Re: Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News
At 9:33 AM 11/12/96 -0800, Declan McCullagh wrote:
The Netly News http://www.netlynews.com/ November 11, 1996
Cypher-Censored By Declan McCullagh (declan@well.com) ... That is, until recently, when Dimitri Vulis was given the boot. After he refused to stop posting flames, rants and uninspired personal attacks, Vulis was summarily removed from the mailing list.
...
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."
There is a serious error here. Gilmore did nothing to prevent Vulis from posting to the list. He only prevented Vulis from receiving the list under his own name. And, the as hominem attacks continue. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | The lottery is a tax on | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | those who can't do math. | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz@netcom.com | - Who 1st said this? | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA
On Tue, 12 Nov 1996, Bill Frantz wrote:
There is a serious error here. Gilmore did nothing to prevent Vulis from posting to the list. He only prevented Vulis from receiving the list under his own name. And, the as hominem attacks continue.
Yes, I understand this. It's quite obvious; being removed from the subscriber list hasn't slowed Vulis at all. When I was writing the piece Vulis seemed to have slowed his ad hominem attacks and instead was talking about censorship (something that is within the charter of the list), but perhaps the reprieve was only temporary. The point I was trying to make at the end and that I may not have done very successfully is that it would be very difficult to prevent Vulis from *posting* to the list under his name; he then could do it through remailers. And blocking remailers is unacceptable. So how does one kick someone else out of a forum where anonymous speech is allowed? -Declan
At 9:33 AM 11/12/96 -0800, Declan McCullagh wrote:
The Netly News http://www.netlynews.com/ November 11, 1996
Cypher-Censored By Declan McCullagh (declan@well.com) ... That is, until recently, when Dimitri Vulis was given the boot. After he refused to stop posting flames, rants and uninspired personal attacks, Vulis was summarily removed from the mailing list.
...
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."
------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | The lottery is a tax on | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | those who can't do math. | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz@netcom.com | - Who 1st said this? | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA
Declan McCullagh wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 1996, Bill Frantz wrote:
There is a serious error here. Gilmore did nothing to prevent Vulis from posting to the list. He only prevented Vulis from receiving the list under his own name. And, the as hominem attacks continue.[...] The point I was trying to make at the end and that I may not have done very successfully is that it would be very difficult to prevent Vulis from *posting* to the list under his name; he then could do it through remailers. And blocking remailers is unacceptable. So how does one kick someone else out of a forum where anonymous speech is allowed?
Simple. Filter by content without admitting that you are doing so. Libel people. Suppress discussion. In short, do precisely the opposite of what Gilmore has done. I had been assuming, incorrectly, that the fight-censorship list was still down because of the hard drive crash on vorlon. As a matter of fact, I see that volume 2, issue 4 of the fight-censorship digest contains a message from me, though without credit. If you have a problem with the below, please discuss the matter publicly, as Gilmore has discussed Vulis publicly. |>>>> subscribe fight-censorship |Your request to Majordomo@vorlon.mit.edu: | | subscribe fight-censorship Richard Charles Graves |<llurch@networking.stanford.edu> | |has been forwarded to the owner of the "fight-censorship" list for |approval. -rich
On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Yes, I understand this. It's quite obvious; being removed from the subscriber list hasn't slowed Vulis at all. When I was writing the piece Vulis seemed to have slowed his ad hominem attacks and instead was talking about censorship (something that is within the charter of the list), but ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Actually, Declan, it's not. "info cypherpunks" in the body of a message to majordomo@toad.com yields the welcome message to the list -- the closest thing to a charter available. The subjects of censorship and free speech are neither mentioned nor alluded to anywhere within that document. The subjects of censorship & free speech do bear some relationship to the list's expressed subject and are certainly near and dear to most cypherpunk hearts. The government cannot prevent us from discussing the implications of privacy enabled by strong crypto. Free speech & censorship may even be interesting, entertaining, & important topics -- hence their consistent recurrance in discussions. But the above assertion is factually wrong. _______________________________________________________________ Omegaman <mailto:omega@bigeasy.com> PGP Key fingerprint = 6D 31 C3 00 77 8C D1 C2 59 0A 01 E3 AF 81 94 63 Send e-mail with "get key" in the "Subject:" field to get a copy of my public key _______________________________________________________________
participants (4)
-
Declan McCullagh -
frantz＠netcom.com -
Omegaman -
Rich Graves