From: dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM)
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 15:21:34 -0800 (PST)
To: freedom-knights@jetcafe.org
Subject: Re: Does John Gilmore...
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19961116100146.0074095c@mail.teleport.com>
Message-ID: <PRDiXD15w165w@bwalk.dm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Rich Burroughs <richieb@teleport.com> writes:
> >I have a suggestion for "Aga" and others who believe this sort of
> >nonsense.  Please do us all a favor and try to sue John.  I'm sure
> >that among all jack-leg and wannabe lawyers on this list that they
> >can come up with a viable cause of action.  And John has deep
> >pockets; you could (literally) make out like bandits AND rescue
> >"freedom of speech" on privately maintained mailing lists.
>
> Such a case would obviously fail.  John has the right to ban anyone he
> wants from a list that he is hosting.

Sure he does - I've been saying all along that John Gilmore has the right to
act dishonorably, which he exercises. Yet the censorship supporters keep
attributing to me the diametrically opposite view - that the state can force
John to carry even the opinions he disagrees with. This is not what I've been
saying, of course. John Gilmore lied when he attributed this opinion to me (as
quoted by Declan McCulough). Only his honor could force him to do that, but he
has no honor and no credibility. John had the right to exercise censorship on
his private mailing list, which is precisely what he did.

> I do question, though, whether or not it was the best way to handle the
> situation.  As I have argued, the availability of end-user filtering made
> banning Dimitri from the list unnecessary, IMHO.  And the list owner giving
> people the boot sure doesn't fit with the picture I have had of what
> cypherpunks was about.  YMMV.

Same here - I used to have respect for John Gilmore, but now I don't.

---

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