[REBUTTAL] Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News
[This is a rebuttal to a misguided news article.]
Cypher-Censored By Declan McCullagh (declan@well.com)
Thank you for leaving your email address. It makes this easier. You people (read: the unaware and hypnotized masses, which includes reporters who's desire for attention and political safety holds them in line with the consensual illusion) keep missing the real issue, and substituting issues which only hold themselves in place. [Those of you who know, please excuse the mediaistic terms used in this rebuttal. One must use the symbols one is given to communicate at the level of understanding of those who use them.]
Thus began a debate over what the concept of censorship means in a forum devoted to opposing it. Did Gilmore have the right to show Vulis the virtual door? Or should he have let the ad hominem attacks continue, encouraging people to set their filters accordingly? The incident raises deeper questions about how a virtual community can prevent one person from ruining the forum for all and whether only government controls on expression can be called "censorship."
"Cyberspace" is interacted with using tools under the control of the interactor. In person-to-person interaction, one's only real defense against what one decides to call "unwanted" is to remove oneself from the arena of interaction. It may not be possible to ignore or run away from certain sources of input. In cyberspace, however, it is not only possible but necessary and even desirable. Cyberspace allows one to interact with many more people then can fit in any given physical space. One simply -cannot- receive input from 2000 people and not employ some sort of filtering mechanism. Indeed, cyberspace has many buttons and switches (and even programmatic filters) which allow one to -completely- control whom one interacts with. Logically, we must conclude that those who frequently and repeatedly cry for the censorship or removal of any source of input from cyberspace are either: -quite clueless about the tools at their disposal -ideologically or personally opposed to the source of input or -in need of large amounts of attention from others Cluelessness can be overcome by appropriate teaching and interest in learning (the latter issue we can safely assume users of popular but ineffectual windowing OSes are not able to overcome). Such cluelessness, however, is not and should never be a reason for censorship. A need for attention can be overcome by refraining from the denial that the need exists, followed by careful observation of that need. More can be said on this, but this is not the forum. Such a need is not and should never be a reason for censorship. Idelological opposition is another matter entirely. To understand this better, we'll need to observe this in action. Here is an example:
Vulis portrays himself as a victim, but as I posted to the list last week, I disagree. Anyone who's spent any time on the 100-plus-messages-a-day list can read for themselves the kind of nasty daily messages that came from Vulis's keyboard.
"Nasty" is, of course, by this reporter's standard of "nasty". Granted this standard may in fact be shared by Mr. Gilmore, however a shared standard is not necessarily an appropriate or correct standard.
The list is on Gilmore's machine and he can do what he wants with it; he can moderate the postings, he can censor material, he can shut the whole thing down. By kicking off an offending user, a list owner merely exercises his property right. There's no government involvement, so the First Amendment doesn't apply. And the deleted, disgruntled user is free to start his own mailing list with different rules.
Notice how, once the opposition is admitted to, the rationalization begins. Suddenly this is not a matter of censorship, but of ownership. Just as suddenly, the classic anti-free-speech arguments of "if you don't like it, start yer own" begin to surface. (Anyone ever notice how this resembles the "love it or leave it" mentality of certain American patriotic organizations?) What would ideological opposition be without the attempt at analogy? Here we witness another example:
But then the question is whether Gilmore should have exercised that right, especially in such an open forum. Again, I think Gilmore's actions were justified. Consider inviting someone into your home or private club. If your guest is a boor, you might ask him to leave. If your guest is an slobbish drunk of a boor, you have a responsibility to require him to leave before he ruins the evening of others.
Notice that the net is compared to a home or private club. Actually the net is neither, however that would not serve the purposes of this analogy, so this fact is convienently forgotton. The net is a wonderful place. Any ideology, no matter who disagrees or agrees with it, can be expressed and discussed here...assuming those who oppose this ideology do not have their way with the source of expression. There is a more refined and deeper truth to be found in the very existence of the set of all human ideologies, which is just beginning to show itself to some netizens. Unfortunately, this truth can be ruined when people equate some notion of value to sources which ignore all but a tiny subset of the set of all ideologies:
Eugene Volokh, a law professor at UCLA, runs a number of mailing lists and has kicked people off to maintain better editorial control. Volokh says that the most valuable publications are those that exercise the highest degree of editorial control.
Value to whom and for what? If the editorial control produces one small element of the set of all ideologies, then this is only of value to the people who support this ideology. Given that the set of people who support an issue is smaller than the set of people who support and oppose an issue, would the value not increase by allowing both sides of an issue equal speaking time?
For his part, Gilmore calls removing the Russian mathematician "an act of leadership." He says: "It said we've all been putting up with this guy and it's time to stop. You're not welcome here... It seemed to me that a lot of the posts on cypherpunks were missing the mark. They seemed to have an idea that their ability to speak through my machine was guaranteed by the Constitution."
It is sad to note that this is the leader of one of America's forerunning organizations of freedom who says these words. For all *his* ideology of free speech, this statement reveals the hypocrasy he lives with for all to see. The true litmus test of free speech is to encounter speech that you *want* to censor. Mr. Gilmore, and other like minded parties, might want to consider what would happen if one parent company owned *all* communications media. Would they they be so supportive of the ideology of ownership and communciation they espouse? ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet Truth (n.) - the most deadly weapon ever discovered by humanity. Capable of destroying entire perceptual sets, cultures, and realities. Outlawed by all governments everywhere. Possession is normally punishable by death.
I am amused. I gave Dave Hayes about an 8.5 out of 10 on the scale of meaningless political rants. I'll address some of his points. * "Political safety?" I stand by my record as a writer. Check out http://www.eff.org/pub/Publications/Declan_McCullagh/ for some of my recent articles. Political safety? Hardly. * Dave says "Notice that the net is compared to a home or private club." Wrong. I never compared the Net to such. However, a mailing list run on a computer in someone's home with his own cash is very similar to a private club. There are private speech restrictions on the Net. Gated communities exist. Try to join the "lawprofs" mailing list. You can't; you're not (and quite obviously anything but) a law professor. Censorship? Not quite. * Contrary to what you seem to be asserting, Gilmore hasn't blocked Vulis from posting. * Dave warns us to consider "what would happen if one parent company owned *all* communications media." Then we have problems. I've written about this in an Internet Underground magazine column. However, this is not the case now. Or are you arguing the government should get involved and force Gilmore to allow Vulis on his list? By the way, if you haven't figured it out yet, Mr. "Freedom Knight of Usenet," a private mailing list is NOT Usenet. Get a clue. -Declan On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Dave Hayes wrote:
[This is a rebuttal to a misguided news article.]
