1996-11-16 - Re: [REBUTTAL] Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News

Header Data

From: Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>
To: snow <snow@smoke.suba.com>
Message Hash: 318f940098a8afe1e7956b149e0a4c2ab38b983645c8f3cfa3cdd7b719c655f4
Message ID: <328D2BB7.71DC@gte.net>
Reply To: <199611150619.AAA01605@smoke.suba.com>
UTC Datetime: 1996-11-16 05:00:26 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 21:00:26 -0800 (PST)

Raw message

From: Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 21:00:26 -0800 (PST)
To: snow <snow@smoke.suba.com>
Subject: Re: [REBUTTAL] Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News
In-Reply-To: <199611150619.AAA01605@smoke.suba.com>
Message-ID: <328D2BB7.71DC@gte.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


snow wrote:
> > [This is a rebuttal to a misguided news article.]
> > > Cypher-Censored
> > > By Declan McCullagh (declan@well.com)

[snip, snip]

> > 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.

We *are* talking about the cypherpunks list, yes?  Then, in terms of the
list, John Gilmore *is* the official, hence a censor, plying his skills.

Why all the denial and repeated (redundant) blathering about John's
*right* to something he allegedly owns?  Simple.  The folks who put this
stuff out want desperately to believe that this list they spend so much
time on is "really OK", and not a censored medium.  Denial is the key.






Thread