From: jim@bilbo.suite.com (Jim Miller)
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 94 11:15:50 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Detweiler blocking
Message-ID: <9402171908.AA23632@bilbo.suite.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Perry E. Metzger wrote:

> 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've seen this analogy before and I think it is a poor analogy and  
should not be used.  I don't mean for this to be a flame, just a  
comment.  The problem with this analogy is that you are comparing a  
publicly available service that is being abused with a private  
residence that is being abused.

It is the difference between "Everybody can use this remailer except  
Detweiler" and "Nobody is allowed to shout in my bedroom at 4 AM, and  
that includes Detweiler".  Do you see the difference.  The analogy is  
comparing a service with a non-service.

Since remailers are services, the analogies used to discuss them  
should compare remailers with other services.  For example:

"Detweiler is a disruptive client and I am within my rights to  
prevent him from using my service."

Right now, remailer services are free, and that generates the  
impression in some that they are public resources that *must* be  
available to all.  If remailers charged even a small amount for their  
service, it might make it easier to justify denying service to  
specific individuals.  It's not logical, but people are seldom  
persuaded by logic alone.


> 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 simp
y
> the act of saying "Mr. Detweiler can't use MY REMAILER any
> way he sees fit."
> 

>  Perry  

> 


>From this I can see that you agree that remailer operators should be  
able to refuse specific users, when possible.  My point with this  
post is to recommend abandoning the "bedroom" analogy.

Jim_Miller@suite.com