Cypher-Censored By Declan McCullagh (declan@well.com)
Thank you for leaving your email address. It makes this easier.
You people (read: the unaware and hypnotized masses, which includes reporters who's desire for attention and political safety holds them in line with the consensual illusion) keep missing the real issue, and substituting issues which only hold themselves in place.
[Those of you who know, please excuse the mediaistic terms used in this rebuttal. One must use the symbols one is given to communicate at the level of understanding of those who use them.]
Thus began a debate over what the concept of censorship means in a forum devoted to opposing it. Did Gilmore have the right to show Vulis the virtual door? Or should he have let the ad hominem attacks continue, encouraging people to set their filters accordingly? The incident raises deeper questions about how a virtual community can prevent one person from ruining the forum for all and whether only government controls on expression can be called "censorship."
"Cyberspace" is interacted with using tools under the control of the interactor.
In person-to-person interaction, one's only real defense against what one decides to call "unwanted" is to remove oneself from the arena of interaction. It may not be possible to ignore or run away from certain sources of input.
In cyberspace, however, it is not only possible but necessary and even desirable. Cyberspace allows one to interact with many more people then can fit in any given physical space. One simply -cannot- receive input from 2000 people and not employ some sort of filtering mechanism. Indeed, cyberspace has many buttons and switches (and even programmatic filters) which allow one to -completely- control whom one interacts with.
Logically, we must conclude that those who frequently and repeatedly cry for the censorship or removal of any source of input from cyberspace are either:
-quite clueless about the tools at their disposal -ideologically or personally opposed to the source of input or -in need of large amounts of attention from others
Cluelessness can be overcome by appropriate teaching and interest in learning (the latter issue we can safely assume users of popular but ineffectual windowing OSes are not able to overcome). Such cluelessness, however, is not and should never be a reason for censorship.
A need for attention can be overcome by refraining from the denial that the need exists, followed by careful observation of that need. More can be said on this, but this is not the forum. Such a need is not and should never be a reason for censorship.
Idelological opposition is another matter entirely. To understand this better, we'll need to observe this in action. Here is an example:
Vulis portrays himself as a victim, but as I posted to the list last week, I disagree. Anyone who's spent any time on the 100-plus-messages-a-day list can read for themselves the kind of nasty daily messages that came from Vulis's keyboard.
"Nasty" is, of course, by this reporter's standard of "nasty". Granted this standard may in fact be shared by Mr. Gilmore, however a shared standard is not necessarily an appropriate or correct standard.
The list is on Gilmore's machine and he can do what he wants with it; he can moderate the postings, he can censor material, he can shut the whole thing down. By kicking off an offending user, a list owner merely exercises his property right. There's no government involvement, so the First Amendment doesn't apply. And the deleted, disgruntled user is free to start his own mailing list with different rules.
Notice how, once the opposition is admitted to, the rationalization begins. Suddenly this is not a matter of censorship, but of ownership. Just as suddenly, the classic anti-free-speech arguments of "if you don't like it, start yer own" begin to surface. (Anyone ever notice how this resembles the "love it or leave it" mentality of certain American patriotic organizations?)
What would ideological opposition be without the attempt at analogy? Here we witness another example:
But then the question is whether Gilmore should have exercised that right, especially in such an open forum. Again, I think Gilmore's actions were justified. Consider inviting someone into your home or private club. If your guest is a boor, you might ask him to leave. If your guest is an slobbish drunk of a boor, you have a responsibility to require him to leave before he ruins the evening of others.
Notice that the net is compared to a home or private club. Actually the net is neither, however that would not serve the purposes of this analogy, so this fact is convienently forgotton.
The net is a wonderful place. Any ideology, no matter who disagrees or agrees with it, can be expressed and discussed here...assuming those who oppose this ideology do not have their way with the source of expression. There is a more refined and deeper truth to be found in the very existence of the set of all human ideologies, which is just beginning to show itself to some netizens. Unfortunately, this truth can be ruined when people equate some notion of value to sources which ignore all but a tiny subset of the set of all ideologies:
Eugene Volokh, a law professor at UCLA, runs a number of mailing lists and has kicked people off to maintain better editorial control. Volokh says that the most valuable publications are those that exercise the highest degree of editorial control.
Value to whom and for what? If the editorial control produces one small element of the set of all ideologies, then this is only of value to the people who support this ideology. Given that the set of people who support an issue is smaller than the set of people who support and oppose an issue, would the value not increase by allowing both sides of an issue equal speaking time?
For his part, Gilmore calls removing the Russian mathematician "an act of leadership." He says: "It said we've all been putting up with this guy and it's time to stop. You're not welcome here... It seemed to me that a lot of the posts on cypherpunks were missing the mark. They seemed to have an idea that their ability to speak through my machine was guaranteed by the Constitution."
It is sad to note that this is the leader of one of America's forerunning organizations of freedom who says these words. For all *his* ideology of free speech, this statement reveals the hypocrasy he lives with for all to see. The true litmus test of free speech is to encounter speech that you *want* to censor.
Mr. Gilmore, and other like minded parties, might want to consider what would happen if one parent company owned *all* communications media. Would they they be so supportive of the ideology of ownership and communciation they espouse? ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet
Truth (n.) - the most deadly weapon ever discovered by humanity. Capable of destroying entire perceptual sets, cultures, and realities. Outlawed by all governments everywhere. Possession is normally punishable by death.
On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 13:12:50 -0800 (PST) From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> Reply-To: freedom-knights@jetcafe.org To: Dave Hayes <dave@kachina.jetcafe.org> Cc: freedom-knights@jetcafe.org, cypherpunks@toad.com Subject: Re: [REBUTTAL] Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News
I am amused. I gave Dave Hayes about an 8.5 out of 10 on the scale of meaningless political rants.
Jealousy rears it's ugly head. You just wish you had the credibility that Dave Hayes has.
I'll address some of his points.
Do it within his text as you are supposed to.
* "Political safety?" I stand by my record as a writer. Check out http://www.eff.org/pub/Publications/Declan_McCullagh/ for some of my recent articles. Political safety? Hardly.
This Declan_McCullagh is a long-time cabal.member, so his critique of a Freedom-Knight like Dave Hayes is to be given short shrift.
