Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News

The Netly News
http://www.netlynews.com/
November 11, 1996

Cypher-Censored
By Declan McCullagh (declan@well.com)
                                       
       The cypherpunks mailing list, so legend goes, coalesced around two
   principles: the dissemination of strong encryption and an absolute
   commitment to free speech. It was a kind of crypto-anarchist utopia:
   Here was a place where anonymity was encouraged and PGP-signed
   postings were the norm -- and nobody seemed to be in control.
   
       That is, until recently, when Dimitri Vulis was given the boot.
   After he refused to stop posting flames, rants and uninspired personal
   attacks, Vulis was summarily removed from the mailing list.
   
       Now, normally, when someone gets evicted from a mailing list, it
   excites little attention. But here was an ironic -- some would say
   momentous -- event: The list is run, after all, by John Gilmore, the
   EFF cofounder, a cypherpunk god who is famous for having once said
   that the Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around
   it. And it was none other than Gilmore who gave Vulis the boot. The
   shunning of Vulis was "an act of leadership," Gilmore said.
   
       Thus began a debate over what the concept of censorship means in a
   forum devoted to opposing it. Did Gilmore have the right to show Vulis
   the virtual door? Or should he have let the ad hominem attacks
   continue, encouraging people to set their filters accordingly? The
   incident raises deeper questions about how a virtual community can
   prevent one person from ruining the forum for all and whether only
   government controls on expression can be called "censorship."
   
        Vulis, a 31-year old Russian emigre who completed a PhD in
   mathematics last year at the City University of New York, is described
   as sociable, even friendly, by people who have met him. Online,
   though, he's almost notorious. His .sig file, for instance, proudly
   points out that he's a former Kook of the Month; Vulis was also a
   Net-legend and even has the alt.fan.dimitri-vulis newsgroup named
   after him.
   
       Vulis portrays himself as a victim, but as I posted to the list
   last week, I disagree. Anyone who's spent any time on the
   100-plus-messages-a-day list can read for themselves the kind of nasty
   daily messages that came from Vulis's keyboard. 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.
   
       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.
   
       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.
   
       But what if your private club's express purpose is to cherish free
   speech? That's where the terrain gets mucky. One 'punk wrote: "For
   someone who espouses freedom of speech to arbitrarily censor someone
   is indeed hypocritical." Another called it a "big cypherpunkish move"
   that couldn't be condoned "even bearing in mind the inane and
   wearisome behaviour of Dr. Vulis." Still others said that this
   demonstrated that "libertarianism can't work without some measure of
   authoritarianism." (Libertarianism being the primordial flame war
   topic, the debate nearly consumed itself at this point.)
   
       Vulis told me yesterday: "I'm particularly disappointed by John
   Gilmore's actions. I've known him and communicated with him before.
   His treatment of me was rude and unprofessional and inappropriate." In
   posts to the mailing list, Vulis levels the additional criticism that
   it was "arbitrary and capricious" and that he was not notified that he
   would be forcibly unsubscribed.
   
       This week Vulis busied himself by saying that now Gilmore can be
   sued for what happens on cypherpunks, arguing that the list owner is
   exercising greater control and so is subject to greater liability. Of
   course, in this country anyone can sue for anything. But it's highly
   unlikely the suit would go anywhere. Solveig Bernstein, a lawyer with
   the Cato Institute, says: "Chances are in a defamation lawsuit he'd be
   treated like a publisher or bookstore owner.. They exercise some
   control over content and enjoy pretty broad immunity from lawsuits."
   
       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."
   
       What does Vulis's ouster mean to the community that sprang up
   around this mailing list, of which he had been a member for nearly
   three years? Many of his peers think he did it for attention or
   notoriety; one longtime list-denizen declined to be interviewed for
   fear of encouraging him. (If that's his goal, he's already succeeded.
   Will Rodger from Inter@ctive Week and Lewis Koch from Upside Magazine
   are writing about this.)
   
       Other cypherpunks wonder why Vulis is abrasive online, yet
   mild-mannered in person; Gilmore likened him to "a Jekyll-and-Hyde
   personality."
   
       The flap comes at a time when other prominent cypherpunks are
   leaving, citing too many flames and too little content. Perry Metzger,
   another longtime member, announced last month he would start his own,
   moderated mailing list. The hard-core programmers have moved on. Yet
   the list membership has never been higher, at 1,949 direct
   subscribers. And the cyber-rights issues the group discusses have
   never been more important.
   
       Ironically, tools like anonymous remailers that the cypherpunks
   labored to create now make it impossible to get rid of Vulis
   completely. Blocking posts from remailers is unthinkable to the
   cypherpunks. So the embattled Russian émigré continues to read the
   list under a pseudonym and appears to be posting as frequently as
   ever. But perhaps Gilmore succeeded in part. If not more polite,
   Vulis's messages now are at least on-topic.
   
