From: aga <aga@dhp.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 05:00:58 -0800 (PST)
To: freedom-knights@jetcafe.org
Subject: THAT is what makes John Gilmore an ASSHOLE!
In-Reply-To: <199611150619.AAA01605@smoke.suba.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.961115073500.2693I-100000@dhp.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Fri, 15 Nov 1996, snow wrote:

> Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 00:19:46 -0600 (CST)
> From: snow <snow@smoke.suba.com>
> Reply-To: freedom-knights@jetcafe.org
> To: Dave Hayes <dave@kachina.jetcafe.org>
> Cc: freedom-knights@jetcafe.org, declan@well.com, cypherpunks@toad.com
> Subject: Re: [REBUTTAL] Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News
> 
> > [This is a rebuttal to a misguided news article.]
> > > Cypher-Censored
> > > By Declan McCullagh (declan@well.com)
> > Thank you for leaving your email address. It makes this easier.
> > You people (read: the unaware and hypnotized masses, which includes
> > reporters who's desire for attention and political safety holds them
> > in line with the consensual illusion) keep missing the real issue, and
> > substituting issues which only hold themselves in place.
> 
>      So you are explaining your problems in advance. Good, it tells 
> thoughtful readers to take you with a grain of salt.  
> 
> > [Those of you who know, please excuse the mediaistic terms used in
> > this rebuttal. One must use the symbols one is given to communicate
> > at the level of understanding of those who use them.]
> 
>     Ok, I will try to keep from using too long words so you can understand
> me. 
> 
> > In person-to-person interaction, one's only real defense against what
> > one decides to call "unwanted" is to remove oneself from the arena of
> > interaction. It may not be possible to ignore or run away from certain
> > sources of input. 
> 
>      You forget "shutting down" the source of input. Turning off the 
> radio, TV etc, or turning off the person speaking. 
> 

It ain't the person, but the language that Gilmore tried to censor.

> > 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
> 
>     No problems with that. 
> 
> > >    The list is on Gilmore's machine and he can do what he wants with
> > >    it; he can moderate the postings, he can censor material, he can
> > >    shut the whole thing down. By kicking off an offending user, a
> > >    list owner merely exercises his property right. There's no
> > >    government involvement, so the First Amendment doesn't apply. And
> > >    the deleted, disgruntled user is free to start his own mailing
> > >    list with different rules.
> > 
> > Notice how, once the opposition is admitted to, the rationalization
> > begins. Suddenly this is not a matter of censorship, but of ownership.
> > 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?)
> 
>      It still isn't censorship. Censorship, at least in my dictionary, 
> refers to censor, which uses the word "Official" several times. Mr. 
> Gilmore is not an "Official" in a government sense, he maybe in the EFF
> sense, but this is not an "Official" EFF organ, so that doesn't count. 
> 
>      He is the OWNER of this list, and the machine it runs on. If he chooses
> (which he didn't) to keep someone from using the list, it is his right.
> 

No it ain't; not after the list gets so big.  Public newsgroups
lose all rights of censorship by the owners, and that is law.

> > What would ideological opposition be without the attempt at analogy? 
> > Here we witness another example:
> > 
> > >        But then the question is whether Gilmore should have exercised
> > >    that right, especially in such an open forum. Again, I think Gilmore's
> > >    actions were justified. Consider inviting someone into your home or
> > >    private club. If your guest is a boor, you might ask him to leave. If
> > >    your guest is an slobbish drunk of a boor, you have a responsibility
> > >    to require him to leave before he ruins the evening of others.
> > 
> > Notice that the net is compared to a home or private club. Actually
> 
>      WRONG. the "net' wasn't compared to either a home or a private club,
> THIS LIST WAS. No one has the right to kick anyone off public streets, the
> police _do_, but I seriously doubt that they could arrest you for refusing.
> Gilmore didn't "Ban" Vulis from "The Net" (in fact he didn't even ban him 
> from the list, he just removed him from the distribution list), he didn't
> even try.
> 
>      He also didn't prevent Vulis from posting, tho' he could have. 
> 
> > the net is neither, however that would not serve the purposes of this
> > analogy, so this fact is convienently forgotton. 
> > The net is a wonderful place. Any ideology, no matter who disagrees or
> > agrees with it, can be expressed and discussed here...assuming those
> > who oppose this ideology do not have their way with the source of
> > expression. There is a more refined and deeper truth to be found
> > in the very existence of the set of all human ideologies, which is
> > just beginning to show itself to some netizens. Unfortunately, this
> > truth can be ruined when people equate some notion of value to 
> > sources which ignore all but a tiny subset of the set of all ideologies:
> 
>      Again I repeat myself:
> 
>     Vulis was not "removed" in any way, shape, or form from "the net", all
> Gilmore did was "Turn his back" on Vulis, saying in effect "Your bullshit
> isn't wanted here". 
> 
>     He didn't tell Vulis to keep his opnion to himself, no one on this list 
> did. He, and others here were asking Vulis to stop his repeated personel 
> attacks on other list members, some were asking him to stop his vitrolic 
> rants on racial and ethnic groups as well, which were _way_ off topic.  
> 

