1996-11-05 - Re: Censorship on cypherpunks

Header Data

From: furballs <furballs@netcom.com>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan@eff.org>
Message Hash: d334e422e1ea4c5648818a8df5bf12f823d5605ca5ef3e668ec3188190f81eb7
Message ID: <Pine.3.89.9611050119.A27459-0100000@netcom>
Reply To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.961104183349.23959C-100000@eff.org>
UTC Datetime: 1996-11-05 09:51:50 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 01:51:50 -0800 (PST)

Raw message

From: furballs <furballs@netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 01:51:50 -0800 (PST)
To: Declan McCullagh <declan@eff.org>
Subject: Re: Censorship on cypherpunks
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.961104183349.23959C-100000@eff.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9611050119.A27459-0100000@netcom>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

On Mon, 4 Nov 1996, Declan McCullagh wrote:

> Brigham Young University's censorhappy speech codes. Or me inviting
> someone into my home and kicking them out if I feel like it.
> -Declan

The house rules part I can agree with. The BYU "code" was a challenging 
wall to climb. Too many people I knew at the Daily Universe and KBYU had 
to become masters of the double entante to make a point sometimes. 
Newsspeak, as Orwell called it.

The code of honor at the campus was based upon good intentions, but it 
was the literal interpretaition of such writs, plus the extension thereof 
into areas of speech and press, without case by case consideration that 
incensed me no end. More than once I found myself on the business of that 
document because of "concerns" over the material in question. In certain 
circles, the FRAT still lives on.

Ofcourse Steve Benson and Patrick Bagely have done well since their trial 
by fire with Dallan Oaks. The zoobies will recognize the former 
BYU president; the rest of the well read will recognize the politcal 

As for rules and regulations in general:

Civilized society operates on them as the alogrythm to conduct. For 
those who choose to hold to a defintion of a higher morale and what they 
define as civil conduct, then the rules for acceptable conduct reflect 

When a civil standard has to be defined down, or penalties introduced to 
attempt to insure "compliance", then the battle for that level of 
societal behavior has been lost or nearly so. To wit: In order to promote 
a sense of order out of a group of people who have not been taught 
correct principles, one must wield a big stick and use it often, rather 
than try and engendure by persuation and example and let them use their 
free agency to decide that such behavior is in their own best interest. 
This is not brainwashing.

As for the original point on Vulis:

John Gimore did what he did. Vulis challenged him, and John called his 
bluff. Having read this list for quite a while now, I've seen alot of 
crap go back and forth from many people that was just as annoying as what 
Vulis was doing. They have not been bounced, and I suspect it may have 
something to do with not poking at the list owner, who it is my 
understanding, pays money out so the these discussions can even take place.

Treading on the good will of a host is bad form...


> On Mon, 4 Nov 1996 ichudov@algebra.com wrote:
> > Declan McCullagh wrote:
> > > 
> > > Libertarianism is not incompatible with strict regulations, as long as 
> > > the rules violate nobody's rights.
> > > 
> > 
> > I would appreciate an example of "strict regulations" which do not violate
> > anybody's rights.
> > 
> > 	- Igor.
> > 
> // declan@eff.org // I do not represent the EFF // declan@well.com //