* Dave says "Notice that the net is compared to a home or private club." Wrong. I never compared the Net to such. However, a mailing list run on a computer in someone's home with his own cash is very similar to a private club. There are private speech restrictions on the Net. Gated communities exist. Try to join the "lawprofs" mailing list. You can't; you're not (and quite obviously anything but) a law professor. Censorship? Not quite.
None of that analogy is applicable to the cyberpunks list. When a list gets as big as that, it it no longer to be considered a "mailing-list" but it is a _public_ forum. The whole problem here is the abuse of power by both the EFF and John Gilmore.
* Contrary to what you seem to be asserting, Gilmore hasn't blocked Vulis from posting.
* Dave warns us to consider "what would happen if one parent company owned *all* communications media." Then we have problems. I've written about this in an Internet Underground magazine column. However, this is not the case now. Or are you arguing the government should get involved and force Gilmore to allow Vulis on his list?
No, he is saying that people can use an e-mail filter and not listen to Vulis if they want to. It was a very simple thing; are you too uneducated to know how to use an e-mail filter?
By the way, if you haven't figured it out yet, Mr. "Freedom Knight of Usenet," a private mailing list is NOT Usenet. Get a clue.
Wrong! The cyberpunks mailing list is PUBLIC property and should NOT be controlled by John Gilmore! This just goes to show the real facist censorship motives that the EFF has behind it. Time to kill the EFF, and let it rot in hell. They are disgrace to the entire InterNet community. I run 6 different mailing lists, and have NEVER puled the plug on anyone, even when they criticize me. The first time is the time when you lose all credibility, and there is never any forgiveness for a plug-puller.
-Declan
-aga.admin InterNet Freedom Council
On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Dave Hayes wrote:
[This is a rebuttal to a misguided news article.]
Cypher-Censored By Declan McCullagh (declan@well.com)
Thank you for leaving your email address. It makes this easier.
You people (read: the unaware and hypnotized masses, which includes reporters who's desire for attention and political safety holds them in line with the consensual illusion) keep missing the real issue, and substituting issues which only hold themselves in place.
[Those of you who know, please excuse the mediaistic terms used in this rebuttal. One must use the symbols one is given to communicate at the level of understanding of those who use them.]
Thus began a debate over what the concept of censorship means in a forum devoted to opposing it. Did Gilmore have the right to show Vulis the virtual door? Or should he have let the ad hominem attacks continue, encouraging people to set their filters accordingly? The incident raises deeper questions about how a virtual community can prevent one person from ruining the forum for all and whether only government controls on expression can be called "censorship."
"Cyberspace" is interacted with using tools under the control of the interactor.
yes, and all you need is a simple mail filter.
In person-to-person interaction, one's only real defense against what one decides to call "unwanted" is to remove oneself from the arena of interaction. It may not be possible to ignore or run away from certain sources of input.
In cyberspace, however, it is not only possible but necessary and even desirable. Cyberspace allows one to interact with many more people then can fit in any given physical space. One simply -cannot- receive input from 2000 people and not employ some sort of filtering mechanism. Indeed, cyberspace has many buttons and switches (and even programmatic filters) which allow one to -completely- control whom one interacts with.
Logically, we must conclude that those who frequently and repeatedly cry for the censorship or removal of any source of input from cyberspace are either:
-quite clueless about the tools at their disposal -ideologically or personally opposed to the source of input or -in need of large amounts of attention from others
Cluelessness can be overcome by appropriate teaching and interest in learning (the latter issue we can safely assume users of popular but ineffectual windowing OSes are not able to overcome). Such cluelessness, however, is not and should never be a reason for censorship.
A need for attention can be overcome by refraining from the denial that the need exists, followed by careful observation of that need. More can be said on this, but this is not the forum. Such a need is not and should never be a reason for censorship.
Idelological opposition is another matter entirely. To understand this better, we'll need to observe this in action. Here is an example:
Vulis portrays himself as a victim, but as I posted to the list last week, I disagree. Anyone who's spent any time on the 100-plus-messages-a-day list can read for themselves the kind of nasty daily messages that came from Vulis's keyboard.
"Nasty" is, of course, by this reporter's standard of "nasty". Granted this standard may in fact be shared by Mr. Gilmore, however a shared standard is not necessarily an appropriate or correct standard.
The list is on Gilmore's machine and he can do what he wants with it; he can moderate the postings, he can censor material, he can shut the whole thing down. By kicking off an offending user, a list owner merely exercises his property right. There's no government involvement, so the First Amendment doesn't apply. And the deleted, disgruntled user is free to start his own mailing list with different rules.
Notice how, once the opposition is admitted to, the rationalization begins. Suddenly this is not a matter of censorship, but of ownership. Just as suddenly, the classic anti-free-speech arguments of "if you don't like it, start yer own" begin to surface. (Anyone ever notice how this resembles the "love it or leave it" mentality of certain American patriotic organizations?)
What would ideological opposition be without the attempt at analogy? Here we witness another example:
But then the question is whether Gilmore should have exercised that right, especially in such an open forum. Again, I think Gilmore's actions were justified. Consider inviting someone into your home or private club. If your guest is a boor, you might ask him to leave. If your guest is an slobbish drunk of a boor, you have a responsibility to require him to leave before he ruins the evening of others.
Notice that the net is compared to a home or private club. Actually the net is neither, however that would not serve the purposes of this analogy, so this fact is convienently forgotton.
The net is a wonderful place. Any ideology, no matter who disagrees or agrees with it, can be expressed and discussed here...assuming those who oppose this ideology do not have their way with the source of expression. There is a more refined and deeper truth to be found in the very existence of the set of all human ideologies, which is just beginning to show itself to some netizens. Unfortunately, this truth can be ruined when people equate some notion of value to sources which ignore all but a tiny subset of the set of all ideologies:
Eugene Volokh, a law professor at UCLA, runs a number of mailing lists and has kicked people off to maintain better editorial control. Volokh says that the most valuable publications are those that exercise the highest degree of editorial control.
Value to whom and for what? If the editorial control produces one small element of the set of all ideologies, then this is only of value to the people who support this ideology. Given that the set of people who support an issue is smaller than the set of people who support and oppose an issue, would the value not increase by allowing both sides of an issue equal speaking time?
For his part, Gilmore calls removing the Russian mathematician "an act of leadership." He says: "It said we've all been putting up with this guy and it's time to stop. You're not welcome here... It seemed to me that a lot of the posts on cypherpunks were missing the mark. They seemed to have an idea that their ability to speak through my machine was guaranteed by the Constitution."
