Defend the Rabelais Editors

Cryptome DVDs. Donate $25 for two DVDs of the Cryptome collection of 47,000 files from June 1996 to January 2009 (~6.9 GB). Click Paypal or mail check/MO made out to John Young, 251 West 89th Street, New York, NY 10024. The collection includes all files of cryptome.org, cryptome.info, jya.com, cartome.org, eyeball-series.org and iraq-kill-maim.org, and 23,100 (updated) pages of counter-intelligence dossiers declassified by the US Army Information and Security Command, dating from 1945 to 1985.The DVDs will be sent anywhere worldwide without extra cost.

18 June
Source: Mail list Cyberia-L@listserv.aol.com

See prior message: http://jya.com/steal-this.htm
See related US Justice Department report on Internet bombmaking information

+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
                     DEFEND THE RABELAIS EDITORS
The Rabelais Case: <http://www.pobox.com/~rene/censor/rabelais.html>
Tel. contact: Jackie Lynch, National Union of Students, +613 93267000
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+

To: CYBERIA-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM
Date:         Wed, 18 Jun 1997 12:14:24 -0400
From: "Peter D. Junger" <junger@SAMSARA.LAW.CWRU.EDU>
Subject:      Australian Censorship:  More Troubling than I Thought
Comments: To: Free Speech <freespeech@mail.multiverse.com>
Comments: cc: "Gino J. Scarselli" <gscarsel@mail.multiverse.com>,
          Kevin Francis O'Neill <koneill@trans.csuohio.edu>,
          Spencer Neth <sxn6@po.cwru.edu>,
          "Jonathan L. Entin" <jle@po.cwru.edu>,
          "Melvin R. Durchslag" <mrd@po.cwru.edu>

I enclose a message from Adam Brandt who is working on the defense of
the Rabelais case.

As he makes clear, this decision, if upheld, would apparently criminalize
all sorts of publications in Australia.  I wonder whether the matter
has been brought to the attention of publications like Time magazine
and the New York Times that undoubtedly have substantial circulation
in Australia and that are sold on news stands there.  And I wonder why
the Australian press and publishers do not seem to be throwing massive
resources into defending this case.  (Perhaps they are hoping for
more appealing defendants that a bunch of university students, but
to wait for a better case to fight, could leave this as a very bad
precedent.)

I hope that those of you who are not in the United States will also be
able to establish that this censorship would not be tolerated in your
jurisdictions.  It should be noted, for example, that the defense relies
on ``Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, to which Australia is a party, which provides that everyone
`shall have the right to freedom of expression'.''  So the experiences of
other jurisdictions with this provision would seem to be particularly
relevant.

--
Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH
 EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu    URL:  http://samsara.law.cwru.edu
         NOTE: junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu no longer exists

------- Forwarded Message

Message-ID: <33A7EAC1.7A31@onthe.net.au>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 01:03:45 +1100
From: Damien Lawson <dlawson@onthe.net.au>
Reply-To: dlawson@onthe.net.au
Subject: Rabelais case

Thank you so much for your prompt reply to the request for opinions on
the recent judgment in Australia.

The defendants are still unsure whether there are grounds to appeal the
judgment, and we really appreciate information from those more
knowledgeable in the law of the other countries cited by the court.

The case has massive implications for the interpretation of the
censorship code here, and if it becomes the law of Australia it will
probably be illegal to publish or distribute information:
- - instructing on the safer use of illegal drugs;
- - encouraging people to take part in pickets or engage in other forms of
industrial action;
- - encouraging, in some states of Australia, people to meet in groups of
more than 3 people without holding a relevant permit; or
- - instructing, in some states, on homosexual sexual practices between
consenting partners.

In short, it will be an offence to produce literature instructing,
promoting or inciting in matters of 'crime or violence', crime being
defined as virtually every illegal act which is not merely regulatory
(such as parking infringments). 'Instruct' is being given a very broad
meaning.

This will be a massive restriction on what people can say and do, and is
tantamount to censoring discussion on criminal or violent matters.

Of course, each defendant also faces 6 years imprisonment and/or A$72000
in fines.

The idea raised by one correspondent - of a pro forma affidavit which
people could sign affirming their belief that the Rabelais article would
be protected in the US - is one that we will bring up at our next
meeting.

Any other suggestions, statements of support or legal opinions would be
greatly welcomed. It is so encouraging to know that people around the
world are discussing the issue and are prepared to help. Please
distribute this message of thanks (and request for support!) on any
email lists and to any people following this issue.

Warm thanks,
Adam Bandt
Campaign to defend the Rabelais Editors
Email:  dlawson@onthe.net.au

+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
                     DEFEND THE RABELAIS EDITORS
The Rabelais Case: <http://www.pobox.com/~rene/censor/rabelais.html>
Tel. contact: Jackie Lynch, National Union of Students, +613 93267000
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+

------- End of Forwarded Message