From: dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr. Dimitri Vulis)
Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 18:13:59 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: UK IP Censorship
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GUL.3.93.960506175254.5643C-100000@Networking.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <FNJJND59w165w@bwalk.dm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Rich Graves <llurch@networking.stanford.edu> writes:
> On Mon, 6 May 1996 anonymous-remailer@shell.portal.com wrote:
> > Pipex - the UK arm of UUNet of the US - does not expect a
> > backlash from users over the censorship.
>
> Let's see to it that they're wrong.
>
> [ObFUCKING-STATIST: while the article is newbiegarbled, as far as I can
> tell, they're only blocking specific newsgroups, and not any IP routes,
> which would be worse. IMO, ISPs have the right to block certain
> newsgroups, as long as they tell customers what they're doing. HOWEVER, if
> Pipex is as big an uber-ISP and news feeder of ISPs as UUNet is here, then
> they've clearly gone over the line as far as I'm concerned. I don't care
> if AOL blocks alt.sex.kiddie-porn, because the kiddie-porners can simply
> move to a real ISP; but the big players have more of an obligation to act
> as content-neutral common carriers.]

UUNET in the US also blocks Usenet newsgroups it doesn't like.  They're real
unethical and dishonorable scumbags. Should we invent a protocol to encrypt the
Newsgroups: header and hide the newsgroups that David Lawrence (spit) censors?
:-)

---

Dr. Dimitri Vulis
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps