From: Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 18:41:02 -0800 (PST)
To: Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Moderation [Tim,Sandy]
In-Reply-To: <v03007810af1d7405e4ee@[168.161.105.191]>
Message-ID: <32F7D350.1CA8@gte.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Declan McCullagh wrote:
> 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?

JAMA is an example of moderated (good) speech?  Not from where I sit.
Look at the "interview" they published in the spring of 1992 with the
Kennedy autopsy doctors.  Then read about how they twisted the whole
thing (and really didn't interview the doctors) a la 60 minutes.

> 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.

The drunk can be excluded, but when someone wants to use the drunk as
an example to escalate the exclusion to other persons who are not in
fact drunk, watch out!