From: Rich Graves <rcgraves@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 14:45:03 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Censorship on cypherpunks
Message-ID: <199611042242.RAA05013@spirit.hks.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Geez, the traffic has quadrupled, with most of it about Vulis. Get over 
it already!

And so, just to add to the garbage, here's my two cents. :-)

Declan McCullagh wrote:
> 
> Libertarianism is not incompatible with strict regulations, as long as
> the rules violate nobody's rights.

Now, there's an Orwellian statement if ever there was one.

OF COURSE Vulis's "rights" were violated. The question is, so what? The 
decision was neither arbitrary nor capricious. I find the rational 
balancing of rights and responsibilities to be less wrong than defining 
away your opponent's rights.

Since AFAIK there was no precedent for kicking Vulis off, and in fact 
cpunks has long prided itself on absolute anarchy (especially after the 
victory of the Tim May [neutral term for rant] factions over the 
Perrygram faction), there is a "rights" issue. I think cpunks broke an 
implied contract guaranteeing Vulis absolute rant rights. But I also 
think that that's OK.

It's ironic that you're making this argument while a piece from you 
making the opposite argument is still on the news stands. My response to 
your half of the Internet Underground article can be found on Usenet, 
but I think the best summary of my position came in my response to the 
contrary point of view -- concurring in your judgement, but disagreeing 
with your reasoning.

- From <53i4d5$skm@Networking.Stanford.EDU>:

|>FLAMETHROWER
|>By Solveig Bernstein (sberns@cato.org)
|>
|>The decision to remain silent is an act of conscience, just like the
|>decision to speak. So the view that acts of "private censorship"
|>violate rights of free speech is incoherent. If an online service
|>provider ousts a Web site that posts explicit messages about sex, in
|>violation of the terms of their service contract, or a non-profit
|>organization persuades some Internet Service Providers to refuse to
|>host "Holocaust Revisionist" web sites, these decisions do not violate
|>rights of free speech.
|
|I agree, up to a point. The only "right" of free speech is the right to 
|be free from force and threats of force based on the content of speech. 
|As publishers, librarians, archivists, and access providers, though, we 
|have a *duty* to society to tolerate ideas we despise. But this duty
|comes from the public's right to know and from the kind of people we
|are, not from the "rights" of the speakers.
|
|Anyone who claims to be a content-neutral ISP, a librarian, or an
|unbiased source of news who suppresses things she doesn't like is a
|*LIAR AND A FRAUD* because she is giving her audience a dishonest,
|distorted view of the world. Protests against such capricious exercises
|of editorial power are appropriate and are necessary, but they should
|be viewed as attacks on the character of the editor, not defenses of 
|the human rights of the suppressed.

In this case, I think any fair investigation of the facts of the matter 
would clearly demonstrate that Gilmore was right to kick Vulis off, and 
that he was neither acting capriciously nor removing any substantive 
content. I do believe, though, that that's an investigation we must be 
prepared to accept (not that I think anyone's seriously going to ask for 
one, given the relative reputations of the parties involved). Granting 
the cpunks owner absolute property rights over the content of messages 
on the list, though, as you do, while strictly correct, is extremely 
dangerous because it gives license to all kinds of distoritions, lies, 
and fraud. The right of "the public" to inquire and respond must be 
respected.

And it has been, as all these useless threads show.

- -rich
 owner-fight-censorship-discuss@c2.net
- ---
[This message has been signed by an auto-signing service.  A valid signature
means only that it has been received at the address corresponding to the
signature and forwarded.]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Gratis auto-signing service

iQBFAwUBMn5xRioZzwIn1bdtAQH7JwGAhI91c5/AkamPaUUlfkC95sRzmHn6uUx9
j/AGAZQ4QTw6SHdgl5rBu9SkpncTh43b
=Q7O4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----