It is sad to note that this is the leader of one of America's forerunning organizations of freedom who says these words. For all *his* ideology of free speech, this statement reveals the hypocrasy he lives with for all to see. The true litmus test of free speech is to encounter speech that you *want* to censor.
Mr. Gilmore, and other like minded parties, might want to consider what would happen if one parent company owned *all* communications media. Would they they be so supportive of the ideology of ownership and communciation they espouse?
Indeed. The EFF is a disgrace to the entire InterNet. The EFF is definitely a censorship organization, and it should never be trusted again.
------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet
Truth (n.) - the most deadly weapon ever discovered by humanity. Capable of destroying entire perceptual sets, cultures, and realities. Outlawed by all governments everywhere. Possession is normally punishable by death.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Dave Hayes wrote:
Logically, we must conclude that those who frequently and repeatedly cry for the censorship or removal of any source of input from cyberspace are either:
-quite clueless about the tools at their disposal -ideologically or personally opposed to the source of input or -in need of large amounts of attention from others
You are misinformed. Vulis was _not_ prevented from posting to cpunks, thus no source of input was removed. He was simply removed from the distribution list. He can still read and post to the list.
Idelological opposition is another matter entirely. To understand this better, we'll need to observe this in action. Here is an example:
Vulis portrays himself as a victim, but as I posted to the list last week, I disagree. Anyone who's spent any time on the 100-plus-messages-a-day list can read for themselves the kind of nasty daily messages that came from Vulis's keyboard.
"Nasty" is, of course, by this reporter's standard of "nasty". Granted this standard may in fact be shared by Mr. Gilmore, however a shared standard is not necessarily an appropriate or correct standard.
The messages were, in addition to being "nasty", extremely off-topic. "Off-topic" is much less subjective than "nasty".
Notice how, once the opposition is admitted to, the rationalization begins. Suddenly this is not a matter of censorship, but of ownership.
That's because it is an issue of ownership and not of censorship for reasons stated above.
Just as suddenly, the classic anti-free-speech arguments of "if you don't like it, start yer own" begin to surface. (Anyone ever notice how this resembles the "love it or leave it" mentality of certain American patriotic organizations?)
Governments maintain a monopoly on land, so the "love it or leave it" mentality is flawed. Virtual space does not have the same limitations as physical space. Starting your own mailing list is relatively easy.
Notice that the net is compared to a home or private club. Actually the net is neither, however that would not serve the purposes of this analogy, so this fact is convienently forgotton.
Is the net analogous to a country? If not, then why did you compare starting a mailing list to moving to a different country?
Value to whom and for what? If the editorial control produces one small element of the set of all ideologies, then this is only of value to the people who support this ideology. Given that the set of people who support an issue is smaller than the set of people who support and oppose an issue, would the value not increase by allowing both sides of an issue equal speaking time?
Even if this was an issue of preventing someone from posting, which it isn't, this argument still doesn't hold up. There is plenty of dispute about what is on-topic on cypherpunks, but I doubt many people believe character assassinations are very on-topic. If someone wants to speak in favor of Clipper or ITAR, then it would be wrong to censor this person. However, if a charter, whether formal or informal, is to even exist, then it should be enforced.
It is sad to note that this is the leader of one of America's forerunning organizations of freedom who says these words. For all *his* ideology of free speech, this statement reveals the hypocrasy he lives with for all to see. The true litmus test of free speech is to encounter speech that you *want* to censor.
The EFF protects against government censorship, not against "editorial control", "censorship", or whatever else you want to call it. I don't see this as hypocritical at all.
Mr. Gilmore, and other like minded parties, might want to consider what would happen if one parent company owned *all* communications media. Would they they be so supportive of the ideology of ownership and communciation they espouse?
And just how plausible do you think this is? I believe it is next to impossible, unless it is the result of government regulation. Mark - -- finger -l for PGP key PGP encrypted mail prefered. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3 Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBMopa3SzIPc7jvyFpAQFzIggAr9nx5gd8J35wq5+UUUC9lHJD9hX7wcM+ DNRaZqRUlB/Dq4Xc0rbP7O4zSIob0QVbbQlZXylQcNwdCcb0wzMD2hkw8Xg31mHQ s8jZwONGM8ljmg8aDSB1WuTsVnmrbcXGM/Jhmc+TPLjQxFQldONl6SGXIAQ58Vt8 DgunHoAZuR6AYWd64ssIFHSVzCR6bk4kL/QJ/0kGSr2x4FHJf62GhOrG/NguF3dd 85dXgUmoI2/f2B6SkfwbHPgZZhOGPgDt2rIPLo3S2JlhTYANSLhtA2souXQAz1bX lfnEbxt4JNmy4zwT6m244VuuNtpFbF1OL1YAaZaU/WmUXTxeIohQYw== =FbgX -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Mark M. wrote:
The EFF protects against government censorship, not against "editorial control", "censorship", or whatever else you want to call it. I don't see this as hypocritical at all.
The EFF does not protect shit, and it is just a tangent takeoff from the Greatfull Dead drugheads. We would also be greatfull if the EFF was dead, too.
Mr. Gilmore, and other like minded parties, might want to consider what would happen if one parent company owned *all* communications media. Would they they be so supportive of the ideology of ownership and communciation they espouse?
And just how plausible do you think this is? I believe it is next to impossible, unless it is the result of government regulation.
Yeah, and those EFF facists think they can be the government?
Mark - -- finger -l for PGP key PGP encrypted mail prefered.
Why? Are you a criminal? What are you hiding behind your PGP?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3 Charset: noconv
iQEVAwUBMopa3SzIPc7jvyFpAQFzIggAr9nx5gd8J35wq5+UUUC9lHJD9hX7wcM+ DNRaZqRUlB/Dq4Xc0rbP7O4zSIob0QVbbQlZXylQcNwdCcb0wzMD2hkw8Xg31mHQ s8jZwONGM8ljmg8aDSB1WuTsVnmrbcXGM/Jhmc+TPLjQxFQldONl6SGXIAQ58Vt8 DgunHoAZuR6AYWd64ssIFHSVzCR6bk4kL/QJ/0kGSr2x4FHJf62GhOrG/NguF3dd 85dXgUmoI2/f2B6SkfwbHPgZZhOGPgDt2rIPLo3S2JlhTYANSLhtA2souXQAz1bX lfnEbxt4JNmy4zwT6m244VuuNtpFbF1OL1YAaZaU/WmUXTxeIohQYw== =FbgX -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Dave Hayes wrote:
Cypher-Censored By Declan McCullagh (declan@well.com)[...] A need for attention can be overcome by refraining from the denial that the need exists, followed by careful observation of that need. More can be said on this, but this is not the forum. Such a need is not and should never be a reason for censorship.
