Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News
The Netly News http://www.netlynews.com/ November 11, 1996 Cypher-Censored By Declan McCullagh (declan@well.com) The cypherpunks mailing list, so legend goes, coalesced around two principles: the dissemination of strong encryption and an absolute commitment to free speech. It was a kind of crypto-anarchist utopia: Here was a place where anonymity was encouraged and PGP-signed postings were the norm -- and nobody seemed to be in control. 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. Now, normally, when someone gets evicted from a mailing list, it excites little attention. But here was an ironic -- some would say momentous -- event: The list is run, after all, by John Gilmore, the EFF cofounder, a cypherpunk god who is famous for having once said that the Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it. And it was none other than Gilmore who gave Vulis the boot. The shunning of Vulis was "an act of leadership," Gilmore said. 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." Vulis, a 31-year old Russian emigre who completed a PhD in mathematics last year at the City University of New York, is described as sociable, even friendly, by people who have met him. Online, though, he's almost notorious. His .sig file, for instance, proudly points out that he's a former Kook of the Month; Vulis was also a Net-legend and even has the alt.fan.dimitri-vulis newsgroup named after him. 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. 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. 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. 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. But what if your private club's express purpose is to cherish free speech? That's where the terrain gets mucky. One 'punk wrote: "For someone who espouses freedom of speech to arbitrarily censor someone is indeed hypocritical." Another called it a "big cypherpunkish move" that couldn't be condoned "even bearing in mind the inane and wearisome behaviour of Dr. Vulis." Still others said that this demonstrated that "libertarianism can't work without some measure of authoritarianism." (Libertarianism being the primordial flame war topic, the debate nearly consumed itself at this point.) Vulis told me yesterday: "I'm particularly disappointed by John Gilmore's actions. I've known him and communicated with him before. His treatment of me was rude and unprofessional and inappropriate." In posts to the mailing list, Vulis levels the additional criticism that it was "arbitrary and capricious" and that he was not notified that he would be forcibly unsubscribed. This week Vulis busied himself by saying that now Gilmore can be sued for what happens on cypherpunks, arguing that the list owner is exercising greater control and so is subject to greater liability. Of course, in this country anyone can sue for anything. But it's highly unlikely the suit would go anywhere. Solveig Bernstein, a lawyer with the Cato Institute, says: "Chances are in a defamation lawsuit he'd be treated like a publisher or bookstore owner.. They exercise some control over content and enjoy pretty broad immunity from lawsuits." 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." What does Vulis's ouster mean to the community that sprang up around this mailing list, of which he had been a member for nearly three years? Many of his peers think he did it for attention or notoriety; one longtime list-denizen declined to be interviewed for fear of encouraging him. (If that's his goal, he's already succeeded. Will Rodger from Inter@ctive Week and Lewis Koch from Upside Magazine are writing about this.) Other cypherpunks wonder why Vulis is abrasive online, yet mild-mannered in person; Gilmore likened him to "a Jekyll-and-Hyde personality." The flap comes at a time when other prominent cypherpunks are leaving, citing too many flames and too little content. Perry Metzger, another longtime member, announced last month he would start his own, moderated mailing list. The hard-core programmers have moved on. Yet the list membership has never been higher, at 1,949 direct subscribers. And the cyber-rights issues the group discusses have never been more important. Ironically, tools like anonymous remailers that the cypherpunks labored to create now make it impossible to get rid of Vulis completely. Blocking posts from remailers is unthinkable to the cypherpunks. So the embattled Russian émigré continues to read the list under a pseudonym and appears to be posting as frequently as ever. But perhaps Gilmore succeeded in part. If not more polite, Vulis's messages now are at least on-topic. ###
So you disagree. Well, the last sentence above says it all - this "list" that you and 1900+ other people spend so much time on is "just property" (like a slave), it's censorable (meaning freedom of speech is *specifically excluded*), and it's terminable without notice (meaning that it's really just one person's private fantasy, and we'll all bozos on the bus, as it were).
