From: John Young <jya@pipeline.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 05:20:10 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: No Subject
Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19961114131814.006c3730@pop.pipeline.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Declan,

Cypherpunks does not seem to me to be anything like the well-
regulated lists you ascribe to Prof Volokh.

Could you, with Professor Volokh, expand on the application of 
"editorial control" on "unmoderated" lists? (See Netly below)

As well as amplify "the power to kick folks off a list ... if 
conversation veers too far from the list's charter." (See 
your quote below) 

Isn't this power the black heart of free speech racketeering? 
And what makes the glands of secret authoritarians thrill with 
benevolent suppression of assent on behalf of the disorderly, 
fuzzy-minded citizenry?

Media moguls and list runners share commonalities, to be sure,
but I wonder if it's not cruel to compare John Gilmore to Professsor
Volokh, and both to, say, Rupert Murdoch.


--------

[Netly News]

Eugene Volokh, a law professor at UCLA, runs a number of mailing
lists and has kicked people off to maintain better editorial control.
Volokh says that the most valuable publications are those that
exercise the highest degree of editorial control.

[Your post of 11-13]

In my experience, and I've talked about this at some length with Prof. 
Volokh who runs a number of lists himself, the best and most valuable
discussion lists are those that are unmoderated but have a list owner who
has the power to kick folks off a list and can try to steer the direction
of a conversation if it veers too far from the list's charter.