In other words, Dave Hayes wants his mommy. -rich
[This is a rebuttal to a misguided news article.]
Cypher-Censored By Declan McCullagh (declan@well.com) Thank you for leaving your email address. It makes this easier. You people (read: the unaware and hypnotized masses, which includes reporters who's desire for attention and political safety holds them in line with the consensual illusion) keep missing the real issue, and substituting issues which only hold themselves in place.
So you are explaining your problems in advance. Good, it tells thoughtful readers to take you with a grain of salt.
[Those of you who know, please excuse the mediaistic terms used in this rebuttal. One must use the symbols one is given to communicate at the level of understanding of those who use them.]
Ok, I will try to keep from using too long words so you can understand me.
In person-to-person interaction, one's only real defense against what one decides to call "unwanted" is to remove oneself from the arena of interaction. It may not be possible to ignore or run away from certain sources of input.
You forget "shutting down" the source of input. Turning off the radio, TV etc, or turning off the person speaking.
Logically, we must conclude that those who frequently and repeatedly cry for the censorship or removal of any source of input from cyberspace are either:
-quite clueless about the tools at their disposal -ideologically or personally opposed to the source of input or -in need of large amounts of attention from others
No problems with that.
The list is on Gilmore's machine and he can do what he wants with it; he can moderate the postings, he can censor material, he can shut the whole thing down. By kicking off an offending user, a list owner merely exercises his property right. There's no government involvement, so the First Amendment doesn't apply. And the deleted, disgruntled user is free to start his own mailing list with different rules.
Notice how, once the opposition is admitted to, the rationalization begins. Suddenly this is not a matter of censorship, but of ownership. Just as suddenly, the classic anti-free-speech arguments of "if you don't like it, start yer own" begin to surface. (Anyone ever notice how this resembles the "love it or leave it" mentality of certain American patriotic organizations?)
It still isn't censorship. Censorship, at least in my dictionary, refers to censor, which uses the word "Official" several times. Mr. Gilmore is not an "Official" in a government sense, he maybe in the EFF sense, but this is not an "Official" EFF organ, so that doesn't count. He is the OWNER of this list, and the machine it runs on. If he chooses (which he didn't) to keep someone from using the list, it is his right.
What would ideological opposition be without the attempt at analogy? Here we witness another example:
But then the question is whether Gilmore should have exercised that right, especially in such an open forum. Again, I think Gilmore's actions were justified. Consider inviting someone into your home or private club. If your guest is a boor, you might ask him to leave. If your guest is an slobbish drunk of a boor, you have a responsibility to require him to leave before he ruins the evening of others.
Notice that the net is compared to a home or private club. Actually
WRONG. the "net' wasn't compared to either a home or a private club, THIS LIST WAS. No one has the right to kick anyone off public streets, the police _do_, but I seriously doubt that they could arrest you for refusing. Gilmore didn't "Ban" Vulis from "The Net" (in fact he didn't even ban him from the list, he just removed him from the distribution list), he didn't even try. He also didn't prevent Vulis from posting, tho' he could have.
the net is neither, however that would not serve the purposes of this analogy, so this fact is convienently forgotton. The net is a wonderful place. Any ideology, no matter who disagrees or agrees with it, can be expressed and discussed here...assuming those who oppose this ideology do not have their way with the source of expression. There is a more refined and deeper truth to be found in the very existence of the set of all human ideologies, which is just beginning to show itself to some netizens. Unfortunately, this truth can be ruined when people equate some notion of value to sources which ignore all but a tiny subset of the set of all ideologies:
Again I repeat myself: Vulis was not "removed" in any way, shape, or form from "the net", all Gilmore did was "Turn his back" on Vulis, saying in effect "Your bullshit isn't wanted here". He didn't tell Vulis to keep his opnion to himself, no one on this list did. He, and others here were asking Vulis to stop his repeated personel attacks on other list members, some were asking him to stop his vitrolic rants on racial and ethnic groups as well, which were _way_ off topic.
Eugene Volokh, a law professor at UCLA, runs a number of mailing lists and has kicked people off to maintain better editorial control. Volokh says that the most valuable publications are those that exercise the highest degree of editorial control.
Value to whom and for what? If the editorial control produces one small element of the set of all ideologies, then this is only of value to the people who support this ideology. Given that the set of
You know, from your position I'd say you have a very clear view of your colon. "Editorial Control" means that someone decides who get's published and who doesn't. From your opposition to it, I guess you think that a magazine dedicated to poetry should print all poems submitted, or as many, selected in some sort of non-judgemental order, as they can fit. Or that a magazine should print any writings submitted to it. I run 4 mailing lists, one is personal, one is in the process of coming online, and 2 are up and running. One of these has a rule: No Politics allowed. I guess I am a pathetic little censorous worm huh? Nope. That rule was put there for a very good reason, and I am that reason. I love to talk politics, but that is the WRONG FORUM for it. Just like this is the wrong forum for Vulis to spew his shit.
people who support an issue is smaller than the set of people who support and oppose an issue, would the value not increase by allowing both sides of an issue equal speaking time?
Yes, and the cypherpunks list DOES THAT. Vulis wasn't kicked off for opposing Crypto, or the spread of Crypto, he was kicked off for littering, and for refusing to stop littering. Actually he was kicked off for daring Gilmore to make him stop littering.
For his part, Gilmore calls removing the Russian mathematician "an act of leadership." He says: "It said we've all been putting up with this guy and it's time to stop. You're not welcome here... It seemed to me that a lot of the posts on cypherpunks were missing the mark. They seemed to have an idea that their ability to speak through my machine was guaranteed by the Constitution."
It is sad to note that this is the leader of one of America's forerunning organizations of freedom who says these words. For all *his* ideology of free speech, this statement reveals the hypocrasy he lives with for all to see. The true litmus test of free speech is to encounter speech that you *want* to censor.
Not really, he was simply refusing to let Vulis share his (Gilmore's) podium.
