1996-11-05 - Re: Censorship on cypherpunks

Header Data

From: dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: f9084c44ae3613da5070259e91bab44aeea6ba462607854c8976eefd457a50ea
Message ID: <4JBwwD9w165w@bwalk.dm.com>
Reply To: <199611041836.MAA01340@manifold.algebra.com>
UTC Datetime: 1996-11-05 02:15:33 UTC
Raw Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 18:15:33 -0800 (PST)

Raw message

From: dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM)
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 18:15:33 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Censorship on cypherpunks
In-Reply-To: <199611041836.MAA01340@manifold.algebra.com>
Message-ID: <4JBwwD9w165w@bwalk.dm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) writes:

> 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.

Now that's a good point. The First Amendment says "The Congress shall pass
no law..." Doesn't that restrict the Congress's rights as a whole, and each
member's right to vote for bills that violate the Amendment? In GB, they
_generally frown on any restrictions on what laws the Parliament can pass -
the adage is "the Parliament's hands shall not be tied".

Does saying "The list owner should not kick people off the list for speech"
violate the list owner's right to free speech? That depends on whether plug-
pulling (and mailbombing and ping-storming and other obnoxious behavior)
is speech.


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