From: Dave Hayes <dave@kachina.jetcafe.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 11:52:09 -0800 (PST)
To: freedom-knights@jetcafe.org
Subject: [REBUTTAL] Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News
Message-ID: <199611131951.LAA16239@kachina.jetcafe.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


[This is a rebuttal to a misguided news article.]

> Cypher-Censored
> By Declan McCullagh (declan@well.com)

Thank you for leaving your email address. It makes this easier.

You people (read: the unaware and hypnotized masses, which includes
reporters who's desire for attention and political safety holds them
in line with the consensual illusion) keep missing the real issue, and
substituting issues which only hold themselves in place.

[Those of you who know, please excuse the mediaistic terms used in
this rebuttal. One must use the symbols one is given to communicate
at the level of understanding of those who use them.]

>        Thus began a debate over what the concept of censorship means in a
>    forum devoted to opposing it. Did Gilmore have the right to show Vulis
>    the virtual door? Or should he have let the ad hominem attacks
>    continue, encouraging people to set their filters accordingly? The
>    incident raises deeper questions about how a virtual community can
>    prevent one person from ruining the forum for all and whether only
>    government controls on expression can be called "censorship."

"Cyberspace" is interacted with using tools under the control of the
interactor. 

In person-to-person interaction, one's only real defense against what
one decides to call "unwanted" is to remove oneself from the arena of
interaction. It may not be possible to ignore or run away from certain
sources of input. 

In cyberspace, however, it is not only possible but necessary and even
desirable. Cyberspace allows one to interact with many more people
then can fit in any given physical space. One simply -cannot- receive
input from 2000 people and not employ some sort of filtering
mechanism. Indeed, cyberspace has many buttons and switches (and even
programmatic filters) which allow one to -completely- control whom one
interacts with.

Logically, we must conclude that those who frequently and repeatedly
cry for the censorship or removal of any source of input from
cyberspace are either:

	-quite clueless about the tools at their disposal
	-ideologically or personally opposed to the source of input
or	-in need of large amounts of attention from others

Cluelessness can be overcome by appropriate teaching and interest in
learning (the latter issue we can safely assume users of popular but
ineffectual windowing OSes are not able to overcome). Such
cluelessness, however, is not and should never be a reason for 
censorship.

A need for attention can be overcome by refraining from the denial
that the need exists, followed by careful observation of that need. 
More can be said on this, but this is not the forum. Such a need
is not and should never be a reason for censorship. 

Idelological opposition is another matter entirely. To understand this
better, we'll need to observe this in action. Here is an example:

>        Vulis portrays himself as a victim, but as I posted to the list
>    last week, I disagree. Anyone who's spent any time on the
>    100-plus-messages-a-day list can read for themselves the kind of nasty
>    daily messages that came from Vulis's keyboard. 

"Nasty" is, of course, by this reporter's standard of "nasty". Granted
this standard may in fact be shared by Mr. Gilmore, however a shared
standard is not necessarily an appropriate or correct standard. 

>    The list is on Gilmore's machine and he can do what he wants with
>    it; he can moderate the postings, he can censor material, he can
>    shut the whole thing down. By kicking off an offending user, a
>    list owner merely exercises his property right. There's no
>    government involvement, so the First Amendment doesn't apply. And
>    the deleted, disgruntled user is free to start his own mailing
>    list with different rules.

Notice how, once the opposition is admitted to, the rationalization
begins. Suddenly this is not a matter of censorship, but of ownership.
Just as suddenly, the classic anti-free-speech arguments of "if you
don't like it, start yer own" begin to surface. (Anyone ever notice
how this resembles the "love it or leave it" mentality of certain
American patriotic organizations?)

What would ideological opposition be without the attempt at analogy? 
Here we witness another example:

>        But then the question is whether Gilmore should have exercised
>    that right, especially in such an open forum. Again, I think Gilmore's
>    actions were justified. Consider inviting someone into your home or
>    private club. If your guest is a boor, you might ask him to leave. If
>    your guest is an slobbish drunk of a boor, you have a responsibility
>    to require him to leave before he ruins the evening of others.

Notice that the net is compared to a home or private club. Actually
the net is neither, however that would not serve the purposes of this
analogy, so this fact is convienently forgotton. 

The net is a wonderful place. Any ideology, no matter who disagrees or
agrees with it, can be expressed and discussed here...assuming those
who oppose this ideology do not have their way with the source of
expression. There is a more refined and deeper truth to be found
in the very existence of the set of all human ideologies, which is
just beginning to show itself to some netizens. Unfortunately, this
truth can be ruined when people equate some notion of value to 
sources which ignore all but a tiny subset of the set of all ideologies:

>        Eugene Volokh, a law professor at UCLA, runs a number of mailing
>    lists and has kicked people off to maintain better editorial control.
>    Volokh says that the most valuable publications are those that
>    exercise the highest degree of editorial control.

Value to whom and for what? If the editorial control produces one
small element of the set of all ideologies, then this is only of value
to the people who support this ideology. Given that the set of 
people who support an issue is smaller than the set of people
who support and oppose an issue, would the value not increase
by allowing both sides of an issue equal speaking time? 

>        For his part, Gilmore calls removing the Russian mathematician "an
>    act of leadership." He says: "It said we've all been putting up with
>    this guy and it's time to stop. You're not welcome here... It seemed
>    to me that a lot of the posts on cypherpunks were missing the mark.
>    They seemed to have an idea that their ability to speak through my
>    machine was guaranteed by the Constitution."

It is sad to note that this is the leader of one of America's
forerunning organizations of freedom who says these words. For all
*his* ideology of free speech, this statement reveals the hypocrasy he
lives with for all to see. The true litmus test of free speech is to
encounter speech that you *want* to censor.

Mr. Gilmore, and other like minded parties, might want to consider
what would happen if one parent company owned *all* communications
media. Would they they be so supportive of the ideology of ownership
and communciation they espouse?
------
Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org 
Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet

Truth (n.) - the most deadly weapon ever discovered by humanity. Capable 
of destroying entire perceptual sets, cultures, and realities. Outlawed 
by all governments everywhere. Possession is normally punishable by death.