Mr. Gilmore, and other like minded parties, might want to consider what would happen if one parent company owned *all* communications media. Would they they be so supportive of the ideology of ownership and communciation they espouse?
How would this happen? Setting up a press is fairly easy, at least a small hand operated press. Start your own magazine, start your own mailing list. That is what freedom is, the ability to _do it yourself_ not the requirement that others do it for you, or allow you to use what they have already built. Petro, Christopher C. petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff> snow@smoke.suba.com
On Fri, 15 Nov 1996, snow wrote:
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 00:19:46 -0600 (CST) From: snow <snow@smoke.suba.com> Reply-To: freedom-knights@jetcafe.org To: Dave Hayes <dave@kachina.jetcafe.org> Cc: freedom-knights@jetcafe.org, declan@well.com, cypherpunks@toad.com Subject: Re: [REBUTTAL] Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News
[This is a rebuttal to a misguided news article.]
Cypher-Censored By Declan McCullagh (declan@well.com) Thank you for leaving your email address. It makes this easier. You people (read: the unaware and hypnotized masses, which includes reporters who's desire for attention and political safety holds them in line with the consensual illusion) keep missing the real issue, and substituting issues which only hold themselves in place.
So you are explaining your problems in advance. Good, it tells thoughtful readers to take you with a grain of salt.
[Those of you who know, please excuse the mediaistic terms used in this rebuttal. One must use the symbols one is given to communicate at the level of understanding of those who use them.]
Ok, I will try to keep from using too long words so you can understand me.
In person-to-person interaction, one's only real defense against what one decides to call "unwanted" is to remove oneself from the arena of interaction. It may not be possible to ignore or run away from certain sources of input.
You forget "shutting down" the source of input. Turning off the radio, TV etc, or turning off the person speaking.
It ain't the person, but the language that Gilmore tried to censor.
Logically, we must conclude that those who frequently and repeatedly cry for the censorship or removal of any source of input from cyberspace are either:
-quite clueless about the tools at their disposal -ideologically or personally opposed to the source of input or -in need of large amounts of attention from others
No problems with that.
The list is on Gilmore's machine and he can do what he wants with it; he can moderate the postings, he can censor material, he can shut the whole thing down. By kicking off an offending user, a list owner merely exercises his property right. There's no government involvement, so the First Amendment doesn't apply. And the deleted, disgruntled user is free to start his own mailing list with different rules.
Notice how, once the opposition is admitted to, the rationalization begins. Suddenly this is not a matter of censorship, but of ownership. Just as suddenly, the classic anti-free-speech arguments of "if you don't like it, start yer own" begin to surface. (Anyone ever notice how this resembles the "love it or leave it" mentality of certain American patriotic organizations?)
It still isn't censorship. Censorship, at least in my dictionary, refers to censor, which uses the word "Official" several times. Mr. Gilmore is not an "Official" in a government sense, he maybe in the EFF sense, but this is not an "Official" EFF organ, so that doesn't count.
He is the OWNER of this list, and the machine it runs on. If he chooses (which he didn't) to keep someone from using the list, it is his right.
No it ain't; not after the list gets so big. Public newsgroups lose all rights of censorship by the owners, and that is law.
What would ideological opposition be without the attempt at analogy? Here we witness another example:
But then the question is whether Gilmore should have exercised that right, especially in such an open forum. Again, I think Gilmore's actions were justified. Consider inviting someone into your home or private club. If your guest is a boor, you might ask him to leave. If your guest is an slobbish drunk of a boor, you have a responsibility to require him to leave before he ruins the evening of others.
Notice that the net is compared to a home or private club. Actually
WRONG. the "net' wasn't compared to either a home or a private club, THIS LIST WAS. No one has the right to kick anyone off public streets, the police _do_, but I seriously doubt that they could arrest you for refusing. Gilmore didn't "Ban" Vulis from "The Net" (in fact he didn't even ban him from the list, he just removed him from the distribution list), he didn't even try.
He also didn't prevent Vulis from posting, tho' he could have.
the net is neither, however that would not serve the purposes of this analogy, so this fact is convienently forgotton. The net is a wonderful place. Any ideology, no matter who disagrees or agrees with it, can be expressed and discussed here...assuming those who oppose this ideology do not have their way with the source of expression. There is a more refined and deeper truth to be found in the very existence of the set of all human ideologies, which is just beginning to show itself to some netizens. Unfortunately, this truth can be ruined when people equate some notion of value to sources which ignore all but a tiny subset of the set of all ideologies:
Again I repeat myself:
Vulis was not "removed" in any way, shape, or form from "the net", all Gilmore did was "Turn his back" on Vulis, saying in effect "Your bullshit isn't wanted here".
He didn't tell Vulis to keep his opnion to himself, no one on this list did. He, and others here were asking Vulis to stop his repeated personel attacks on other list members, some were asking him to stop his vitrolic rants on racial and ethnic groups as well, which were _way_ off topic.
Now THAT is what makes John Gilmore an ASSHOLE! "personel(sic) attacks on other list members" and "vitriolic rants on racial and ethnic groups" are normal things for the InterNet, and they should NEVER be suppressed. I reserve the right to call you a nigger or a kike any time that I want to, asshole, and you has better get used to it. What the fuck nationality is Gilmore anyway? Is he a wild-jew or crazy irishman or what?
Eugene Volokh, a law professor at UCLA, runs a number of mailing lists and has kicked people off to maintain better editorial control. Volokh says that the most valuable publications are those that exercise the highest degree of editorial control.
Value to whom and for what? If the editorial control produces one small element of the set of all ideologies, then this is only of value to the people who support this ideology. Given that the set of
You know, from your position I'd say you have a very clear view of your colon.
"Editorial Control" means that someone decides who get's published and who doesn't. From your opposition to it, I guess you think that a magazine dedicated to poetry should print all poems submitted, or as many, selected in some sort of non-judgemental order, as they can fit. Or that a magazine should print any writings submitted to it.
I run 4 mailing lists, one is personal, one is in the process of coming online, and 2 are up and running. One of these has a rule: No Politics allowed. I guess I am a pathetic little censorous worm huh? Nope. That rule was put there for a very good reason, and I am that reason. I love to talk politics, but that is the WRONG FORUM for it.
Just like this is the wrong forum for Vulis to spew his shit.
No it ain't, asshole.
people who support an issue is smaller than the set of people who support and oppose an issue, would the value not increase by allowing both sides of an issue equal speaking time?
