I regret that after lurking for so long my first post is related to this.... Sandy Sandfort <sandfort@crl.com> wrote:
The short answer is, No. More specifically, we constantly have a stream of new readers sampling Cypherpunks. Some are technically sophisticated; some are not. In either case, new readers do not have the historical perspective not to fall for Dimitri's big lies. Nor do they have any way of know what an abberation his sort of behavior is on this list. "So this is what Cypherpunks are like," would be a sad, but understandable misinterpretation of what we're all about. What John did was appropriate.
While it is true that Cypherpunks IS a much sampled list, it's my opinion that the distribution in the level of education among subscribers is rather skewed. I therefore believe that the "average" subscriber to this list would be intelligent and competent enough to form their own conclusions regarding the validity of the opinions expressed by anyone. I like to believe that the labels I assign to groups are based on a representative sampling of the given population, not by the sampling a select few. It's again my opinion that if others can't do that, and <cliche>judge books by their covers</cliche>, it's their loss. and Greg Broiles <gbroiles@netbox.com> mentioned:
[relevant, well thought-out stuff snipped]
Given that John Gilmore is the source of the oft-repeated "The net sees censorship as damage and routes around it" quote, it strikes me as unlikely that he took the steps he did without some reflection on their meaning, consequences, and chances of success.
I'm sure that the decision wasn't made hastily or lightly. It doesn't change anything though - the damage is done. If even one person doubts the credibility or integrity of either John or the list, then Dr. Vulius has won. and finally, Declan McGullagh <declan@eff.org> said:
With the right to speak freely comes the right to decline to speak. John, as the owner of the computer maintaining the cypherpunks list, has the right to decline to speak and to kick off a user who violates the covenant of the mailing list.
The kicked-off user has the right to start his own mailing list with different standards. If he likes, he can establish the rules as a type of contract to which participants must agree. And observers can criticize either or both of them.
Is this censorship, double standards, and hypocrisy? I think not.
The problem lies in determining who defines the protocols and punishments, especially on a list such as this. For someone who espouses freedom of speech to arbitrarily censor someone is indeed hypocritical. I'm not defending Dr. Vulius - for some time now, he and a number of others have been filtered into my Humour mailbox. I'm just spewing off about having the _choice_ to ignore him or not, as _I_ see fit, you know - "... and then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out." JR