Re: [ARSCLIST] Recordings of lynchings?

[phillip holmes <insuranceman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Mea Culpa?  Well no, not at all.  Are you accusing me of being a racist 
because I believe that this information should be available to those 
other than the thought police?  I find that childish.  I don't have any 
lynching pictures or anything else like it (though I did have some 
Kennedy assassination related items that I gave to a history major). I 
find it disturbing and repulsive (give me nightmares actually).  Are you 
saying that I shouldn't be allowed to buy something because it is 
offensive?  What make it offensive?  What gives you the right to make 
those decisions?  If the "powers that be" decide that you shouldn't be 
allowed to have something like that, what guarantee is there that they 
will keep it available to those who legitimately need it (civil rights 
groups)?  What you are saying is that you know what's best for me and 
that we should just hide this stuff in a museum.  If I were a member of 
the NAACP, I would try to use these images to prevent hate crime, just 
as the Anti-Defamation League uses images from WWII to educate people 
about the dangers of nationalism and racism.  They support the 
dissemination of information on the holocaust.  How would suppressing 
images further their cause?  I'm sure there are skin-heads that buy it 
and put it on their walls like a centerfold.  So does that mean that 
because some moronic imbecile gets his jollies off of it, that it should 
be a controlled substance?   That's a possible solution.  It'd be a form 
of prohibition, and like prohibition, it would fail.

So, according to Steven Barr, anything offensive should be confiscated 
by people who "know better".  Is that right?  So, when the people who 
"know better" are wearing confederate flags, or swastikas, or whatever, 
it will be okay when they confiscate things that they find offensive to 
them (like the constitution or bill of rights)? 

What's the difference with buying a recording or picture of a lynching 
and some kind of documentation from Auschwitz (or even Andersonville--do 
you even know what that was?)?  I did say that if there is any idea that 
this is evidence to a crime, it should be made available to the 
authorities.  To not make evidence of a crime available to law 
enforcement is a felony or perhaps makes you an accessory after the 
fact.  After that, the evidence is sometimes returned to the original 
owner.  And as I stated before, it's silly to think that there is only 
one copy of this stupid postcard and that it hasn't been documented by 
the FBI, the DOJ and the NAACP already.

Are there laws in Canada or the US that prevents the purchase and 
distribution of images or recordings that document crimes?  I don't 
think so.  Aren't such laws a slippery slope that helps people deny the 
truth?

Phillip

Steven C. Barr(x) wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "phillip holmes" <insuranceman@xxxxxxxxxx>
>   
> > So, who is supposed to be the final arbiter of taste and morality on 
> > this?  A librarian?  Congress (yeah, sure, they're always right, aren't 
> > they!)?  I don't think there's anything wrong with lowly ordinary people 
> > having this kind of thing.  If they destroy it, then it is lost 
> > forever.  If they keep it, (whether they are a bunch of rednecks, or a 
> > museum, or a civil rights organization) the evidence of brutality and 
> > crime is preserved.  Let's suppose some racist has it and he commits a 
> > hate crime.  Did he do the crime because he had the postcard?  No, he 
> > did the crime because he was a racist and the postcard is entered into 
> > evidence (just like child pornography is used as a smoking gun against a 
> > child molester).  I have, in my rather large collection of records, 
> > things like Hitler speeches, Roosevelt chats, WWII audio, etc...  That 
> > doesn't make me a NAZI, a "New Dealer" or a WWII historian.  If I 
> > decided to sell them, it's nobody's business if I make a profit.  If 
> > this postcard is one of a kind (or is suspected to be one of a kind), 
> > then the collector/dealer _should_ make a copy available to the 
> > authorities.  But they should be able to do what they wish with the 
> > original.  As an aside, I doubt that ONE postcard was printed.  They 
> > were printed by the hundreds and passed around by racists.
> >
> > We should look at how this played out in Germany.  Any kind of NAZI 
> > paraphernalia was made illegal. Every last trace of it was removed from 
> > public view except for a few exceptions.  I don't think it's at all 
> > surprising that Germany has a group of holocaust deniers and neo-NAZIs.  
> > I know this is comparing apples and oranges, but common people should 
> > see what happens when hate goes unchecked:  wars, genocide, lynching, 
> > etc...  Taking this ugly side of our history in America, and locking it 
> > up, makes repeat offenses more likely. 
> >
> >     
> Woops...!
>
> IMHO, this "Mea Culpa" makes you...at least in MY eyes...guilty of a
> MUCH worse offense...! Unfortunately, we have arrived, in the XXI
> Jahrhundert, at a new and extremely offensive (well, to me and Ecru,
> at any rate...!) social point!
>
> What you are saying (cut to the chase here)...is that your sale of
> ANYTHING...to the highest bidder...is somehow entirely justifiable!
> What you are trying to do is to justify your personal improvement
> in standing in the Homo Sapiens dominance hierarchy (or a subset
> thereof...!)...regardless of the immediate and/or eventual result
> of that sale...!
>
> Don't think so...?!
>
> Steven C. Barr
>
>