From: Dave Hayes <dave@kachina.jetcafe.org>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 13:15:12 -0800 (PST)
To: snow@smoke.suba.com
Subject: Re: [REBUTTAL] Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News
Message-ID: <199611152113.NAA25851@kachina.jetcafe.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


>      So you are explaining your problems in advance. Good, it tells 
> thoughtful readers to take you with a grain of salt.  

What a wonderfully self-referential statement. That's exactly what
this statement does for you...

> > 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. 
>      You forget "shutting down" the source of input. Turning off the 
> radio, TV etc, or turning off the person speaking. 

If people have difficulty ignoring those on a mailing list or
newsgroup that they do not like, how can you expect them to know about
this herculean feat of responsibility?

> > >    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?)
>      It still isn't censorship. 

Call it what you will. In my eyes, here is someone who is attempting
(ineffectually, which is perhaps deliberate) to stop messages from
being sent to another human which used to be sent to that other human.

Censorship? Ownership? Why does ownership justify dishonor?

> Censorship, at least in my dictionary, refers to censor, which uses
> the word "Official" several times. Mr.  Gilmore is not an "Official"
> in a government sense, he maybe in the EFF sense, but this is not an
> "Official" EFF organ, so that doesn't count.

But he is an official of the list. Censorship is not just practiced by
governments...

>      "Editorial Control" means that someone decides who get's published and
> who doesn't. From your opposition to it, I guess you think that a magazine
> dedicated to poetry should print all poems submitted, or as many, selected
> in some sort of non-judgemental order, as they can fit. Or that a magazine
> should print any writings submitted to it. 

Resistance to lack of editorial control prevents one from seeing
the true nature of ideologies and opinions. Maybe you don't want this,
but why deny it to others? Still...

>      I run 4 mailing lists, one is personal, one is in the process of coming
> online, and 2 are up and running. One of these has a rule: No Politics allowed.
> I guess I am a pathetic little censorous worm huh? 

If that is what you wish to call yourself. I maintain no such position.

>      That is what freedom is, the ability to _do it yourself_ not the 
> requirement that others do it for you, or allow you to use what they 
> have already built. 

Freedom is anything but categorizable in the terms you are using.
------
Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org 
Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet

It has been said that man is a rational animal.  All my life I have
been searching for evidence which could support this.