Censorship on cypherpunks

Except it's not very effective, is it, since he's still
posting flames?  In any case, it's an admission on John
Gilmore's part that libertarianism can't work without some
measure of authoritarianism; the only argument is over _just how
much_ authoritarianism we need.
  
  I'm quite upset about this.  Up to now I was able to tell
people that "there is at least one mailing list on the net that
functions in a completely open manner".  No more.


Will French  <wfrench@interport.net>

Libertarianism is not incompatible with strict regulations, as long as 
the rules violate nobody's rights.

-Declan


On Sun, 3 Nov 1996, Will French wrote:

>   Except it's not very effective, is it, since he's still
> posting flames?  In any case, it's an admission on John
> Gilmore's part that libertarianism can't work without some
> measure of authoritarianism; the only argument is over _just how
> much_ authoritarianism we need.
>   
>   I'm quite upset about this.  Up to now I was able to tell
> people that "there is at least one mailing list on the net that
> functions in a completely open manner".  No more.
> 
> 
> Will French  <wfrench@interport.net>
> 


// declan@eff.org // I do not represent the EFF // declan@well.com //

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.

	- Igor.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                          SANDY SANDFORT
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C'punks,

On Mon, 4 Nov 1996 ichudov@algebra.com wrote:

> I would appreciate an example of "strict regulations" which do
> not violate anybody's rights.

			"This Property Posted
			Trespassors Will be Shot"

Strict enough for you?


 S a n d y

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM said:
> 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.

Actually, it has nothing to do with speech. Mr. Gilmore owns the machine, and
allows the list to be run from it. At any time he could stop allowing the
list from being distributed from his machine, as would be his right.
If he does not want someone using his resources, it's his right. The fact
that you're the only (someone correct me, was Detwieler also kicked off?)
or one of the only people that has been removed from the list due to
abusive behavior speaks volumes.

As to the cries of censorship and peoples rights being violated, I'd 
contend that rights are not a zero-sum proposition. The minute a person
exercises a right, some other person does not lose a right, or have a 
right violated. What some people would assert is a right (list 
membership) is actually a privilege granted by the owner of the resource.


-- 
Kevin L. Prigge                     | Some mornings, it's just not worth
Systems Software Programmer         | chewing through the leather straps.
Internet Enterprise - OIT           | - Emo Phillips
University of Minnesota             |

Brigham Young University's censorhappy speech codes. Or me inviting
someone into my home and kicking them out if I feel like it.

-Declan


On Mon, 4 Nov 1996 ichudov@algebra.com wrote:

> 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.
> 
> 	- Igor.
> 


// declan@eff.org // I do not represent the EFF // declan@well.com //

On Mon, 4 Nov 1996, Declan McCullagh wrote:

> Brigham Young University's censorhappy speech codes. Or me inviting
> someone into my home and kicking them out if I feel like it.
> 
> -Declan
> 

The house rules part I can agree with. The BYU "code" was a challenging 
wall to climb. Too many people I knew at the Daily Universe and KBYU had 
to become masters of the double entante to make a point sometimes. 
Newsspeak, as Orwell called it.

The code of honor at the campus was based upon good intentions, but it 
was the literal interpretaition of such writs, plus the extension thereof 
into areas of speech and press, without case by case consideration that 
incensed me no end. More than once I found myself on the business of that 
document because of "concerns" over the material in question. In certain 
circles, the FRAT still lives on.

Ofcourse Steve Benson and Patrick Bagely have done well since their trial 
by fire with Dallan Oaks. The zoobies will recognize the former 
BYU president; the rest of the well read will recognize the politcal 
cartoonists. 

As for rules and regulations in general:

Civilized society operates on them as the alogrythm to conduct. For 
those who choose to hold to a defintion of a higher morale and what they 
define as civil conduct, then the rules for acceptable conduct reflect 
that. 

When a civil standard has to be defined down, or penalties introduced to 
attempt to insure "compliance", then the battle for that level of 
societal behavior has been lost or nearly so. To wit: In order to promote 
a sense of order out of a group of people who have not been taught 
correct principles, one must wield a big stick and use it often, rather 
than try and engendure by persuation and example and let them use their 
free agency to decide that such behavior is in their own best interest. 
This is not brainwashing.

