From: Declan McCullagh <declan@pathfinder.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 15:40:51 -0800 (PST)
To: Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Moderation [Tim,Sandy]
In-Reply-To: <199702040158.RAA09697@toad.com>
Message-ID: <v03007810af1d7405e4ee@[168.161.105.191]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Adam writes:

>The problem with censorship or moderation is that it waters down the
>absolutism of free speech.  Free speech in electronic media, with
>cypherpunks type I, and type II remailers, is the closest thing to
>truly free speech yet.

I agree and disagree. Moderation often *increases* the value of speech. The
Wall Street Journal, or Time Magazine, or the JAMA have strict policies
regarding what information they print; these policies increase the
publication's value. Moderation is not necessarily censorship. Would you
criticize the National Coalition Against Censorship for not including in
their newsletter (to which I subscribe) off-topic rants by Jesse Helms?

What Vulis and the rest (whom I killfiled long ago) have done is polluted a
common resource, making it unusable for the rest. It's the tragedy of the
commons. When all can speak without limit in a public forum, the drunken
boor can shout everyone else down.

-Declan



-------------------------
The Netly News Network
Washington Correspondent
http://netlynews.com/