Censorship on cypherpunks [RANT]

[Adamsc]

On Mon, 04 Nov 1996 07:20:15 -0800, Dale Thorn wrote:

>> >  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?

It's a big difference.  Can you set up your own mailing list? Yes.  Can you
go elsewhere? Yes.  Can Mr. Vulis send email directly to list-members anyway?
Yes.

Can you do the same if the government runs it? No.   Can you set up your own
list/printing press* if the state won't publish your ideas? No.

One could apply a similar rationale to socialism - after all, it may seem
like an extension of "love your neighbor" to take care of their needs, which
is certainly a laudable goal.  That's not the problem.  The problem is when
it becomes mandated *with no alternatives*.

#  Chris Adams <adamsc at io-online.com>   | http://www.io-online.com/adamsc/adamsc.htp
#  <cadams at acucobol.com>		 | send mail with subject "send PGPKEY"
"That's our advantage at Microsoft; we set the standards and we can change them."
   --- Karen Hargrove, Microsoft (quoted in the Feb 1993 Unix Review editorial)