From: "Mark M." <markm@voicenet.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 15:33:17 -0800 (PST)
To: Dave Hayes <dave@kachina.jetcafe.org>
Subject: Re: [REBUTTAL] Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News
In-Reply-To: <199611131951.LAA16239@kachina.jetcafe.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.961113180904.2109A-100000@gak.voicenet.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Dave Hayes wrote:

> Logically, we must conclude that those who frequently and repeatedly
> cry for the censorship or removal of any source of input from
> cyberspace are either:
> 
> 	-quite clueless about the tools at their disposal
> 	-ideologically or personally opposed to the source of input
> or	-in need of large amounts of attention from others

You are misinformed.  Vulis was _not_ prevented from posting to cpunks, thus
no source of input was removed.  He was simply removed from the distribution
list.  He can still read and post to the list.

> Idelological opposition is another matter entirely. To understand this
> better, we'll need to observe this in action. Here is an example:
> 
> >        Vulis portrays himself as a victim, but as I posted to the list
> >    last week, I disagree. Anyone who's spent any time on the
> >    100-plus-messages-a-day list can read for themselves the kind of nasty
> >    daily messages that came from Vulis's keyboard. 
> 
> "Nasty" is, of course, by this reporter's standard of "nasty". Granted
> this standard may in fact be shared by Mr. Gilmore, however a shared
> standard is not necessarily an appropriate or correct standard. 

The messages were, in addition to being "nasty", extremely off-topic.
"Off-topic" is much less subjective than "nasty".

> Notice how, once the opposition is admitted to, the rationalization
> begins. Suddenly this is not a matter of censorship, but of ownership.

That's because it is an issue of ownership and not of censorship for reasons
stated above.

> Just as suddenly, the classic anti-free-speech arguments of "if you
> don't like it, start yer own" begin to surface. (Anyone ever notice
> how this resembles the "love it or leave it" mentality of certain
> American patriotic organizations?)

Governments maintain a monopoly on land, so the "love it or leave it" mentality
is flawed.  Virtual space does not have the same limitations as physical
space.  Starting your own mailing list is relatively easy.

> Notice that the net is compared to a home or private club. Actually
> the net is neither, however that would not serve the purposes of this
> analogy, so this fact is convienently forgotton. 

Is the net analogous to a country?  If not, then why did you compare starting
a mailing list to moving to a different country?

> Value to whom and for what? If the editorial control produces one
> small element of the set of all ideologies, then this is only of value
> to the people who support this ideology. Given that the set of 
> people who support an issue is smaller than the set of people
> who support and oppose an issue, would the value not increase
> by allowing both sides of an issue equal speaking time? 

Even if this was an issue of preventing someone from posting, which it isn't,
this argument still doesn't hold up.  There is plenty of dispute about what
is on-topic on cypherpunks, but I doubt many people believe character
assassinations are very on-topic.  If someone wants to speak in favor of
Clipper or ITAR, then it would be wrong to censor this person.  However, if
a charter, whether formal or informal, is to even exist, then it should be
enforced.

> It is sad to note that this is the leader of one of America's
> forerunning organizations of freedom who says these words. For all
> *his* ideology of free speech, this statement reveals the hypocrasy he
> lives with for all to see. The true litmus test of free speech is to
> encounter speech that you *want* to censor.

The EFF protects against government censorship, not against "editorial
control", "censorship", or whatever else you want to call it.  I don't
see this as hypocritical at all.

> Mr. Gilmore, and other like minded parties, might want to consider
> what would happen if one parent company owned *all* communications
> media. Would they they be so supportive of the ideology of ownership
> and communciation they espouse?

And just how plausible do you think this is?  I believe it is next to
impossible, unless it is the result of government regulation.

Mark
- -- 
finger -l for PGP key
PGP encrypted mail prefered.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3
Charset: noconv

iQEVAwUBMopa3SzIPc7jvyFpAQFzIggAr9nx5gd8J35wq5+UUUC9lHJD9hX7wcM+
DNRaZqRUlB/Dq4Xc0rbP7O4zSIob0QVbbQlZXylQcNwdCcb0wzMD2hkw8Xg31mHQ
s8jZwONGM8ljmg8aDSB1WuTsVnmrbcXGM/Jhmc+TPLjQxFQldONl6SGXIAQ58Vt8
DgunHoAZuR6AYWd64ssIFHSVzCR6bk4kL/QJ/0kGSr2x4FHJf62GhOrG/NguF3dd
85dXgUmoI2/f2B6SkfwbHPgZZhOGPgDt2rIPLo3S2JlhTYANSLhtA2souXQAz1bX
lfnEbxt4JNmy4zwT6m244VuuNtpFbF1OL1YAaZaU/WmUXTxeIohQYw==
=FbgX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----