From: Andy Wilson <ajw@Think.COM>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 93 18:02:08 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Disruptive members
In-Reply-To: <9311300110.AA29019@internal.apple.com>
Message-ID: <9311300159.AA01612@custard.think.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


   Date: Mon, 29 Nov 93 17:10:48 PST
   From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)

   >I have seen a man arrested ostensibly for "disturbing the peace", who was
   >actually just giving a speech.  The charges were thrown out.  If you don't
   >like free speech,  don't log in.  The U.S. Constitution and the Declaration
   >of Independence state very clearly that our form of government is based on
   >the recognition of human rights,  not responsibilities.  You might be able
   >to find a system more to your liking in China or North Korea for a little
   >while longer.

   There is little I less enjoy seeing than the spectacle of someone who has
   never actually bothered to find out what the Bill of Rights says and what
   it means blathering about "free speech".

I am aware of what the Bill of Rights says,  but I am not required by
the political philosophy cops to make sure my own notion of free speech
is isomorphic to it's,  thank you just so much.

   Mr. Wilson: does my right to free speech entitle me to come into your
   living room and demand that you provide me with a podium and a megaphone in
   furtherance of my expressing my opinion?

Nope.  But you can send me unsolicited mail as long as it doesn't contain
bombs, threats or frauds.  That's all Detweiler is doing to me.  I can
turn him off just like I can turn off junk snail mail, if I take the
appropriate steps.  Not a big deal at all.  Just like turnin' off a TV
channel I find particularly asinine.

Technically cypherpunks is private since it is administered from a private
site,  but it is freely accessible.  I don't think excluding someone from
the list should be illegal,  I just think it's misguided,  like trying
to fix a leaky faucet with a revolver.

   If you think it doesn't, then you have no cause for complaint.  If, on the
   other hand, you think it _does_, then I've done you a grave misservice by
   mistaking you for nothing more than an uninformed chowderhead.  You would
   constitute, at the very least, a full-blown loon.

   >After all the speech criminals are rounded up, what next?  Got any ethnic
   >groups in mind?

   That's low.  Or, to be more precise, on a par with the rest of your little
   screed.

Not any lower than the groteseque bastardization of the word "rape" I was
responding to.  I don't have much tolerance for that kind of P.C. doggerel.

I was alarmed by the control-freak strategy of the poster I was responding
to.  Excluding "disruptive members" is a non-solution.  They'll just come
back with a different account if they really want to.  What particularly
incensed me was the crap about "rights without responsibilities".  It's
not anyone's responsiblity to make sure that their posts are entertaining
to everyone.  That's what kill files are for.

As for ignoring people not being a solution because it interferes with
"outreach",  the members of this list, and the Extropians list, include
some of the most atrocious examples of "outreach" I've encountered.
Perhaps Mr. Detweiler wouldn't have gone off the deep end if he hadn't
received death threats.  But then again perhaps he's just a dadaist...
or another one Tim May's pranks...

Andy

   --
   Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
   C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.