Yup. Clearly, then you will wish to start your own mailing list, which you will promise is not property, not censorable, and not terminable without notice. Do it! Don't let us tell you you can't (not that anyone is)! I suspect that you will quickly change your opinion of mailing list owners. -russ <nelson@crynwr.com> http://www.crynwr.com/~nelson Crynwr Software sells network driver support | PGP ok 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | The more corrupt the state, Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | the more numerous the laws.
nelson@crynwr.com wrote:
So you disagree. Well, the last sentence above says it all - this "list" that you and 1900+ other people spend so much time on is "just property" (like a slave), it's censorable (meaning freedom of speech is *specifically excluded*), and it's terminable without notice (meaning that it's really just one person's private fantasy, and we'll all bozos on the bus, as it were).
Yup. Clearly, then you will wish to start your own mailing list, which you will promise is not property, not censorable, and not terminable without notice. Do it! Don't let us tell you you can't (not that anyone is)! I suspect that you will quickly change your opinion of mailing list owners.
I'll bet you're one of those people who tell your kids "Just wait 'till you grow up - then you'll realize just how smart us parents really are", etc. etc. Am I right, Mr. Cliche? Why do you even bother?
The address you mailed to is no longer valid. This is probably because the user in question was an old Open Net subscriber. Open Net is NO LONGER an ISP, and has not been since May 1996. We have no redirection address for that user. Please remove them from any mailing lists you might have. This response was generated automatically.
Declan's done an excellent journalistic job. I understand that because of the space limitations he couldn't quote everything that everyone told him, so one small point in his article might be misinterpreted by a casual reader: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> writes:
though, he's almost notorious. His .sig file, for instance, proudly Why "almost"? :-) points out that he's a former Kook of the Month; Vulis was also a There's no such thing as "former" KOTM, Declan. That's a lifetime achievement! Net-legend and even has the alt.fan.dimitri-vulis newsgroup named after him. (I newgrouped a.f.d-v myself, actually. But it does get traffic :-) daily messages that came from Vulis's keyboard. 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.
I told Declan that agree 100% - John Gilmore has the right to do anything he likes with his private mailing list. The 1st Amendment does not apply. However censorship needn't be government-imposed.
For his part, Gilmore calls removing the Russian mathematician "an act of leadership." He says: "It said we've all been putting up with
An act of censorship, an act of cowardice, an act of Hitler-like leadership...
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."
If John Gilmore ascribes this opinion to me, then he's lying outright. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
If Vulis thinks I did an "excellent job," then perhaps I should have criticized him more harshly. -Declan On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
Declan's done an excellent journalistic job. I understand that because of the space limitations he couldn't quote everything that everyone told him, so one small point in his article might be misinterpreted by a casual reader:
Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> writes:
though, he's almost notorious. His .sig file, for instance, proudly Why "almost"? :-) points out that he's a former Kook of the Month; Vulis was also a There's no such thing as "former" KOTM, Declan. That's a lifetime achievement! Net-legend and even has the alt.fan.dimitri-vulis newsgroup named after him. (I newgrouped a.f.d-v myself, actually. But it does get traffic :-) daily messages that came from Vulis's keyboard. 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.
I told Declan that agree 100% - John Gilmore has the right to do anything he likes with his private mailing list. The 1st Amendment does not apply.
However censorship needn't be government-imposed.
For his part, Gilmore calls removing the Russian mathematician "an act of leadership." He says: "It said we've all been putting up with
An act of censorship, an act of cowardice, an act of Hitler-like leadership...
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."
If John Gilmore ascribes this opinion to me, then he's lying outright.
---
Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
// declan@eff.org // I do not represent the EFF // declan@well.com //
Declan McCullagh wrote:
If Vulis thinks I did an "excellent job," then perhaps I should have criticized him more harshly.
