frantz@netcom.com (Bill Frantz) writes:
IMHO, most of the posts about John Gilmore's action re: Dr. Vulis are seriously miss-analyzing what has happened. As far as I can tell, John instructed his Majordomo to refuse subscription requests to cypherpunks from Dr. Vulis. That is all that John has done.
That's essentially correct. Apparently he a) unsubscribed me from the list, b) instructed his Majordomo@toad.com not to respond to _any requests from me, including "who" or "help". It might have been more polite to instruct the Majordomo to say something like "I'm ignoring your requests per the owner's instructions" rather than just play dead. I recall that a couple of weeks ago Timmy May (fart) reported that someone had forged an unsubscription request from me in _his name, which didn't work. It took me very little time to realize what happened. I might or might not have used that time more productively. I view John's rude actions as those of a small-time petty bitch - a minor nuisance. It might have been a bigger nuisance for someone less clueful.
(1) John has not censored Dr. Vulis. He is still free to speak to cypherpunks by posting in the normal manner.
I've pointed out already that apparently John is not, so far, filtering out my submissions to the c-punks list. However I'd like to take exception with the two claims made in the articles cc'd to me so far: A that only governments can censor; B that post-factum punishment for "inappropriate" speech is not censorship. As to A, I'll quote the fat "Webster's 20 Century dictionary": Censor, n. {l. censor, from censere, to tax, value, judge.] 1. One of the magistrates in Ancient Rome whose business was to draw up a register of the citizens and the amount of their property, for the purposes of taxation, and to keep watch over the morals of the citizens, for which purpose they had power to censure vice and immorality by inflicting a public mark of ignominy on the offender. 2. any supervisor of public morals; a person who tells people how to behave. 3. a person whose task is to examine literature, motion pictures, etc., and to remove or prohibit anything considered unsuitable. 4. an official or military officer who reads publications, mail, etc. to remove any information that might be useful to the enemy. 5. one who censures, blasmes, or reproved; one who is given to censure; any faultfinder or adverse critic. 6. In English colleges and universities, an official appointed to keep the register of all who attend, to mark those who are absent each day on meeting, to report faults, etc. 7. in psychoanalysis, censorship. (I guess the Internet falls under 'etc'.) I don't see working for the state as part of the definition, except for #1, nor the prior restraint. If I may adduce a recent example from New York City: ABC owns a radio station, appropriately called WABC. It used to have a collection of popular talk radio hosts. _Weeks after Disney bought ABC, it fired two (that I know of) contraversial hosts that were not compatible with Disney's family-oriented image: Alan Derschowitz (a liberal Harvard law school professor) and Bill Grant (a right-winger, who immediately got a job with WOR, a New Jersey station). Certainly Disney owned WABC and was within its rights to censor it. Likewise John Gilmore is within his rights to destroy his own credibility and to expose his own hypocricy. It's really a pity, since I used to respect him. As to B, nowhere is censorship limited to prior restraint. This fallacy reminds me of the old political joke: Any Chinaman is free to demonstrate on Tiananmen Square and shout "Fuck Mao", but he may not remain free afterwards. P.S. Thanks, Bill, for spelling my name correctly. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps