Re: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up"
Against Moderation writes:
If you want to fight censorship effectively, going around telling people "You're a shit-eating faggot you fucking cock-sucking homo censor" in public forums is not going to win you many points.
On the contrary. John Grubor is Usenet's most effective probe as to the mindset of people who really want free speech. The precise litmus test of free speech is vehemently offensive things that are spoken.
Instead, it will quickly land you in many people's killfiles, and will eventually lead some people with bad client software to wonder if it wouldn't be worth giving up some freedom of speech for the benefit of not having to see your rants any more.
Then they don't want free speech. They want the illusion of free speech, "free speech as long as you don't say THOSE things".
Unfortunately, it sort of makes life harder for those who actually fight the censorship when you pretend to be one of them. Your argument seems to run something like, "To protect freedom of speech, bad all faggots from the net, and especially don't let them run any mailing lists." If this offensive and highly noticeable argument eclipses many of the important, fundamental ones as the censors would like it too (why do you think your articles make it to cypherpunks- flames while mine only get as far as -unedited), you will end up not only inducing censorship but also seriously hampering the efforts of those who are legitimately fighting that censorship.
Don't you get it? Real censorship issues do not arise until someone rocks the boat. It takes someone to rock the boat to make you aware of your own prejudices of that nature. If it takes attacking homosexuals and pissing them off enough to make them show their true colors and begin censorship...so be it. Why be civil when that civility serves to hide that which is ultimately against free speech? You'll find those of us who -truly- want free speech are extremely good at ignoring what we don't like. ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet Don't teach the blind until you have practiced living with closed eyes
Dave Hayes wrote:
You'll find those of us who -truly- want free speech are extremely good at ignoring what we don't like.
Not all of you freedom-knights are good at it at all. I would go as far as to say that only you, Dave Hayes, are good at it. - Igor.
On Fri, 14 Feb 1997, Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
Dave Hayes wrote:
You'll find those of us who -truly- want free speech are extremely good at ignoring what we don't like.
Not all of you freedom-knights are good at it at all.
I would go as far as to say that only you, Dave Hayes, are good at it.
- Igor.
Well, you see, it is TOUGH to be "ignorant."
Dave Hayes <dave@kachina.jetcafe.org> writes:
Don't you get it? Real censorship issues do not arise until someone rocks the boat. It takes someone to rock the boat to make you aware of your own prejudices of that nature. If it takes attacking homosexuals and pissing them off enough to make them show their true colors and begin censorship...so be it. Why be civil when that civility serves to hide that which is ultimately against free speech?
You'll find those of us who -truly- want free speech are extremely good at ignoring what we don't like.
Perhaps I did not make myself clear. I never suggested Dr. Grubor's views should be suppressed. Not only do I believe he has every right to express them, I also believe (as I explained) that I think there is value in inducing censorship as he has, so as to get people's censorious tendencies out in the open where they can be fought. However, Dr. Grubor is no advocate of free speech (though I'm sure he thinks he is). If Dr. Grubor had his way, he would severely restrict the rights of gay people to express themselves on Usenet. Advocates of free speech must truly tolerate all speech, even that which they find strongly unpleasant or disturbing. My point was therefore that Dr. Grubor would do better to say "Exterminate all faggots" than "Exterminate all faggots in the name of free speech," and that those of us who truly support freedom of speech would do well to distance ourselves from Dr. Grubor, while still fully supporting his right to express his opinions.
On 15 Feb 1997, Against Moderation wrote:
Date: 15 Feb 1997 06:25:38 -0000 From: Against Moderation <antimod@nym.alias.net> Reply-To: freedom-knights@jetcafe.org To: freedom-knights@jetcafe.org Cc: aga@dhp.com, cypherpunks@toad.com, cypherpunks@pgh.org, ichudov@algebra.com, dlv@bwalk.dm.com Subject: Re: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up"
Dave Hayes <dave@kachina.jetcafe.org> writes:
Don't you get it? Real censorship issues do not arise until someone rocks the boat. It takes someone to rock the boat to make you aware of your own prejudices of that nature. If it takes attacking homosexuals and pissing them off enough to make them show their true colors and begin censorship...so be it. Why be civil when that civility serves to hide that which is ultimately against free speech?
You'll find those of us who -truly- want free speech are extremely good at ignoring what we don't like.
Perhaps I did not make myself clear. I never suggested Dr. Grubor's views should be suppressed. Not only do I believe he has every right to express them, I also believe (as I explained) that I think there is value in inducing censorship as he has, so as to get people's censorious tendencies out in the open where they can be fought.
However, Dr. Grubor is no advocate of free speech (though I'm sure he thinks he is). If Dr. Grubor had his way, he would severely restrict the rights of gay people to express themselves on Usenet.
No I would not. I do not believe in moderated groups, except for comp and sci gays can say anything that they want. Advocates
of free speech must truly tolerate all speech, even that which they find strongly unpleasant or disturbing.
But I never said I found faggots disturbing. Quite the contrary. Faggots are excellent at what they do, blow jobs, so let's not mix up apples and oranges.
My point was therefore that Dr. Grubor would do better to say "Exterminate all faggots" than "Exterminate all faggots in the name of free speech,"
Nobody is talking about "exterminating" anybody. We just want to remove the gays from power, so they have more time to suck cock and do whatever else that they do best, which does not include usenet.admin. and that those of us who truly support freedom of speech
would do well to distance ourselves from Dr. Grubor, while still fully supporting his right to express his opinions.
Freedom of Speech means that we eliminate moderated newsgroups and homosexual cliques being in power around here. Faggots are mostly PINK! Dobbs is a straight dude, and so was KIBO.
On 15 Feb 1997, Against Moderation wrote:
Dave Hayes <dave@kachina.jetcafe.org> writes:
Don't you get it? Real censorship issues do not arise until someone rocks the boat. It takes someone to rock the boat to make you aware of your own prejudices of that nature. If it takes attacking homosexuals and pissing them off enough to make them show their true colors and begin censorship...so be it. Why be civil when that civility serves to hide that which is ultimately against free speech?
You'll find those of us who -truly- want free speech are extremely good at ignoring what we don't like.
Perhaps I did not make myself clear. I never suggested Dr. Grubor's views should be suppressed. Not only do I believe he has every right to express them, I also believe (as I explained) that I think there is value in inducing censorship as he has, so as to get people's censorious tendencies out in the open where they can be fought.
However, Dr. Grubor is no advocate of free speech (though I'm sure he thinks he is). If Dr. Grubor had his way, he would severely restrict the rights of gay people to express themselves on Usenet. Advocates of free speech must truly tolerate all speech, even that which they find strongly unpleasant or disturbing.
That is not true. We just wish to exterminate all faggot control, not the faggots themselves. The faggots are well known ad the MOST censorous group of all.
My point was therefore that Dr. Grubor would do better to say "Exterminate all faggots" than "Exterminate all faggots in the name of free speech," and that those of us who truly support freedom of speech would do well to distance ourselves from Dr. Grubor, while still fully supporting his right to express his opinions.
Those of us who REALLY want free speech will exterminate all faggot control over any and all usenet administration.
participants (5)
-
aga -
Against Moderation -
Dave Hayes -
ichudov＠algebra.com -
Pittsburgh Admin