No, you should have ignored the story, because there wasn't one. It's quite rich that your story criticizes journalists for doing exactly what you did: give Vulis far more attention than he deserves. In case you've forgotten what you wrote: What does Vulis's ouster mean to the community that sprang up around this mailing list, of which he had been a member for nearly three years? Many of his peers think he did it for attention or notoriety; one longtime list-denizen declined to be interviewed for fear of encouraging him. (If that's his goal, he's already succeeded. Will Rodger from Inter@ctive Week and Lewis Koch from Upside Magazine are writing about this.) As much as I'm tempted, I believe no further comment is necessary. -rich
Declan McCullagh wrote:
The Netly News http://www.netlynews.com/ November 11, 1996 Cypher-Censored By Declan McCullagh (declan@well.com) The cypherpunks mailing list, so legend goes, coalesced around two principles: the dissemination of strong encryption and an absolute commitment to free speech. It was a kind of crypto-anarchist utopia: Here was a place where anonymity was encouraged and PGP-signed postings were the norm -- and nobody seemed to be in control. 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.
[snippo]
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. 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.
[mo' snippo] So you disagree. Well, the last sentence above says it all - this "list" that you and 1900+ other people spend so much time on is "just property" (like a slave), it's censorable (meaning freedom of speech is *specifically excluded*), and it's terminable without notice (meaning that it's really just one person's private fantasy, and we'll all bozos on the bus, as it were). You and several other "personal friends/insiders" to John Gilmore must be laughing your butts off at the erstwhile schmoes like myself, who labor to reason with persons like yourself and "gods" like John Gilmore, who, after all, are obviously superior to us schmoes, since we sit and beg for our portions of email emanating from John "God" Gilmore's Holy Computer. Why do you bother telling us that: "He can moderate the postings" "He can censor material" "He can shut the whole thing down" Why? Is this your way (or "God"'s way) of waving your dicks in our faces? Well, I'll tell you what. You can run your list (or kiss someone's butt who does), you can shut the thing down, and you can take a long walk off a short pier for all I or most anyone gives a damn, but let's call a spade a spade. You're a suck-up, and Gilmore is a swaggering, overbearing, tin- plated dictator with delusions of Godhood. Satisfied?
The mere fact that a privately-owned discussion group becomes popular does not mean that it becomes a public forum. Say I start a poetry mailing list to discuss Blake's writings. I have three people on it. One becomes obnoxious and emailbombs the list since he disagrees with my interpretation of "A Memorable Fancy." Do I have the right to kick him off? How is this different from a private poetry reading in my home? -Declan "Prisons are built with stones of Law, brothels with bricks of Religion." --WB On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Dale Thorn wrote:
Declan McCullagh wrote:
The Netly News http://www.netlynews.com/ November 11, 1996 Cypher-Censored By Declan McCullagh (declan@well.com) The cypherpunks mailing list, so legend goes, coalesced around two principles: the dissemination of strong encryption and an absolute commitment to free speech. It was a kind of crypto-anarchist utopia: Here was a place where anonymity was encouraged and PGP-signed postings were the norm -- and nobody seemed to be in control. 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.
[snippo]
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. 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.
[mo' snippo]
So you disagree. Well, the last sentence above says it all - this "list" that you and 1900+ other people spend so much time on is "just property" (like a slave), it's censorable (meaning freedom of speech is *specifically excluded*), and it's terminable without notice (meaning that it's really just one person's private fantasy, and we'll all bozos on the bus, as it were).
You and several other "personal friends/insiders" to John Gilmore must be laughing your butts off at the erstwhile schmoes like myself, who labor to reason with persons like yourself and "gods" like John Gilmore, who, after all, are obviously superior to us schmoes, since we sit and beg for our portions of email emanating from John "God" Gilmore's Holy Computer.
Why do you bother telling us that:
"He can moderate the postings" "He can censor material" "He can shut the whole thing down"
Why? Is this your way (or "God"'s way) of waving your dicks in our faces?
