1996-11-04 - Re: [NOISE] Censorship of Dr. Vulius

Header Data

From: Alex F <alexf@iss.net>
To: Cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 5b3b3e9f8d260cd1087b39c4f6c64d4e861a72ca4b44c0c646bded8811b08e9a
Message ID: <2.2.32.19961104150043.006bfbb0@iss.net>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1996-11-04 15:02:40 UTC
Raw Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 07:02:40 -0800 (PST)

Raw message

From: Alex F <alexf@iss.net>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 07:02:40 -0800 (PST)
To: Cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: [NOISE] Censorship of Dr. Vulius
Message-ID: <2.2.32.19961104150043.006bfbb0@iss.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Someone on this list complained that there was one list that allowed
uncensored postings, and this was it.  Not that Dr. Vulis has been kicked
off that character of the list is either tarnished or alltogether gone.  The
same person likened this to a violation of Libertarian ideals, etc.  The way
I see it is this, being on this list is a priveledge, not a right.  When
someone abuses that priveledge they may lose it. Plain and simple.  It is
also worthy to note that the Right to Free Speech, etc. applies to the
government (IOW, the government can not hinder the right to free speech so
long as that speech does not infringe upon someone else's right.  Since when
is this list government run?  The decision was apparently a personal one.
Dr. Vulis was apparently asked nicely several times to stop flaming, and
post on relevant subject matter.  He did not.  Does the Libertarian ideal
also approve of uninhibited abuse of priveledges?  I don't think so.  To sum
up, I really don't see any conflict between John's actions and the
Libertarian way of thought, but that's just my personal opinion.

Later,

Alex F
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Alex F  -  Internet Security Systems
Webmaster/Security Training
alexf@iss.net
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@






Thread