[REBUTTAL] Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News

[aga]

On Fri, 15 Nov 1996, Bill Frantz wrote:

> Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 13:02:04 -0800
> From: Bill Frantz <frantz at netcom.com>
> To: snow <snow at smoke.suba.com>, Dave Hayes <dave at kachina.jetcafe.org>,
>     aga <aga at dhp.com>
> Cc: declan at well.com, cypherpunks at toad.com
> Subject: Re: [REBUTTAL] Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News
> 
> aga <aga at dhp.com> wrote:
> >Let's stay on topic here -- John Gilmore is a censorous asshole
> >for pulling Vulis's plug.  The topic has nothing to do with
> >the Freedom-Knights.
> 
> At 12:19 AM 11/15/96 -0600, snow wrote:
> >> [This is a rebuttal to a misguided news article.]
> >> > Cypher-Censored
> >> > By Declan McCullagh (declan at well.com)
> >> >    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.
> >> 
> >> Notice how, once the opposition is admitted to, the rationalization
> >> begins. Suddenly this is not a matter of censorship, but of ownership.
> >> Just as suddenly, the classic anti-free-speech arguments of "if you
> >> don't like it, start yer own" begin to surface. (Anyone ever notice
> >> how this resembles the "love it or leave it" mentality of certain
> >> American patriotic organizations?)
> >
> >     It still isn't censorship. Censorship, at least in my dictionary, 
> >refers to censor, which uses the word "Official" several times. Mr. 
> >Gilmore is not an "Official" in a government sense, he maybe in the EFF
> >sense, but this is not an "Official" EFF organ, so that doesn't count. 
> 
> Even more important is the fact that Mr. Gilmore did not prevent Mr. Vulis
> from speaking.  No restraint on speech implies no censorship.  Therefor Mr.
> Vulis was not censored.  Q.E.D.
> 
> You all are perfectly free to like or not like what Mr. Gilmore did. 
> However, don't call it censorship because it wasn't.
> 

Yes it WAS!!  He censored the mode and manner of the speaker.
He censored the personal attacks and the rants and the racial
diatribes!  And that SUCKS!  Gilmore was a fucking asshole for
doing it!  And Gilmore is the WORST kind of censor that there
can be, one who censors a person's "style."

-aga.admin
InterNet Freedom Council