Well, I'll tell you what. You can run your list (or kiss someone's butt who does), you can shut the thing down, and you can take a long walk off a short pier for all I or most anyone gives a damn, but let's call a spade a spade. You're a suck-up, and Gilmore is a swaggering, overbearing, tin- plated dictator with delusions of Godhood. Satisfied?
Declan McCullagh wrote:
The mere fact that a privately-owned discussion group becomes popular does not mean that it becomes a public forum. Say I start a poetry mailing list to discuss Blake's writings. I have three people on it. One becomes obnoxious and emailbombs the list since he disagrees with my interpretation of "A Memorable Fancy." Do I have the right to kick him off? How is this different from a private poetry reading in my home?
A gentleman whose name I don't have once wrote: "Freedom (if it is worth something and to be preserved) is not the freedom to do whatever you want to do, it is the freedom to do what you ought to do." One could look at it both ways, of course. But in all fairness, let's look at a seemingly unrelated example for perspective: Say I work in a software shop, and my boss, who has a big monitor and a really good 1280 x 1024 video card, makes a large document with all kinds of fonts, including very small ones, which he can see clearly on his system. He gives the .DOC to me to review, however, I have a cheap VGA card and 12-inch monitor, and can't see much of the text clearly. My boss gets on my case, and rides me because I'm stalling on the review, since I can't see the text clearly. I point out that he's not being fair, but other people at work join his side and tell me that "He's the owner, he has the right to do whatever he wants, including terminate your job", and so forth. (But he's still an asshole, you see). You do understand that, yes?
Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net> writes:
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. 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.
Declan is putting his journalistic credibility on the line here... What's he disagreeing with? John exercised his right to censor me, so I'm a victim and this list as a whole is a victim. John can shut the whole thing down and it will again be a victim. John's credibility was also a victim.
So you disagree. Well, the last sentence above says it all - this "list" that you and 1900+ other people spend so much time on is "just property" (like a slave), it's censorable (meaning freedom of speech is *specifically excluded*), and it's terminable without notice (meaning that it's really just one person's private fantasy, and we'll all bozos on the bus, as it were
Welcome to Cypherpunks! It's remarkable that Declan is hosting the next DCpunks gathering.
You and several other "personal friends/insiders" to John Gilmore must be laughing your butts off at the erstwhile schmoes like myself, who labor to reason with persons like yourself and "gods" like John Gilmore, who, after all, are obviously superior to us schmoes, since we sit and beg for our portions of email emanating from John "God" Gilmore's Holy Computer.
And heaven forbid you express an opinion that one of John "God" Gilmore's ass-licking friends doesn't know what the hell he's talking about, and support it with evidence. Declan spent about an hour picking my brain as to why Timmy May doesn't know shit about cryptography, is a flamer and a racist and an asshole. He chose not to print it, because he had nothing to rebut it with.
Why do you bother telling us that:
"He can moderate the postings" "He can censor material" "He can shut the whole thing down"
Why? Is this your way (or "God"'s way) of waving your dicks in our faces?
Yes. John Gilmore suffers from the realization of his own inadequacy.
Well, I'll tell you what. You can run your list (or kiss someone's butt who does), you can shut the thing down, and you can take a long walk off a short pier for all I or most anyone gives a damn, but let's call a spade a spade. You're a suck-up, and Gilmore is a swaggering, overbearing, tin- plated dictator with delusions of Godhood. Satisfied?
You forgot "limp-wristed, EFFeminate, bearded, 50-ish blonde". Thanks for the comments, Dale. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) writes:
Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
You forgot "limp-wristed, EFFeminate, bearded, 50-ish blonde".
What is this supposed to mean? Is that some cultural thing?
"Who", not "what". --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
participants (8)
-
Dale Thorn -
Declan McCullagh -
Declan McCullagh -
dlv＠bwalk.dm.com -
ichudov＠algebra.com -
nelson＠crynwr.com -
Open Net Postmaster -
Rich Graves