Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News

[Declan McCullagh]

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 at 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?
> 
>