###

nelson@crynwr.com wrote:
>  > So you disagree.  Well, the last sentence above says it all - this "list"
>  > that you and 1900+ other people spend so much time on is "just property"
>  > (like a slave), it's censorable (meaning freedom of speech is *specifically
>  > excluded*), and it's terminable without notice (meaning that it's really
>  > just one person's private fantasy, and we'll all bozos on the bus, as it were).

> Yup.  Clearly, then you will wish to start your own mailing list,
> which you will promise is not property, not censorable, and not
> terminable without notice.  Do it!  Don't let us tell you you can't
> (not that anyone is)!  I suspect that you will quickly change your
> opinion of mailing list owners.

I'll bet you're one of those people who tell your kids "Just wait 'till
you grow up - then you'll realize just how smart us parents really are",
etc. etc.  Am I right, Mr. Cliche?  Why do you even bother?

> So you disagree.  Well, the last sentence above says it all - this "list"
 > that you and 1900+ other people spend so much time on is "just property"
 > (like a slave), it's censorable (meaning freedom of speech is *specifically
 > excluded*), and it's terminable without notice (meaning that it's really
 > just one person's private fantasy, and we'll all bozos on the bus, as it were).

Yup.  Clearly, then you will wish to start your own mailing list,
which you will promise is not property, not censorable, and not
terminable without notice.  Do it!  Don't let us tell you you can't
(not that anyone is)!  I suspect that you will quickly change your
opinion of mailing list owners.

-russ <nelson@crynwr.com>    http://www.crynwr.com/~nelson
Crynwr Software sells network driver support    | PGP ok
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | The more corrupt the state,
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | +1 315 268 9201 FAX   | the more numerous the laws.

The address you mailed to is no longer valid.
This is probably because the user in question was an
old Open Net subscriber. Open Net is NO LONGER an ISP,
and has not been since May 1996.

We have no redirection address for that user. Please
remove them from any mailing lists you might have.

This response was generated automatically.

Declan's done an excellent journalistic job. I understand that because of the
space limitations he couldn't quote everything that everyone told him, so one
small point in his article might be misinterpreted by a casual reader:

Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> writes:
>    though, he's almost notorious. His .sig file, for instance, proudly
Why "almost"? :-)
>    points out that he's a former Kook of the Month; Vulis was also a
There's no such thing as "former" KOTM, Declan. That's a lifetime achievement!
>    Net-legend and even has the alt.fan.dimitri-vulis newsgroup named
>    after him.
(I newgrouped a.f.d-v myself, actually. But it does get traffic :-)
>    daily messages that came from Vulis's keyboard. 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.

I told Declan that agree 100% - John Gilmore has the right to do anything
he likes with his private mailing list. The 1st Amendment does not apply.

However censorship needn't be government-imposed.

>        For his part, Gilmore calls removing the Russian mathematician "an
>    act of leadership." He says: "It said we've all been putting up with

An act of censorship, an act of cowardice, an act of Hitler-like leadership...

>    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."

If John Gilmore ascribes this opinion to me, then he's lying outright.

---

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

If Vulis thinks I did an "excellent job," then perhaps I should have 
criticized him more harshly.

-Declan


On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:

> Declan's done an excellent journalistic job. I understand that because of the
> space limitations he couldn't quote everything that everyone told him, so one
> small point in his article might be misinterpreted by a casual reader:
> 
> Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> writes:
> >    though, he's almost notorious. His .sig file, for instance, proudly
> Why "almost"? :-)
> >    points out that he's a former Kook of the Month; Vulis was also a
> There's no such thing as "former" KOTM, Declan. That's a lifetime achievement!
> >    Net-legend and even has the alt.fan.dimitri-vulis newsgroup named
> >    after him.
> (I newgrouped a.f.d-v myself, actually. But it does get traffic :-)
> >    daily messages that came from Vulis's keyboard. 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.
> 
> I told Declan that agree 100% - John Gilmore has the right to do anything
> he likes with his private mailing list. The 1st Amendment does not apply.
> 
> However censorship needn't be government-imposed.
> 
> >        For his part, Gilmore calls removing the Russian mathematician "an
> >    act of leadership." He says: "It said we've all been putting up with
> 
> An act of censorship, an act of cowardice, an act of Hitler-like leadership...
> 
> >    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."
> 
> If John Gilmore ascribes this opinion to me, then he's lying outright.
> 
> ---
> 
> Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
> Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
> 


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

Declan McCullagh <declan@eff.org> writes:

> If Vulis thinks I did an "excellent job," then perhaps I should have 
> criticized him more harshly.

What's the connection?

---

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

Declan McCullagh wrote:
> 
> If Vulis thinks I did an "excellent job," then perhaps I should have
> criticized him more harshly.