As for the original point on Vulis:

John Gimore did what he did. Vulis challenged him, and John called his 
bluff. Having read this list for quite a while now, I've seen alot of 
crap go back and forth from many people that was just as annoying as what 
Vulis was doing. They have not been bounced, and I suspect it may have 
something to do with not poking at the list owner, who it is my 
understanding, pays money out so the these discussions can even take place.

Treading on the good will of a host is bad form...

...Paul

> 
> On Mon, 4 Nov 1996 ichudov@algebra.com wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> > 
> > 	- Igor.
> > 
> 
> 
> // declan@eff.org // I do not represent the EFF // declan@well.com //
> 
> 
>

furballs <furballs@netcom.com> writes:
> As for the original point on Vulis:
>
> John Gimore did what he did. Vulis challenged him, and John called his
> bluff. Having read this list for quite a while now, I've seen alot of
> crap go back and forth from many people that was just as annoying as what
> Vulis was doing.

I'm slightly offended by this.  What if someone were to post the entire text
of the _Pink _Swastika to this mailing list, in 40K chunks, with the subject
header "John Gilmore and Hitler's rise to power"? :-)

---

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

On Wed, 6 Nov 1996, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:

> furballs <furballs@netcom.com> writes:
> > As for the original point on Vulis:
> >
> > John Gimore did what he did. Vulis challenged him, and John called his
> > bluff. Having read this list for quite a while now, I've seen alot of
> > crap go back and forth from many people that was just as annoying as what
> > Vulis was doing.
> 
> I'm slightly offended by this.  What if someone were to post the entire text
> of the _Pink _Swastika to this mailing list, in 40K chunks, with the subject
> header "John Gilmore and Hitler's rise to power"? :-)
> 

You missed the original point. Posting spam is one thing; directly 
challenging the list owner to stop you from posting is another matter.

...Paul

[This was sent directly to me, but apparently cc's to c-punks as well]

Declan McCullagh <declan@eff.org> writes:

> Libertarianism is not incompatible with strict regulations, as long as
> the rules violate nobody's rights.

Let's not confuse strict regulation with arbitrary and capricious plug-pulling.

If the rules say something like, "Whoever incites an ethnic flame war*, or
a religious flame war**, or posts long diatribes that have nothing to do with
cryptoanarchy***, shall be kicked off the mailing list", then they don't seem
to apply to everyone who violates them.

* E.g. by calling multiple posters "crazy Russians"

** E.g. by attacking the poor hapless mormons :-)

*** E.g. by ranting about third-world debt

---

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

>[This was sent directly to me, but apparently cc's to c-punks as well]
>Declan McCullagh <declan@eff.org> writes:
>>Libertarianism is not incompatible with strict regulations, as long as
>>the rules violate nobody's rights.
>Let's not confuse strict regulation with arbitrary and capricious plug-pulling.

    Let's also not confuse "capricious plug-pulling" with _daring_ the OWNER
of the machine the list is running on, and THE GUY WHO RUNS THE LIST to kick
your sorry racist ass off the list. He called your bluff, and any day now,
I expect him to prevent you from even posting in your own name. Not that that
will stop you.

    Like an parasite, you will infest any host you can find through any
possible vector. 


Petro, Christopher C.
petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff>
snow@smoke.suba.com

snow <snow@smoke.suba.com> writes:

>     Let's also not confuse "capricious plug-pulling" with _daring_ the OWNER
> of the machine the list is running on, and THE GUY WHO RUNS THE LIST to kick
> your sorry racist ass off the list. He called your bluff, and any day now,
> I expect him to prevent you from even posting in your own name. Not that that

Unfortunately, such actions would be consistent with John's other recent
acts of censorship.  I find it regrettable, since I used to have a lot of
respect for him.

But of course he's within his rights to ruin his own credibility.

As for "racist", I think this label is more applicable not to me, but to
the individual who characterized a group of (then) subscribers to this
list as "crazy Russians".

---

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

On Sun, 3 Nov 1996, Will French wrote:

>   Except it's not very effective, is it, since he's still
> posting flames?  In any case, it's an admission on John
> Gilmore's part that libertarianism can't work without some
> measure of authoritarianism; the only argument is over _just how
> much_ authoritarianism we need.
>   
>   I'm quite upset about this.  Up to now I was able to tell
> people that "there is at least one mailing list on the net that
> functions in a completely open manner".  No more.

