Censorship on cypherpunks [RANT]

[Lucky Green]

On Mon, 4 Nov 1996, Dale Thorn wrote:
[Quoting Adam]
> > 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.

Government != private. Why is this so difficult to understand?

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

"It" does not decide. "He" does. John Gilmore is the list *owner*. He can 
decide to remove anyboy from this list. Anytime. For any reason or no 
reason at all. He can even shut down the entire mailing list anytime he 
pleases, for any reason or no reason at all. 

There are no squatters rights in cyberspace.
-- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock at netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred.
   Defeat the Demopublican Unity Party. Vote no on Clinton/Dole in November.
   Vote Harry Browne for President.