From: dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM)
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 20:10:26 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Another apologist for John Gilmore's censorship
In-Reply-To: <01BBD3C9.2396E740@king1-10.cnw.com>
Message-ID: <cVqiXD27w165w@bwalk.dm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


blanc <blancw@cnw.com> writes:

> In glancing through and deleting so many messages about how blasphemous =
> and perverted John Gilmore is for having "censored" one list afficionado =

Why the quotes? John Gilmore censored me with no quotes.

> Strange, too, that those who clamor for freedom of speech are accusing =
> JG of being contrary to his principles.

No. John Gilmore's actions are contrary to free speech, but his own
principles clearly don't include free speech. He has no credibility.

>                                           They expect that just because =
> individuals should be at liberty to speak, everyone must therefore be =
> prepared to tolerate all manner and kind of insults against themselves =
> (or be a passive witness to it).

Not true. An honorable person would tolerate all speech and either ignore
it or respond with more speech. A dishonorable person, such as John Gilmore,
seeks to silence the speech he doesn't like.

> In that case, it would mean that because individuals are to be free "to =
> do" as they will, therefore that courtesy and manners are no longer =
> valid, that high standards of personal behavior are not important, that =
> self-command is not required, that exercising one's best judgement is of =
> no practical value for life in the real world.

Funny you should mention manners. Censorship is rude. John Gilmore's plug-
pulling has got to be one of the rudest acts ever perpetrated on this
mailing list. Note also that he hasn't pulled the plugs of other very
rude people, like Timmy May (fart).

> It would mean that in the environment of liberty, it would be incorrect =
> for individuals to prevent assaults against themselves or their morals, =
> against their personal preferences, or against their choice of topics =
> for a discussion list which they started.  This would mean that, for =
> instance, it wouldn't be right for free individuals to prevent from =
> being sexually molested, because it would be "censorship" against the =
> perpetrator.

Speech is not action. Action is not speech.

> These complaintants against censorship must not understand the purpose =
> for freedom of action, of expression, etc.; that they do not understand =
> the need for being "free":  =20
>
> it is so that one may, without interferance from uninvited participants, =
> engage in arranging the elements of one's existence for the greatest =
> benefit to oneself.   Tolerating insulting drivel does not fall into =
> that category.
>
> The environment of liberty to express oneself also permits the exercise =
> of the highest logic possible to an unfettered intelligence.  Filling up =
> the mailing list with irrelevant accusations about bizarre sexual =
> practices is not of any logical benefit towards enlightenment on the =
> subjects of encryption or privacy.  =20

I don't think John Gilmore's sexual practices are *that* bizarre. The Kinsey
report estimates that 10% of the population shares his practices.

---

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