One of the things you folks are missing is that this list is 
crypto-anarchy friendly.  Anarchy isn't chaos, it's self rule.  One of 
the things that us anarchists do is to deal with problems like Vulis.  
The usual methods are to flame back, to ignore, etc.

If the problem doesn't go away, then we'll make it go away.  Those who 
have the ability to make it go away will.  i.e. the folks that have 
control over the list server.  And that's the beauty of it.

=============================================================================
 + ^ + |  Ray Arachelian    |FL|       KAOS KERAUNOS KYBERNETOS      |==/|\==
  \|/  |sunder@sundernet.com|UL|__Nothing_is_true,_all_is_permitted!_|=/\|/\=
<--+-->| ------------------ |CG|What part of 'Congress shall make no |=\/|\/=
  /|\  | "A toast to Odin,  |KA| law abridging the freedom of speech'|==\|/==
 + v + |God of screwdrivers"|AK|        do you not understand?       |=======
========================http://www.sundernet.com=============================
      If the Macintosh is a woman...  Then Windows is a Transvestite!
           ActiveX! ActiveX! Format Hard drive? Just say yes!

At 4:54 PM -0700 11/3/96, Will French wrote:
>  Except it's not very effective, is it, since he's still
>posting flames?  In any case, it's an admission on John
>Gilmore's part that libertarianism can't work without some
>measure of authoritarianism; the only argument is over _just how
>much_ authoritarianism we need.

I disagree.

The difference between John's actions and 'authoritarianism' is John
runs this list himself for all of us.  We do not pay him taxes to do it,
we do not have financial interest in the computers he uses to do it and
in the final analysis, he is not beholden to us, nor we - him.

Ben Weiss                          Digital Arts & Sciences Corporation
mailto://Ben@iis.DAScorp.com       (formerly Digital Collections, Inc.)
mailto://lazylion@idiom.com        http://www.DAScorp.com/
WB5QAL/6 (Ham Radio)               (510) 814-7200 x.240 voice

    Apple Partner, Apple Media Partner & Acius 4th Dimension Partner

  What part of 'Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech'
    did you not understand?

Disclaimer:My company doesn't tell me what to say and I don't always say
           stuff with which they agree, but we still get along just fine

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

On Sun, 3 Nov 1996, Will French wrote:

>   Except it's not very effective, is it, since he's still
> posting flames?  In any case, it's an admission on John
> Gilmore's part that libertarianism can't work without some
> measure of authoritarianism; the only argument is over _just how
> much_ authoritarianism we need.

It's only authoritarianism if the government is involved.  Clearly, the
government isn't involved in this matter.

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

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

iQEVAwUBMn1dFCzIPc7jvyFpAQHBfQf/Uo9yWMCsTiqP4YFUGltOEve4syhDTU+M
EuW8sshn8yaQxWu3ttjSbTbvBjFp2v/zWUmegx3GKfS/PDog97rdCYNjS9yVEEk5
GfuLjqCICq0yrUbyWcW5ZXOpWEBQWkAkoi1ehPbw3wPpfL2xwvQe392680DXJ5Zq
Ii3TFVVMAVQYPkljzrtrdtQy4q8BPJZn8byZpGSIuMBZEYzmln+hLjb15S/iZrQc
K9arzbXP7ENkagg46AOWI8ZylQ2JS9RsjbEaEBHPI3uHY54/NGHmXPEReWZXnOvo
d570tthrbA8vqJ27UTBqtP2B4MOPW+wMffgasqDbmBv4mpAr7tbMFQ==
=Rj13
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

You really, I mean *really*, need to read up on the fundamentals of 
libertarianism. Because you don't seem to have any idea what 
libertarianism is all about.

Sigh,
-- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred.
   Defeat the Demopublican Unity Party. Vote no on Clinton/Dole in November.
   Vote Harry Browne for President.


On Sun, 3 Nov 1996, Will French wrote:

>   Except it's not very effective, is it, since he's still
> posting flames?  In any case, it's an admission on John
> Gilmore's part that libertarianism can't work without some
> measure of authoritarianism; the only argument is over _just how
> much_ authoritarianism we need.
>   
>   I'm quite upset about this.  Up to now I was able to tell
> people that "there is at least one mailing list on the net that
> functions in a completely open manner".  No more.
> 
> 
> Will French  <wfrench@interport.net>
>