From: internaut@aol.com
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 93 01:17:51 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: FREE: warning to "sci" anonymous posters
Message-ID: <9303240415.tn73502@aol.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Sir,

I find the contents of your warning message (appended below) to be an
outrageous affront to the right of Freedom of Speech granted to all Americans
in the Constitution. In fact, if you take a moment to think globally, your
proposals are detrimental to the future freedom of all Citizens of the World.
I think that you *yourself* should be warned that there are many of us
watching your actions with great interest - and some of us have very long
memories when such repressive actions are considered. particularly vexing is
the idea that ANY anonymous mail might be censored - this might edit out
EXACTLY the voices of criticism that make out Nation and our Internet great.
Any newsgroup that can't accept the fundamental right anonymous posting
should have the option of IGNORING them, but not  removing them. People who
want to censor speech in such a knee-jerk way have no place in public with
other free people.

If the reasoned opinion of any upstanding Citizen of the Internet or the US
has any effect on your actions, I strongly urge you to stop this practice (if
you have begun using it) and to never, ever begin it (if you have not yet).

Someday you may want to vote in a US election. You'll probably want to cast a
secret ballot, won't you? This is only one small example of the fundamental
role of anonymity in our great Democracy. We don't need this brand of
"enforcement" example on the Internet, and we don't need berobed Ku Klux Klan
members lynching people to remind minorities to "behave." Erode these
freedoms, and you may one day be unable to cast a ballot without being
photographed and fingerprinted - it wouldn't be a very satisfactory way to
run a Democracy, would it? You might scoff at my example, but one can build a
mountain from many pebbles, and your action is a large chunk of stone in the
mountain of Thought Bondage.

I prefer to believe that you are a well-educated, thoughtful person who can
see the Orwellian Thought Control inherent in this idea. i refer to imagine
that you will not only reconsider such actions and vow to never follow those
censorial urges, but also actively persuade others of such restrictive
opinions to reconsider and stop their actions. A good Golden Rule to follow
is: "Don't limit anyone's Freedom of Speech or you might be next one to be
silenced!"

Do the Right Thing!

dave

>     As I promised yesterday, I emailed each recent anonomous poster
>in the "sci" hierarchy a note explaining what may happen this
>weekend.  
>
>Dick
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>Dear anonymous poster,
>
>     You may not be aware of the discussion in news.admin.policy
>concerning the propriety of posting anonymously to newsgroups which
>have not invited such postings.  As someone who has posted anonymously
>to the "sci" hierarchy recently, you should read it.
>
>     I am writing to inform you that if Julf, admin@anon.penet.fi,
>does not soon block anonymous postings to the "sci" hierarchy, then
>I will activate an "Automated Retroactive Minimal Moderation" script
>that will cancel postings to this hierarchy from his server.  This is
>intended to restore the pre-Julf status quo, at least temporarily,
>over the weekend.
>
>     Rest assured that there is nothing personal in this.  I have not
>read your postings, and I have no reason to believe that they were out
>of line in any way other than being anonymous.  I have nothing against
>anonymous postings to groups that have decided to accept such
>postings, nor do I object to any newsgroup deciding to do this.  I
>*do* object to Julf's permitting his server to post to newsgroups
>without any effort to determine whether the readers of those newsgroups
>want to permit anonymous postings.
>
>     You have several possible courses of action if you wish to post
>to the "sci" hierarchy while the "Automated Retroactive Minimal
>Moderation" is in effect:
>
>*1  convince Julf to accept the "Petersen Proposal" for default
>    settings for different hierarchies.  I promise to turn off the
>    ARMM script as soon as I hear that he will do this (or anything
>    reasonably responsive).
>
>*2  convince the readers of the newsgroup to which you want to post
>    that anonymous postings should be accepted in that newsgroup.
>    I can think of several valid reasons that may prompt such a desire,
>    but the decision should be made by the readers of the newsgroup, not
>    imposed by a single person such as Julf, or me.  I promise to
>    abide by whatever decision the newsgroup makes.  This does not
>    need to be a formal vote.  A straw vote with a clear majority will
>    suffice.
>
>*3  have a friend post for you, use a different anonymous server,
>    or, if all else fails, post under your own name.  People used to
>    do this, you know.  :-)
>
>    If none of these suit you, then simply be patient, and wait until
>Monday.  I intend to run ARMM, if I run it at all, for less than 48
>hours... this time.  This is merely intended to be a demonstration
>that an effective enforcement mechanism for blocking postings from a
>particular site can work.
>
>    I apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause you.
>My argument is with Julf and is about the default setting for entire
>hierarchies; it is not with you or your particular postings.