From: "Thomas C. Allard" <m1tca00@FRB.GOV>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 12:22:41 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Censorship on cypherpunks [RANT]
In-Reply-To: <327E09AF.489E@gte.net>
Message-ID: <199611042017.PAA05796@bksmp2.FRB.GOV>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



This will be my one and only post on the topic.  Let me first say that I 
support Gilmore's decision...

Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net> said:
> Adamsc wrote:
>
> > This has been taken far too seriously.  Cypherpunks is a *PRIVATE* list.
> > There is no obligation to accept anyone.
>
> Isn't this the same argument used by the state whenever they want
> to differentiate between your "rights" and your "privileges"?  Can
> they reject one of your privileges whenever they want to, at their
> discretion?  No.

I don't understand your argument here at all.  There are, in a libertarian 
society, no "positive" rights (that is to say, the government owes you 
nothing).  There are only "negative" rights (that is to say, there are 
things to gov't can not DO to you).

When the gov't talks about censoring the works of Maplethorpe or other 
"offensive" art, I think they have every right to do so since they (we) PAY 
for it.  The gov't does not owe artists the "right" to have their work 
created at the public's expense.  In a libertarian society, the gov't 
wouldn't subsidize speech or art in the first place.  If they want to pay 
for it themselves, the gov't can not restrict them.  They can't force me to 
pay for it.  And no one can force Gilmore to let Vulis destroy cypherpunks.

> So if c-punks is really "private", how does it decide (arbitrarily?)
> who to include and who to reject?

The answer is pretty obvious if you just think about it... if the list is 
"private" (i.e. private PROPERTY), then the person who *owns* it gets to 
make the decision.  The owner can even make the decision arbitrarily.

The decision to remove Vulis, however, does not seem arbitrary.  It was 
not, I think, based on a whim.

If you owned a bar in a libertarian society, and one of your patrons stood 
up on the bar and took a whiz, would you say that his self-expression was 
censored when the bouncer tossed him out on his arse?  Would you call it 
arbitrary?


> Note that I'm not saying that it's absolutely wrong to reject anyone,
> at any time necessarily, I just don't think your last sentence about a
> *private* list was well thought out.

I think it was very well thought out and I think Adamsc knew exactly what 
he was saying.

rgds-- TA  (tallard@frb.gov)
I don't speak for the Federal Reserve Board, it doesn't speak for me.
pgp fingerprint: 10 49 F5 24 F1 D9 A7 D6  DE 14 25 C8 C0 E2 57 9D