Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ulysses.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!gatech!ulysses!smb
From: smb@ulysses.UUCP (Steven Bellovin)
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Let's get it straight.
Message-ID: <1024@ulysses.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 31-Jul-85 10:16:35 EDT
Article-I.D.: ulysses.1024
Posted: Wed Jul 31 10:16:35 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 1-Aug-85 20:36:34 EDT
References: <3369@decwrl.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 90
Xref: linus net.religion:6881 net.religion.christian:974

I don't know why I bother to respond to Black, but I suppose I shouldn't let
his Big Lies go unchallenged.  My comments are based on several stories from
the Associated Press, an organization I trust rather more than the "newspaper"
Black cites.

> Rich Rosen proclaims:
> 
> >Subject: Liberty Lobby Lawsuit
> >Posted: Fri Jul 26 13:17:44 1985
> > 
> >I just heard last night that the Liberty Lobby, a neo-fascist organization
> >that purportedly put up a large sum of money to anyone who could prove
> >the existence of the Holocaust (hoping that no one would come forward to
> >stand up to such a boorish claim, thus "proving" their point that it never
> >happened), got its just desserts.
> > 
> >A judge ordered Liberty Lobby to pay a Holocaust survivor $90,000 as a
> >fulfillment of their "outstanding challenge", and apparently they were 
> >forced by the judge to publicly accept and acknowledge the fact that the
> >Holocaust did occur.
> 
>      Somehow, Rich, your information is flawed as usual.  The group that was 
> the object of the lawsuit is the Institute for Historical Review, in Torrence,
> California.  The Institute has little or no direct connection with the 
> pro-American, pro-freedom, pro-civil rights Liberty Lobby.  

The suit was filed against the IHR, the Liberty Lobby, and Willis Carto,
described by the AP as the "lobby treasurer and founder of the Institute".
The article also alluded to other defendants, but did not list them by name.

> 
>      This lawsuit was just one more act of terrorism perpetrated by the
> illegal Jewish Defense League and its minions.  They couldn't BOMB the 
> I.H.R. out of existance, so now it's lawsuit time.  

Why is a lawsuit an "act of terrorism"?

>      (On July 4, 1984, the library of the I.H.R. was forcibly entered
> and firebombed by a professional arsonist.  The Jewish Defense League 
> provided the police with the name of the arsonist.  J.D.L. members were
> photographed dancing in the ashes.  Prior to the fire, the library had
> been the target of vandalism and picketing by the J.D.L.  Recently,
> the J.D.L. has taken credit for harassing workers and officials of the
> I.H.R.  And this is America????)

I condemn the actions of whoever bombed that building -- I *don't* support
that sort of shit, even against the likes of the IHR.  Picketing, however,
is a perfectly reasonable exercise of First Amendment rights -- the same
rights I support for you, as much as it pains me.

>      The fellow who "won" the suit was awarded the sum of $50,000 for the
> reward money, and a penalty of $40,000 to $100,000 for "proving" that the 
> Holocaust actually took place.  

Mr. Mermelstein received a letter from the IHR challenging him to prove that
the Holocaust occurred, or have the fact of his refusal publicized.  He's
a camp survivor (who no doubt tattooed a number on his arm because he likes
seeing digits) who watched his family killed at Auschwitz.  He submitted
assorted evidence to the IHR, which  -- of course -- ignored it.  He sued
for the promised amount plus damages.

>      As for the I.H.R. recanting, don't hold your breath.  You may control
> the courts, but you don't yet control freedom of expression in the U.S.

As part of the settlement, the defense attorneys offered a formal apology,
and agreed to accept a 1981 ruling that the reality of the Holocaust is a
"indisputable fact" [quote from the AP story, not necessarily the settlement].
Folks from the IHR were later quoted as saying that they didn't really
believe all that, but that the settlement was an economic decision.  Might
make for an interesting perjury case, if the recantation was made under oath...

> >They hoped that we would all find the claim so disgusting that we would
> >all ignore it.  Personally I'm glad someone chose not to.
> 
>      Nope.  Suits like this can't be ignored.  It brings the subject out 
> into the open, into the court of Public Opinion.  The trial transcripts are
> public record.  It won't take long before the truth---one way or the other---
> comes out.  
> 
> >No, it probably won't shut them up.  (Comments, Mr. Black?   Mr. Frith?)
> 
>      It sure won't.  In fact, it gives us more ammunition.
> 
>  >(Could someone elaborate on the sketchy details I acquired?)
> 
>      Read all about it in "The Spotlight," the weekly newspaper of the 
> American Populist Party.

A "trial transcript" should be quite interesting, because the case was settled
*before* the trial started -- the trial was due to start August 5...