From: Raymond Mereniuk <raymond@advcable.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 01:07:51 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: [REBUTTAL] Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News-Reply
Message-ID: <s28e64b6.071@zed.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


>>> aga <aga@dhp.com>  11/16/96, 02:26am >>>
On Fri, 15 Nov 1996, Bill Frantz wrote:

>Yes it WAS!!  He censored the mode and manner of the speaker.
>He censored the personal attacks and the rants and the racial
>diatribes!  And that SUCKS!  Gilmore was a fucking asshole for
>doing it!  And Gilmore is the WORST kind of censor that there
>can be, one who censors a person's "style."
>-aga.admin
>InterNet Freedom Council

You state that Mr. Gilmore censored someone but yet I still see that
someone's messages being propagated by `cypherpunks@toad.com'.  If Mr
Gilmore was really trying to censor someone he sure did a bad job of
it and can be criticzed for that much as I still see mail from the
censored party.  

Have you every lived, or been involved, in a society where
censorship, or local distortion, of facts was the norm??  Do you have
any idea how the powers that be discredit any voice in which they
don't like the message (or even the tone) and the lengths they go to
ensure the offical line is only one which is presented in a
reasonable form??  Have you ever been arrested and interrogated by
the local anti-corruption police because you made too much money and
dealt with a company where one particular person was known to accept
brides so therefore you must be corrupt??  So far no big deal, a
simple misunderstanding - but the anti-corruption police know how you
live your life and since you work long hours you must be cooking the
books.  

There is censorship in this society but it is so not so blatant and
is probably more dependent on what the established media choses to
report or not report.  Mr. Gilmore only made it slightly more
difficult for one particular player, who was misbehaving badly, to be
heard but did not totally remove that player's ability to be heard.  

If you are truly concerned about censorship you should be more
concerned about how the current administration's polices in regards
to cryptography will affect your future freedoms to communicate in a
manner in which is completely private and will subject you to no
government review of the subject matter discussed.  


Virtually

Raymond@advcable.com