Censorship on cypherpunks [RANT]

[Dale Thorn]

Adamsc wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Nov 1996 18:54:16 -0500 (EST), Will French wrote:
> >  Except it's not very effective, is it, since he's still
> >posting flames?  In any case, it's an admission on John
> >Gilmore's part that libertarianism can't work without some
> >measure of authoritarianism; the only argument is over _just how
> >much_ authoritarianism we need.
> >  I'm quite upset about this.  Up to now I was able to tell
> >people that "there is at least one mailing list on the net that
> >functions in a completely open manner".  No more.

> This has been taken far too seriously.  Cypherpunks is a *PRIVATE* list.
> There is no obligation to accept anyone.

Isn't this the same argument used by the state whenever they want to differentiate
between your "rights" and your "privileges"?  Can they reject one of your privileges
whenever they want to, at their discretion?  No.

So if c-punks is really "private", how does it decide (arbitrarily?) who to include
and who to reject?

Note that I'm not saying that it's absolutely wrong to reject anyone, at any time
necessarily, I just don't think your last sentence about a *private* list was well
thought out.