From: dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM)
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 18:00:18 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Could Declan or some libertarian explain this?
In-Reply-To: <328DFEAD.41C@gte.net>
Message-ID: <8kJiXD21w165w@bwalk.dm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net> writes:

> Rich Graves wrote:
> > >From the so-called fight-censorship list. I would ask there, but the list
> > owner won't let me, and I won't stoop to Vulis's level.
> > |        PLEASE MARK MY WORDS: IF MY BOOK IS NOT RE-PUBLISHED AND AVAILABLE
> > |IN BOOKSTORES, THE CAUSE OF ACADEMIC FREEDOM IN THE WEST WILL BE IN A SORR
> > |STATE.  FEW ACADEMICS WOULD BE PREPARED TO SUFFER THE MANY BLOWS AND
> > |THREATS THAT I HAVE NOW ENDURED FOR SIX MONTHS. IF 'The 'g' Factor'
> > |DISAPPEARS, SO WILL OTHER SERIOUS PRODUCTS OF RESEARCH AND SCHOLARSHIP --
> > |ESPECIALLY IF THEY ARE DEEMED "CONTROVERSIAL" BY THE LIBERAL-LEFT.
>
> > His complaint is that his publisher stopped distribution of his book arguin
> > that blacks are mentally inferior to whites.
> > Could someone please explain to me how Chris Brand is different from Vulis?

The poor guy said something politically incorrect and got censored?

> > I mean in form; in practice, Declan is bashing Vulis for not recognizing
> > rights of private editorial control, but uncritically passing on Mr. Brand'

I don't think Declan said this: if he did, then he was lying. I spnet about
an hour on the phone with him, and I said, among other things, that John
definitely had the right to censor anyone on his private mailing list, which
this is; and John has the right to destroy his own credibility, which he did.
This caused Declan to giggle. Those who attend the DCpunks meeting at Declan's
place can confirm that Declan has a decidedly unheterosexual giggle. Declan
attributes to John Gilmore the claim that I somehow appeal to the state to
protect me from John Gilmore's censorship, which is a lie - that's why I
call John Gilmore a liar, and not Declan. I used Declan to get out pretty
much the message I wanted. I'm satisfied with his writeup.

Actually, there is one passage where he said I object because I wasn't warned
in advance that I'd be unsubscribed. This is not what I told him. I said,
I sent a bunch of e-mails to majordomo@toad.com saying "who cypherpunks" and
"who coderpunks" and "help" and got no response. Eventually I tried the same
from another account and got a response. It was very rude of John to have
majordomo "play dead" without telling me. That's why I call John Gilmore a
sneaky bitch. I don't think Declan understood what I told him. It's clearly
a case of cluelessness, not an intentional lie, as is the case with John.

> > message alleging that private editorial control is censorship. Far be it
> > from me to criticize Declan's right to exercise editorial control over
> > substantive dissent and factual correction, but I was just wondering.
>
> Could someone explain to me why we have to have *any* censorship, if
> people on a list are given tools to filter with and reminded on occasion
> how to use them?

I think this was explained many times over by the likes of Jim Ray and
Sandy Standord: they can filter out the information that bothers them,
but they're bothered even more when someone else receives the information
they don't want them to receive. That's why they seek to silence whoever
they disagree with and not just filter them out of their own mailboxes.

---

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