No, you should have ignored the story, because there wasn't one. It's 
quite rich that your story criticizes journalists for doing exactly what 
you did: give Vulis far more attention than he deserves. In case you've 
forgotten what you wrote:

                 What does Vulis's ouster
               mean to the community that
               sprang up around this mailing
               list, of which he had been a
               member for nearly three
               years? Many of his peers think
               he did it for attention or
               notoriety; one longtime
               list-denizen declined to be
               interviewed for fear of
               encouraging him. (If that's his
               goal, he's already succeeded.
               Will Rodger from Inter@ctive
               Week and Lewis Koch from
               Upside Magazine are writing
               about this.) 

As much as I'm tempted, I believe no further comment is necessary.

-rich

Declan McCullagh wrote:
> The Netly News
> http://www.netlynews.com/
> November 11, 1996
> Cypher-Censored
> By Declan McCullagh (declan@well.com)
>        The cypherpunks mailing list, so legend goes, coalesced around two
>    principles: the dissemination of strong encryption and an absolute
>    commitment to free speech. It was a kind of crypto-anarchist utopia:
>    Here was a place where anonymity was encouraged and PGP-signed
>    postings were the norm -- and nobody seemed to be in control.
>        That is, until recently, when Dimitri Vulis was given the boot.
>    After he refused to stop posting flames, rants and uninspired personal
>    attacks, Vulis was summarily removed from the mailing list.

[snippo]

>        Vulis portrays himself as a victim, but as I posted to the list
>    last week, I disagree. Anyone who's spent any time on the
>    100-plus-messages-a-day list can read for themselves the kind of nasty
>    daily messages that came from Vulis's keyboard. 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.

[mo' snippo]

So you disagree.  Well, the last sentence above says it all - this "list"
that you and 1900+ other people spend so much time on is "just property"
(like a slave), it's censorable (meaning freedom of speech is *specifically
excluded*), and it's terminable without notice (meaning that it's really
just one person's private fantasy, and we'll all bozos on the bus, as it were).

You and several other "personal friends/insiders" to John Gilmore must be
laughing your butts off at the erstwhile schmoes like myself, who labor to
reason with persons like yourself and "gods" like John Gilmore, who, after
all, are obviously superior to us schmoes, since we sit and beg for our
portions of email emanating from John "God" Gilmore's Holy Computer.

Why do you bother telling us that:

  "He can moderate the postings"
  "He can censor material"
  "He can shut the whole thing down"

Why?  Is this your way (or "God"'s way) of waving your dicks in our faces?

Well, I'll tell you what.  You can run your list (or kiss someone's butt
who does), you can shut the thing down, and you can take a long walk off
a short pier for all I or most anyone gives a damn, but let's call a spade
a spade.  You're a suck-up, and Gilmore is a swaggering, overbearing, tin-
plated dictator with delusions of Godhood.  Satisfied?

Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net> writes:
>
> >        Vulis portrays himself as a victim, but as I posted to the list
> >    last week, I disagree. Anyone who's spent any time on the
> >    100-plus-messages-a-day list can read for themselves the kind of nasty
> >    daily messages that came from Vulis's keyboard. 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.

Declan is putting his journalistic credibility on the line here...
What's he disagreeing with? John exercised his right to censor me, so I'm
a victim and this list as a whole is a victim. John can shut the whole thing
down and it will again be a victim. John's credibility was also a victim.

> So you disagree.  Well, the last sentence above says it all - this "list"
> that you and 1900+ other people spend so much time on is "just property"
> (like a slave), it's censorable (meaning freedom of speech is *specifically
> excluded*), and it's terminable without notice (meaning that it's really
> just one person's private fantasy, and we'll all bozos on the bus, as it were

Welcome to Cypherpunks! It's remarkable that Declan is hosting the next
DCpunks gathering.

> You and several other "personal friends/insiders" to John Gilmore must be
> laughing your butts off at the erstwhile schmoes like myself, who labor to
> reason with persons like yourself and "gods" like John Gilmore, who, after
> all, are obviously superior to us schmoes, since we sit and beg for our
> portions of email emanating from John "God" Gilmore's Holy Computer.

And heaven forbid you express an opinion that one of John "God" Gilmore's
ass-licking friends doesn't know what the hell he's talking about, and support
it with evidence. Declan spent about an hour picking my brain as to why Timmy
May doesn't know shit about cryptography, is a flamer and a racist and an
asshole. He chose not to print it, because he had nothing to rebut it with.

> Why do you bother telling us that:
>
>   "He can moderate the postings"
>   "He can censor material"
>   "He can shut the whole thing down"
>
> Why?  Is this your way (or "God"'s way) of waving your dicks in our faces?

Yes. John Gilmore suffers from the realization of his own inadequacy.