Yes, and the cypherpunks list DOES THAT. Vulis wasn't kicked off for opposing Crypto, or the spread of Crypto, he was kicked off for littering, and for refusing to stop littering. Actually he was kicked off for daring Gilmore to make him stop littering.
Get used to the shit, asshole.
For his part, Gilmore calls removing the Russian mathematician "an act of leadership." He says: "It said we've all been putting up with this guy and it's time to stop. You're not welcome here... It seemed to me that a lot of the posts on cypherpunks were missing the mark. They seemed to have an idea that their ability to speak through my machine was guaranteed by the Constitution."
It is sad to note that this is the leader of one of America's forerunning organizations of freedom who says these words. For all *his* ideology of free speech, this statement reveals the hypocrasy he lives with for all to see. The true litmus test of free speech is to encounter speech that you *want* to censor.
Not really, he was simply refusing to let Vulis share his (Gilmore's) podium.
No, he was just trying to control Dr. Vulis's language, and that sucks. John Gilmore must be added to the net.scum web-page.
Mr. Gilmore, and other like minded parties, might want to consider what would happen if one parent company owned *all* communications media. Would they they be so supportive of the ideology of ownership and communciation they espouse?
How would this happen? Setting up a press is fairly easy, at least a small hand operated press. Start your own magazine, start your own mailing list.
Right, but don't ever preclude me calling you a nigger or a kike, or a chink or a spic or a wap, etc., motherfucker.
That is what freedom is, the ability to _do it yourself_ not the requirement that others do it for you, or allow you to use what they have already built.
Petro, Christopher C. petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff> snow@smoke.suba.com
This whole thing boils down to John Gilmore not liking "rants" or "personal attacks." What does that chicken-shit punk hide behind in real life? When his terminal is not protecting him? John Gilmore is connected with the corrupt cabal boys anyway, so he should be dismissed as anybody having any credibility any more. "Once you pull the first plug, you are forever more a whore," as the greeks would say. -aga
aga wrote:
No it ain't; not after the list gets so big. Public newsgroups lose all rights of censorship by the owners, and that is law.
Guffaw, guffaw. (So what if John decided simply to pull the plug on toad in order to plug in a new hot tub?) ______c_________________________________________________________________ Mike M Nally * IBM % Tivoli * Austin TX * How quickly we forget that mailto:m5@tivoli.com mailto:m101@io.com * "deer processing" and "data http://www.io.com/~m101/ * processing" are different!
On Fri, 15 Nov 1996, Mike McNally wrote:
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 09:03:48 -0600 From: Mike McNally <m5@tivoli.com> Reply-To: freedom-knights@jetcafe.org To: aga <aga@dhp.com> Cc: freedom-knights@jetcafe.org, Dave Hayes <dave@kachina.jetcafe.org>, declan@well.com, InterNet Freedom Council <ifc@pgh.org>, cypherpunks@toad.com Subject: Re: THAT is what makes John Gilmore an ASSHOLE!
aga wrote:
No it ain't; not after the list gets so big. Public newsgroups lose all rights of censorship by the owners, and that is law.
Guffaw, guffaw.
PUKE , PUKE !!! You are a stupid bastard to laugh.
(So what if John decided simply to pull the plug on toad in order to plug in a new hot tub?)
So what the fuck? That matters not. The point is that the cypherpunks is an "all or nothing" proposition. There is no "in between" allowed any more. After a certain level, EVERYTHING reaches the "public doamin," and that is the *common-law of cyberspace.* Like, why is the fatso John Gilmore out here talking about this? Steve Boursy says all of this should go to UseNet, so it goes.
______c_________________________________________________________________ Mike M Nally * IBM % Tivoli * Austin TX * How quickly we forget that mailto:m5@tivoli.com mailto:m101@io.com * "deer processing" and "data http://www.io.com/~m101/ * processing" are different!
We want John Gilmore to respond to this censorous matter on the net. -aga
aga <aga@dhp.com> writes:
Subject: ``Fat Cocksucker John Gilmore-ASSHOLE!'' . . . [[ drivel removed ]] . . . Steve Boursy says all of this should go to UseNet, so it goes. . . . [[ drivel removed ]] . . .
Since the previous Subject: in this chain was different, I presume that aga installed the one quoted above. Normally I just killfile these sorts of things without reading, but that subject line caught my interest. Clearly the author is using all three as insult. Let's thing about this for a second. The author makes value judgements based on body weight and sexual orientation. What does this tell us about the authors reasoning ability? Congratulations, aja, you've developed a firm reputation based on your public actions. plonk -- ``I tell you, we are here on earth to fart around, and don't let anybody tell you any different.'' Kurt Vonnegut, quoted in Harpers (11-95)
scs@lokkur.dexter.mi.us (Steve Simmons) writes:
Let's thing about this for a second. The author makes value judgements based on body weight and sexual orientation. What does this tell us about the authors reasoning ability?
Well - I don't care about John Gilmore's sexual orientation (hint: it ain't straight :-), but I don't think he's fat. In fact, last time I saw him, I noticed that he's gotten very thin, and wondered if he's sick or something. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
Mike McNally wrote:
aga wrote:
No it ain't; not after the list gets so big. Public newsgroups lose all rights of censorship by the owners, and that is law.
Guffaw, guffaw.
(So what if John decided simply to pull the plug on toad in order to plug in a new hot tub?)
Cool. I've always wanted a hot tub. -rich
Mike McNally wrote:
aga wrote:
No it ain't; not after the list gets so big. Public newsgroups lose all rights of censorship by the owners, and that is law.
Guffaw, guffaw. (So what if John decided simply to pull the plug on toad in order to plug in a new hot tub?)
Well, what if he did? Are you sure that would make aga look like a fool, or would it make you look like a fool, since it would tend to confirm what people like aga have been saying?
Dale Thorn wrote:
Mike McNally wrote:
(So what if John decided simply to pull the plug on toad in order to plug in a new hot tub?)
Well, what if he did? Are you sure that would make aga look like a fool,
No, and it's not clear to me why you think my question had anything to do with my wanting "aga" to look like a fool. That was not my intent. I simply question the claim by "aga" that somehow Mr. Gilmore is obligated to provide his services and capital to support the "public property" that the cypherpunks list has allegedly become, as opposed to treating it like the ephemeral by-product of software running on a computer he owns.
or would it make you look like a fool, since it would tend to confirm what people like aga have been saying?
