From: Dave Hayes <dave@kachina.jetcafe.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 20:28:33 -0800 (PST)
To: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
Subject: Re: Does John Gilmore...
Message-ID: <199611200427.UAA06378@kachina.jetcafe.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


> On Tue, 19 Nov 1996, Dave Hayes wrote:
> > Black Unicorn writes:
> > > Dave Hayes writes:
> > > > > Again, you confuse free speech with free broadcast.
> > > > Isn't broadcast a subset of speech, especially in this culture?
> > > That which is broadcast is certainly speech.
> > > Trying to draw some kind of "right to be broadcast" as a result is
> > > stupidity or ignorance, or both.
> > Then I suppose you want to control all mailing lists, USENET groups,
> > and web pages. These are broadcasts, and of course they have no rights
> > other than what you seem to want to give them.
> If I owned it, of course I would control it.  

If you really owned it, you would not need to control it. 

> You are simply exhibiting the symptoms of a spoiled brat because you have
> been fortunate enough, thus far, to rely on the benevolance of whoever is
> providing you your newsfeed.  

Methinks you know not to whom you are speaking to. Those that know may
see just how the seeds of assumptions are sown in this person's mindset.

> The fact that control is not exercised, does not mean it doesn't
> exist.  In reality control is exercised in many ways.

The fact that control exists does not mean it is effective, necessary,
or appropriate. Unchecked need to control is merely an outward sign of
a lack of inner control, which is a disease most control freaks have. 

> Thus your attempt to demonize me merely exposes your ire for the system as
> it now exists, your fanciful dreams of how it should be aside.

I am not attempting to demonize you...you do that to yourself well
enough. I have no interest in your support or opposition, other than
as a tool to show those who can see where certain specific attitudes
come from.

> This is where you fail, with the basic inability to distinguish ownership
> of intellectual content and the right to compell its broadcast by whomever
> might control the medium.

I maintain that it is neither appropriate nor in any sense beneficial
to apply this kind of draconian control to internet communication in
the general sense.

> > > Learn the difference.  Go to law school before you argue free speech
> > > concepts in any detail.  
> > "Laws" do not cover the net's "multicast" technology.
> >Snort<  I suppose you live in the only true anarchy?

Why is it that when less regulation is desirable, the kneejerk
response is to declare that desire anarchistic? 

Human attempts at creating and imposing "law" are arbitrary,
inefficient, and subject to change based on the whim of those 
who claim to own their implementation.

> > Distinguishing communication types so as to control those who use them
> > is not going to solve your problem. You are much better off, from a
> > practical standpoint, learning to control what you see and hear rather
> > than attempting to control others. 
> I'm not sure what the above babble means.  

Hence your attempt to control others.

> I'm not sure you are either.

Hence your inability to understand the concept of "honor".

> > One does not need a school to see this, it sits under one's nose like
> > a milk moustache.
> This is the uneducated man's excuse.

"Education" has very little to do with knowledge and a lot more to do
with external approval, in the sense you appear to be using it.
"Indoctrination" and "Conditioning" are the two terms that best fit
your apparent notion. 

We all know how far those have gotten us in the past 2000 years.
One can see this "progress" by looking at the net's attempts to control
Mr. Grubor...
------
Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org 
Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet

A king who feared wasps once decreed that they would be abolished.

As it happened, they did him no harm. But he was eventually stung to death
by scorpions.