From: nobody@replay.com
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 17:13:22 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News
Message-ID: <199611150113.UAA25639@anon.lcs.mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



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

Declan McCullagh wrote:
> 
> The mere fact that a privately-owned discussion group becomes popular 
> does not mean that it becomes a public forum.

This is true. On the other hand, privately-owned public forums do exist. 
Chartered FreeNets, for example, and the facilities of private Universities 
like Carnegie Mellon. There may be a fine line somewhere, but I don't 
believe we need to draw it, because what is at issue here is the character 
of the moderator, not the legality of his action.

We're just spinning wheels here talking in the abstract. I actually agree 
with Vulis's reasoning -- you need to look at the facts of the case in 
order to determine whether an act of censorship, or heckler control, or 
editing, or whatever, was proper. But apply that reasoning to Vulis's case, 
and you conclude that he's completely in the wrong, by any standard.

> Say I start a poetry mailing list to discuss Blake's writings. I have
> three people on it. One becomes obnoxious and emailbombs the list 
> since he disagrees with my interpretation of "A Memorable Fancy." Do I 
> have the right to kick him off? 

Clearly. And if your statement of the facts is correct, then you would be 
right in exercising your right. If there is more to the story, though, or 
if your story is wrong... well, then you still have the right to be a jerk, 
but you are, nonetheless, a jerk. In the cypherpunks case, though, the only 
jerk here is Vulis. It is worthless and IMO dangerous to prove that by 
arguing from first principles. The "Freedom Knight" kooks are correct in 
pointing out that every "philosophical" argument you've made can be and has 
been misused. Try a little empirical evidence; there is plenty to go 
around. "Truth is far more fragile than fiction... reason alone cannot 
protect it." Proof is syntactic; truth is semantic.

> How is this different from a private poetry reading in my home?

It differs in one small but important way: it all happens in the digital 
domain, so it can all be archived in its entirety. It is more difficult to 
lie about what happens online (but not impossible, as Vulis and company 
demonstrate). In an online forum, you have access to *all* the empirical 
evidence. There's no reason to rely on pure reason.

So enough already with the hypothetical cases. You've got a specific case 
of your own that, oddly, you still haven't mentioned.

- -rich


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQBVAwUBMovDK5NcNyVVy0jxAQGjIAH8DTYuUzkwt7+9i4RNCPkspNBEj7MBoH0Z
CluHlmULFdamQ1HPDAXRct/DoqPzsXR+IzlMOr0y4bPFtMq1y+kEZw==
=TA0F
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----