Now THAT is what makes John Gilmore an ASSHOLE!
"personel(sic) attacks on other list members" and "vitriolic rants on
racial and ethnic groups" are normal things for the InterNet, and they
should NEVER be suppressed. I reserve the right to call you a nigger
or a kike any time that I want to, asshole, and you has better get
used to it. What the fuck nationality is Gilmore anyway?  Is he a
wild-jew or crazy irishman or what?  

> > >        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.
> 
> > 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 
> 
>      You know, from your position I'd say you have a very clear view of 
> your colon. 
> 
>      "Editorial Control" means that someone decides who get's published and
> who doesn't. From your opposition to it, I guess you think that a magazine
> dedicated to poetry should print all poems submitted, or as many, selected
> in some sort of non-judgemental order, as they can fit. Or that a magazine
> should print any writings submitted to it. 
> 
>      I run 4 mailing lists, one is personal, one is in the process of coming
> online, and 2 are up and running. One of these has a rule: No Politics allowed.
> I guess I am a pathetic little censorous worm huh? Nope. That rule was put 
> there for a very good reason, and I am that reason. I love to talk politics,
> but that is the WRONG FORUM for it. 
> 
>     Just like this is the wrong forum for Vulis to spew his shit. 
> 

No it ain't, asshole.

> > 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? 
> 
>     Yes, and the cypherpunks list DOES THAT. Vulis wasn't kicked off for 
> opposing Crypto, or the spread of Crypto, he was kicked off for littering,
> and for refusing to stop littering. Actually he was kicked off for daring 
> Gilmore to make him stop littering.  
> 

Get used to the shit, asshole.

> > >        For his part, Gilmore calls removing the Russian mathematician "an
> > >    act of leadership." He says: "It said we've all been putting up with
> > >    this guy and it's time to stop. You're not welcome here... It seemed
> > >    to me that a lot of the posts on cypherpunks were missing the mark.
> > >    They seemed to have an idea that their ability to speak through my
> > >    machine was guaranteed by the Constitution."
> > 
> > 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.
> 
>      Not really, he was simply refusing to let Vulis share his (Gilmore's)
> podium. 
> 

No, he was just trying to control Dr. Vulis's language, and that
sucks.  John Gilmore must be added to the net.scum web-page.

> > 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?
> 
>      How would this happen? Setting up a press is fairly easy, at least 
> a small hand operated press. Start your own magazine, start your own
> mailing list. 
> 

Right, but don't ever preclude me calling you a nigger or a kike,
or a chink or a spic or a wap, etc., motherfucker.

>      That is what freedom is, the ability to _do it yourself_ not the 
> requirement that others do it for you, or allow you to use what they 
> have already built. 
> 
> Petro, Christopher C.
> petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff>
> snow@smoke.suba.com
> 

This whole thing boils down to John Gilmore not liking
"rants" or "personal attacks."  What does that chicken-shit
punk hide behind in real life?  When his terminal is not
protecting him?  John Gilmore is connected with the corrupt
cabal boys anyway, so he should be dismissed as anybody having
any credibility any more.

"Once you pull the first plug, you are forever more a whore,"
as the greeks would say.

-aga