From: camcc@abraxis.com (Alec)
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 14:12:38 -0800 (PST)
To: Jim Choate <ravage@EINSTEIN.ssz.com>
Subject: Re: FW: Dr. Vulis (ad nauseum)
Message-ID: <2.2.32.19961107221247.0069347c@smtp1.abraxis.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 09:27 PM 11/6/96 -0600, you wrote:
:
[snip]

:In short they have now opened themselves up for defamation and liable
suites by imposing an editorial policy on the contents of this list (1).

This is not a they; this is an individual with (and within) his own rights.

Nonsense, no policy has been stated. The owner determined that the good Dr.
had been disruptive and had become a detriment to the owner's list (and
possibly sanity).
:
:This opens up the potential, for example, for Tim May to sue the operator of
:the Cypherpunks mailing list now for posts from users (even anonymous ones)
:which defame or otherwise liable his character, reputation, or ability to
:pursue income in his chosen field.

PLEASE, let's not drag poor Tim into this. Hasn't he suffered enough?!
This does not follow even from the tortured logic above.

:In short the operators of the list
:becomes publishers and distributors of the material. It is the legal
:difference between a bookstore and a book publisher.
 
:Censorship is censorship, irrespective of the source of the limitation.
:Free expression is impossible in an environment of censorship. The right to
:speak not only implies a right to not speak, it also implies the right to
:emit complete mumbo jumbo. The actual content of the speech is irrelevant.

"Implies the right"??  Rights either exist or do not exist (endowed by their
Creator); they are not be implied.

The content of speech is certainly not irrelevant. Disruptive speech and
behavior have never been protected.
:
:The Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and press. [snip] Only that
they :would not have limitations on their actions imposed by the federal
government.
:
:				ARTICLE I. 
: 
:	Congress shall make no law [snip]

It says CONGRESS! We're not discussing an action by the federal govt. here.
I may choose to ask those visiting my house to refrain from discussing mumbo
jumbo; if the individuals persist, I can ask, nay demand, that they leave.  
:
:And just to make shure it is clear, the right to put something on the paper
:(ie speech) is distinctly different from being the one doing the actual
:printing.

What paper? What does this mean? 
:
:I have argued in the past that this list is a defacto public list because of
:the way it is advertised and to the extent it is advertised. All the protests
:by the operator to the contrary will not convince a court.

Advertised? It has been a matter of regret that I _stumbled_ into this
unruly tangle of wits.

Simply because one has argued that "the list is ... a defacto public list,"
don't make it so any more than my arguing that a newspaper available to the
public can have no control over its own editorial policy.

Let's get beyond this.

 
Cordially,

Alec                   

PGP Fingerprint:

pub  1024/41207EE5 1996/04/08 Alec McCrackin <camcc@abraxis.com>
Key fingerprint =  09 13 E1 CB B3 0C 88 D9  D7 D4 10 F0 06 7D DF 31