> Well, I'll tell you what.  You can run your list (or kiss someone's butt
> who does), you can shut the thing down, and you can take a long walk off
> a short pier for all I or most anyone gives a damn, but let's call a spade
> a spade.  You're a suck-up, and Gilmore is a swaggering, overbearing, tin-
> plated dictator with delusions of Godhood.  Satisfied?

You forgot "limp-wristed, EFFeminate, bearded, 50-ish blonde".

Thanks for the comments, Dale.

---

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

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
> You forgot "limp-wristed, EFFeminate, bearded, 50-ish blonde".

What is this supposed to mean? Is that some cultural thing?

	- Igor.

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

> Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
> > You forgot "limp-wristed, EFFeminate, bearded, 50-ish blonde".
>
> What is this supposed to mean? Is that some cultural thing?

"Who", not "what".

---

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

The mere fact that a privately-owned discussion group becomes popular does
not mean that it becomes a public forum.

Say I start a poetry mailing list to discuss Blake's writings. I have
three people on it. One becomes obnoxious and emailbombs the list since he
disagrees with my interpretation of "A Memorable Fancy." Do I have the
right to kick him off? How is this different from a private poetry reading
in my home?

-Declan

"Prisons are built with stones of Law, brothels with bricks of
Religion." --WB





On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Dale Thorn wrote:

> Declan McCullagh wrote:
> > The Netly News
> > http://www.netlynews.com/
> > November 11, 1996
> > Cypher-Censored
> > By Declan McCullagh (declan@well.com)
> >        The cypherpunks mailing list, so legend goes, coalesced around two
> >    principles: the dissemination of strong encryption and an absolute
> >    commitment to free speech. It was a kind of crypto-anarchist utopia:
> >    Here was a place where anonymity was encouraged and PGP-signed
> >    postings were the norm -- and nobody seemed to be in control.
> >        That is, until recently, when Dimitri Vulis was given the boot.
> >    After he refused to stop posting flames, rants and uninspired personal
> >    attacks, Vulis was summarily removed from the mailing list.
> 
> [snippo]
> 
> >        Vulis portrays himself as a victim, but as I posted to the list
> >    last week, I disagree. Anyone who's spent any time on the
> >    100-plus-messages-a-day list can read for themselves the kind of nasty
> >    daily messages that came from Vulis's keyboard. 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.
> 
> [mo' snippo]
> 
> So you disagree.  Well, the last sentence above says it all - this "list"
> that you and 1900+ other people spend so much time on is "just property"
> (like a slave), it's censorable (meaning freedom of speech is *specifically
> excluded*), and it's terminable without notice (meaning that it's really
> just one person's private fantasy, and we'll all bozos on the bus, as it were).
> 
> You and several other "personal friends/insiders" to John Gilmore must be
> laughing your butts off at the erstwhile schmoes like myself, who labor to
> reason with persons like yourself and "gods" like John Gilmore, who, after
> all, are obviously superior to us schmoes, since we sit and beg for our
> portions of email emanating from John "God" Gilmore's Holy Computer.
> 
> Why do you bother telling us that:
> 
>   "He can moderate the postings"
>   "He can censor material"
>   "He can shut the whole thing down"
> 
> Why?  Is this your way (or "God"'s way) of waving your dicks in our faces?
> 
> Well, I'll tell you what.  You can run your list (or kiss someone's butt
> who does), you can shut the thing down, and you can take a long walk off
> a short pier for all I or most anyone gives a damn, but let's call a spade
> a spade.  You're a suck-up, and Gilmore is a swaggering, overbearing, tin-
> plated dictator with delusions of Godhood.  Satisfied?
> 
>

Declan McCullagh wrote:
> The mere fact that a privately-owned discussion group becomes popular does
> not mean that it becomes a public forum.
> Say I start a poetry mailing list to discuss Blake's writings. I have
> three people on it. One becomes obnoxious and emailbombs the list since he
> disagrees with my interpretation of "A Memorable Fancy." Do I have the
> right to kick him off? How is this different from a private poetry reading
> in my home?

A gentleman whose name I don't have once wrote:  "Freedom (if it is worth
something and to be preserved) is not the freedom to do whatever you want
to do, it is the freedom to do what you ought to do."

One could look at it both ways, of course.

But in all fairness, let's look at a seemingly unrelated example for
perspective:

Say I work in a software shop, and my boss, who has a big monitor and a
really good 1280 x 1024 video card, makes a large document with all kinds
of fonts, including very small ones, which he can see clearly on his
system.  He gives the .DOC to me to review, however, I have a cheap VGA
card and 12-inch monitor, and can't see much of the text clearly.

My boss gets on my case, and rides me because I'm stalling on the review,
since I can't see the text clearly.  I point out that he's not being fair,
but other people at work join his side and tell me that "He's the owner,
he has the right to do whatever he wants, including terminate your job",
and so forth.

(But he's still an asshole, you see).  You do understand that, yes?