriate material accidentally, the most effective method 5 of achieving this goal is to give parents the ability to control Zi what their children can access on g their home computer. Products ^ such as Net Nanny and Cyber CO Patrol will help parents in 5 this endeavour. ^ Parents also should take heart ^ that people who use the Internet S for criminal activity do leave a trail: there is a record that will lead police directly to their door. ^ As well thou^, parents should
4be aware of who and what their children are dealing with on the
Internet and they should educate their children on what they consider to be appropriate Internet use; not to give out personal information about themselves, for example.
They should discuss with their children why certain material is immoral or inappropriate. It is possible for parents to determine if their children accessed such material in their absence, and computer privileges are something that can be revoked. In the end, there is probably not much that can be done to eliminate hate material and pornography from the Internet.
At most, we can put pressure on Internet service providers (ISPs) to not host or provide links to sites that promote hatred. In setting up our own web pages and in accessing the Internet, we can choose to put our money into ISPs like iSTAR who refiise to carry such sites, and we can penalize ISPs like Fairview Technology, who do carry these sites, by not using them and by encouraging others to not financially support them either. As well, we can post our own sites that oppose the hate material being disseminated on another site. ITiese options may not be enough for some people. They may feel that the government should use its immense powers to set up what, in effect, would be a huge wire tap in order to prevent objectionable material from being publicly circulated on the Internet.
However, the possible repercussions of this statist approach are far more horrifying than the fi"ee dissemination of hatred and pornography on the Internet. Eliminating free speech does not eliminate hate.
There is much less to fear in a society where people's opinions are known and can be challenged than in a society where information is suppressed. Giving the government the power to monitor and restrict our ability to communicate would not free us, it would only serve to imprison usall.n
Letters
Important case
Editor
Roberta Stale/s article "Libel trial nearing end," (.Bulletin, Dec. 5) concerning the lawsuit against Dr. David L^thbridge reflects a deplorable lack of understandmg of the importance of this case of the Jewish community and that of other minorities.
The article implied that the lawsuit related to statements made by Dr. Lethbridge on a television broadcast about the development of the plaintiffs' property. That is a dangerous misrepresentation of the case.
Dr. Lethbridge has single handedly exposed an organization, Council on Public Affairs, in Salmon Arm. The CPA published a newsletter with a claimed readership of 12,000. They sponsored seminars and conventions featuring such notorious figures as James Keegstra, Ernst Zundel, David Irving, and Eustace Mullins.
They advertised and distributed Holocaust denial literature and books.
Being unsuccessful in attempts to intimidate Dr. Lethbridge, the principal of the CPA and her husband launched a libel action against him. If they succeed it will not only be Dr. Lethbridge whose voice is stifled. The representative of the television station agreed during his
evidence that in light of the cost and trouble of defending a libel action they probably would not do a story like this again. ,
That is the real purpose of the trial and that is the reason it is important to the Jewish community and all other ethnic and minority groups.
And iJiat is the reason that the Bulletin had a duty to its readership to inform them of what this case is about. As a champion of the right to free speech, I would have expected the Bulletin to be in the forefront of the Lethbridge defence.
The Jewish community deserves better... and so docs Dr. Lethbridge.
Irvine E. Epstein Vancouver
Who is a Jew?
Editon
Who is a Jew?
Is history repeating?
No, not in Hitler's Germany.
Yes, in Israel 1998.
When the Nazi party came to power in the 1930s they developed extraordinary secret intelligence reports on Jews.
You had to fiU out forms about your mother, father and grandparents. The civil servants gave this to the politicians, who in return said who is a Jew.
We welcome your letters
□
: Send to: Editor, Jewish Bulletin, J Suite 203 - 873 Beatty St., ^ : Vancouver, V6B 2M6 5 Fax: 689-1525 E-mall: jbeditor@istar.ca
Letters ^ould be brief, no more than 250 words, and contain the full name and address of the writer
and a daytinie phone number, , Letters may be edited for space and clarity.
Churchill did not protest.
Chamberlin did not protest.
Roosevelt did not protest.
American Jewry did not protest.
This article by Jonathan Rosenblum ("The ifltimate Jewish pluralists,''i3M/fc<m, Jan. 16) would legitimize the methods of the Nazi party. Who is a Jew? If you do not stand up today the Orthodox in Israel will by the year 2028 have you filling out a form the same as in the 1930s in Germany.
Roger Scclig New Westminster
Abrams misrepresented
Editor:
I write in response to the editorial published on Jan. 9 in which the Jewish Western Bulletin claims that "Mr. Abrams and the B'nai Brith that he represents" are attempting to threaten the financial viability of The North Shore News by seeking the application of the law against Doug Collins and his anti-Semitic diatribes.
While Harry Abrams is a well-regarded activist who has effectively identified and fought against purveyors of hate, he does not speak for B'nai Brith in British Colmnbia in this matter. According to B'nai Brith constitution, regional representation falls upon the board of directors of the Evergreen region and local units of B'nai Brith. Neither the Evergreen region nor the local units have considered or endorsed the position advocated by Mr. Abrams in this case. Mr. Abrams is a member of B'nai Brith, as are hundreds of citizens of British Columbia, however he is not acting as a representative of our organization, as Mr. Abrams himself corroborated in a recent letter to the Bulletin.
We would appreciate if you could make your readership aware of these facts.
Robert B.Spitzer President
Evergreen region - B'nai Brith