blanc wrote:
In glancing through and deleting so many messages about how blasphemous and perverted John Gilmore is for having "censored" one list afficionado (more symbolic Strange, too, that those who clamor for freedom of speech are accusing JG of being contrary to his principles. They expect that just because individuals shou In that case, it would mean that because individuals are to be free "to do" as they will, therefore that courtesy and manners are no longer valid, that high st It would mean that in the environment of liberty, it would be incorrect for individuals to prevent assaults against themselves or their morals, against their p These complaintants against censorship must not understand the purpose for freedom of action, of expression, etc.; that they do not understand the need for bei it is so that one may, without interferance from uninvited participants, engage in arranging the elements of one's existence for the greatest benefit to onesel The environment of liberty to express oneself also permits the exercise of the highest logic possible to an unfettered intelligence. Filling up the mailing li
Your text was not line-wrapped or whatever. All your other postings were as far as I know. BTW, I think you're confusing practicality and what's good for one individual with what's good long-term for everyone. Perhaps, giving Gilmore the momentary benefit of the doubt, he had his back against the proverbial wall in some sense, and he did what he felt he had no choice but to do. Who knows? The point now for many subscribers is not whether Gilmore had to make one of those damned-if-you-do/damned- if-you-don't decisions (which we're all glad *we* didn't have to make), the point is now to look at the fallout, and whether Gilmore is going to make additional comments/justifications on this list, or whether he will simply clam up with that old-fashioned hillbilly stubbornness that my ancestors (for example) were quite famous for.