Hate speech and censorship

[Anonymous]

Dimitri Vulis writes:

> Perhaps the state shouldn't be in the business of providing library services
> to begin with; then there will be no 1st amendment issue, and if you don't
> like the censorware used by a private library, why, use another private
> library, or start your own.
> 
> (Nor would there be an issue with private libraries refusing service to
> readers who smell bad.)

How ironic that Vulis supports the right of private libraries to refuse
service to bad-smelling readers, while whining about Gilmore's refusal
to allow Gilmore's own private machine to pass Vulis' foul-smelling posts.

Private actions are not censorship, and Gilmore had the right to do
anything he wanted with toad.com.  Likewise list members had every right
to move to other hosts.

Vulis's infantile name-calling is easily seen to be totally lacking in
justification, unsurprising given his demonstrated lack of reasoning
abilities on this issue.