I presume that you and aga already think I'm a fool, or worse, but I don't trouble myself with understanding the fancies of inscrutable intellects. ______c_________________________________________________________________ Mike M Nally * IBM % Tivoli * Austin TX * How quickly we forget that mailto:m5@tivoli.com mailto:m101@io.com * "deer processing" and "data http://www.io.com/~m101/ * processing" are different!
Mike McNally <m5@tivoli.com> writes:
Dale Thorn wrote:
Mike McNally wrote:
(So what if John decided simply to pull the plug on toad in order to plug in a new hot tub?)
Well, what if he did? Are you sure that would make aga look like a fool,
No, and it's not clear to me why you think my question had anything to do with my wanting "aga" to look like a fool. That was not my intent. I simply question the claim by "aga" that somehow Mr. Gilmore is obligated to provide his services and capital to support the "public property" that the cypherpunks list has allegedly become, as opposed to treating it like the ephemeral by-product of software running on a computer he owns.
You're still trying to cover up John Gilmore's dishonorable censorship, which he described as "act of leadership". Hitler-like leadership indeed! You may recall that when I first reported that I've apparently been forcibly kicked off this mailing list, Timmy May posted a denial. Now Timmy May doesn't want journalists to write about this incident, because it exposes John Gilmore and a hypocrite. Of course John Gilmore has the right to censor his private mailing list - why are you denying that he did?
or would it make you look like a fool, since it would tend to confirm what people like aga have been saying?
I presume that you and aga already think I'm a fool, or worse, but I don't trouble myself with understanding the fancies of inscrutable intellects.
Count me in: I too think that Mike's a fool and an EFF/Cabal stooge. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
Mike McNally wrote:
Dale Thorn wrote:
Mike McNally wrote:
(So what if John decided simply to pull the plug on toad in order to plug in a new hot tub?)
Well, what if he did? Are you sure that would make aga look like a fool, or would it make you look like a fool, since it would tend to confirm what people like aga have been saying?
No, and it's not clear to me why you think my question had anything to do with my wanting "aga" to look like a fool. That was not my intent.
You mean you really respected what "aga" was saying?
I simply question the claim by "aga" that somehow Mr. Gilmore is obligated to provide his services and capital to support the "public property" that the cypherpunks list has allegedly become, as opposed to treating it like the ephemeral by-product of software running on a computer he owns.
Neither "aga", nor myself, nor anyone else I know has suggested what you claim, anymore than we would obligate ourselves to do it. This is merely a classic denial technique you and others are using. The fact is, the list does run, and you'd have a hard time convincing me or anyone else that (according to your claim) John would somehow be spending *more* capital and doing *more* support if he hadn't cut the "Doctor" off of the list. What myself and others would like to see (and we're willing to argue for such a thing as much as is humanly possible) is a non-hypocritical list, where a person is not banned for the content of their speech as Vulis was. People who agree with you drone on ad nauseam about Vulis' "actions", another denial technique IMO. What Vulis *did* was speech, not "actions". Frankly, I would much rather read his postings than the anti-speech drivel that's been posted so much here lately. I'm guessing John must be thinking one of a couple things: 1. Like a home property in Beverly Hills, where all the lawns are neatly trimmed, and everyone behaves so properly, John looks at "his" list one day and freaks out, saying to himself something like "gadzooks, Vulis is trashing my list, as though he moved in next door and lowered the value of "my property". And don't get me wrong, I understand the feeling, it's just that when you've decided you have a "right" to control something like cypherpunks, all you're really going to accomplish is to lessen your own reputation, because you can't control cypherpunks like you can property in B.Hills. If you like the Beverly Hills analogy, try to come up with a scenario where (as in Beverly Hills) you can get the cooperation and approval of 85% - 95% of the residents (subscribers) to boot out the undesirables. 2. John may have become concerned about his possible liability for some of the postings (accusations of child molesting, etc.), and panicked and did the knee-jerk damage control he thought best. Now, under ordinary circumstances, a list "owner" or operator may not be responsible for any of the traffic content, as long as it can be demonstrated that they "weren't aware" of any libelous content. In the case of cypherpunks, though, Gilmore could scarcely deny knowing about some of this stuff. **This is mere conjecture on my part**.
snow wrote:
[This is a rebuttal to a misguided news article.]
Cypher-Censored By Declan McCullagh (declan@well.com)
[snip, snip]
Notice how, once the opposition is admitted to, the rationalization begins. Suddenly this is not a matter of censorship, but of ownership. Just as suddenly, the classic anti-free-speech arguments of "if you don't like it, start yer own" begin to surface. (Anyone ever notice how this resembles the "love it or leave it" mentality of certain American patriotic organizations?)
It still isn't censorship. Censorship, at least in my dictionary, refers to censor, which uses the word "Official" several times. Mr. Gilmore is not an "Official" in a government sense, he maybe in the EFF sense, but this is not an "Official" EFF organ, so that doesn't count.
We *are* talking about the cypherpunks list, yes? Then, in terms of the list, John Gilmore *is* the official, hence a censor, plying his skills. Why all the denial and repeated (redundant) blathering about John's *right* to something he allegedly owns? Simple. The folks who put this stuff out want desperately to believe that this list they spend so much time on is "really OK", and not a censored medium. Denial is the key.
Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net> writes:
It still isn't censorship. Censorship, at least in my dictionary, refers to censor, which uses the word "Official" several times. Mr. Gilmore is not an "Official" in a government sense, he maybe in the EFF sense, but this is not an "Official" EFF organ, so that doesn't count.
We *are* talking about the cypherpunks list, yes? Then, in terms of the list, John Gilmore *is* the official, hence a censor, plying his skills.
I suspect that some of the people saying this have a serious drug/alcohol problem and are very adept at denying tthat they have one. Denial is a transferrable skill.
Why all the denial and repeated (redundant) blathering about John's *right* to something he allegedly owns? Simple. The folks who put this stuff out want desperately to believe that this list they spend so much time on is "really OK", and not a censored medium. Denial is the key.
Kind of reminds you of "1984", doesn't it? War is peace. Love is hate. Timmy May (fart) is a crypto expert. John Gilmore is neither official nor a censor. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
participants (10)
-
aga -
Dale Thorn -
Dave Hayes -
Declan McCullagh -
dlv＠bwalk.dm.com -
Mark M. -
Mike McNally -
Rich Graves -
scs＠lokkur.dexter.mi.us -
snow