From: "Perry E. Metzger" <pmetzger@lehman.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 94 14:35:26 PST
To: analyst@netcom.com (Benjamin McLemore)
Subject: Re: Detweiler blocking
In-Reply-To: <199402162141.NAA00160@mail.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <9402162231.AA03653@andria.lehman.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Benjamin McLemore says:
> I must admit to a certain amount of amazement to the almost universal
> consensus I have seen in this forum regarding censoring Detweiler's (or
> whomever's) Usenet postings.

No one has proposed censoring his Usenet postings. What people have
proposed is that they deny him the use of the remailers that they set
up on their hardware. This is very different. Its the difference
between saying "Detweiler can't live" and "Detweiler can't live IN MY
LIVING ROOM". Its the difference between saying "I advocate the right
of people to discuss any topic they want" and saying "I adovacate the
right of people to discuss any topic they want IN MY BEDROOM AT FOUR
AM WHILE I'M TRYING TO SLEEP."

I am constantly suprised that this simple distinction is so hard for
people to understand. I advocate, for instance, that Nazis should have
free speech, but I would never hand them money to buy printing
presses, nor would I patronize newsstands that carry their
publications. Presumably this is "censorship" too.

I see nothing wrong with remailer operators taking steps to prevent
Detweiler from using their equipment against their will. This is not
censorship. Mr. Detweiler is still free to use Usenet any way he sees
fit. It is simply the act of saying "Mr. Detweiler can't use MY
REMAILER any way he sees fit."


Perry