Re: Censorship on cypherpunks

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

  Until now, I'd considered the list as a model of a libertarian
society, with the listowner as the government.  My point is that
if a mailing list (where physical force is generally not a
factor) can't be run without arbitrary sanctions against
members, how could anyone ever hope for a whole society, with a
real, gun-toting government, to run that way?


Will French  <wfrench@interport.net>

On Sun, 3 Nov 1996, Will French wrote:

>   Until now, I'd considered the list as a model of a libertarian
> society, with the listowner as the government.  My point is that
> if a mailing list (where physical force is generally not a
> factor) can't be run without arbitrary sanctions against
> members, how could anyone ever hope for a whole society, with a
> real, gun-toting government, to run that way?


Simple.  Go back and read the Constitution of the USA.  You have the 
people carry arms and form militias which only act in the defense of the 
land if need be.  If the people carry arms, they can't be overthrown by a 
gun toting forceful government with such ease as you suppose.  The most 
civilized societies are those where everyone is armed.  You'd be 
surprised at the amount of politeness this encourages.

=============================================================================
 + ^ + |  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!

> > It's only authoritarianism if the government is involved. 
> > Clearly, the government isn't involved in this matter.
>   Until now, I'd considered the list as a model of a libertarian
> society, with the listowner as the government.  My point is that
> if a mailing list (where physical force is generally not a
> factor) can't be run without arbitrary sanctions against
> members, how could anyone ever hope for a whole society, with a
> real, gun-toting government, to run that way?

     At first I had a big problem with Vulva being kicked off the list, 
but I thought about it a while, and as more information developed I came
to the following conclusion:

     Vulis wasn't banned from the list because of _off topic_ posts, nor
was he booted for descenting opnions. He was not removed without warning,
nor for an occasional flame. He was removed for persistent off-topic 
flaming, after at least one warning, and several people asking him to stop.

     The closest anology I can find in real life would be a bar, were people
any person (well, any person old enough, but we'll ignore that) is allowed 
to wander in, order a drink, watch TV, shout at the screen ocassionally 
eat the pretzels and etc. Off in the corner you have a drunk dancing off
time to the noise on the jukebox, but most of the patrons can ignore him.

    Vulis is sitting square in the middle of the bar, sloshed to the gills
throwing pretzels and peanuts at both fans of the opposing team, and 
fans of his team. Screaming at the top of his lungs about the quarterback 
for a totally different team fumbling the ball in the 1970 world series.

    The bar tender asks Vulis politely to cease and desist. Vulis pours 
his beer on him. Vulis then demands another drink, insisting it is his
right to a beer. At this point the Big Bearded Guy at the door with the 
USMC tattoo, and the 37 knife scars drops his ham sized mit on Vulis's  
shoulder. 

     "Buddy" he says "If you don't quiet down and watch the game I'm going
to have to ask you to leave".   

     "Fuck you, you ignorant sovek <spit> pansy" was Vulis' reply. 

     The next sound was Vulis' head opening the door so the rest of his body 
could follow it onto the street, where he stands screaming curses at the 
patrons and the doorman.

     Of course now it is quieter inside, and the noise level will drop even
more once Vulis quiets down, sobers up, or just goes home, and after the 
other drunks quit pondering the situation aloud, and go back to discussing 
the game. Then the only obstruction will be the drunk in the corner who 
keeps stumbling into the jukebox, causing the record to scratch.

     Then there is the patron who left the bar a couple weeks ago in disgust
because he didn't want to talk _about_ football, he just wanted to 
discuss how to make the pitchers better able to slam dunk, and he is planning
to open his own bar down the street...


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

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

[snippo]

> The closest anology I can find in real life would be a bar, were people
> any person (well, any person old enough, but we'll ignore that) is allowed
> to wander in, order a drink, watch TV, shout at the screen ocassionally
> eat the pretzels and etc. Off in the corner you have a drunk dancing off
> time to the noise on the jukebox, but most of the patrons can ignore him.
> Vulis is sitting square in the middle of the bar, sloshed to the gills
> throwing pretzels and peanuts at both fans of the opposing team, and
> fans of his team. Screaming at the top of his lungs about the quarterback
> for a totally different team fumbling the ball in the 1970 world series.

[snip, snip]

A vastly more accurate analogy is that the "Doctor" is not in fact inside of the bar,
as none of the cypherpunks are inside of anyone's home but their own.  Vulis is some-
where else, sending his brand of beer to the bar in competition with a number of
other "vendors".  Customers and vendors alike complain that Vulis' bottles have
offensive portraits on them, possibly famous sports figures in an unflattering light.

So the bar owner bans Vulis' beer, but he sends it in anyway through a third party,
and several patrons discover that they can easily remove the outer label from the
bottle and see the original portraits.

There are similarities to Prohibition here.

Now the bar owner, being the owner, can throw out anyone he wants to anytime, and he
gets away with this with little or no trouble lawsuit-wise, since the courts are much
more lenient with owners of bars and rock-n-roll venues that with, say, Denny's
Restaurants.

As I've said before, all forums on the net can be arranged at some point in the future
to be "privately" owned, and the question is, can there be a free speech forum where
you won't be arbitrarily banned?

> snow wrote:
> > > > It's only authoritarianism if the government is involved.
> > > > Clearly, the government isn't involved in this matter.
> [snippo]
> > fans of his team. Screaming at the top of his lungs about the quarterback
> > for a totally different team fumbling the ball in the 1970 world series.
> [snip, snip]
> A vastly more accurate analogy is that the "Doctor" is not in fact inside of the bar,
> as none of the cypherpunks are inside of anyone's home but their own.  Vulis is some-
> where else, sending his brand of beer to the bar in competition with a number of
> other "vendors".  Customers and vendors alike complain that Vulis' bottles have
> offensive portraits on them, possibly famous sports figures in an unflattering light.

     Side note: Could you please set your mail reader to format messages 
to < 80 columns? I, and I assume several others here use Unix CLI based mail
readers that wrap your text weirdly.

> So the bar owner bans Vulis' beer, but he sends it in anyway through a third party,
> and several patrons discover that they can easily remove the outer label from the
> bottle and see the original portraits.

      He isn't "putting different labels" on his horse piss, he can still 
post under his own name. 

     Your analogy makes no sense. 

> There are similarities to Prohibition here.
> Now the bar owner, being the owner, can throw out anyone he wants to anytime, and he
> gets away with this with little or no trouble lawsuit-wise, since the courts are much
> more lenient with owners of bars and rock-n-roll venues that with, say, Denny's
> Restaurants.

     Not really. Any establishment has the rights (and in some cases the 
responcibility) to remove patrons for their _actions_. If you go into dennys 
and act like a total ass, abusing other patrons, and daring the Management to
throw you out, you will most likely be eating at McD's. 

     Bar and Club owners probably do have more latitude to pick and choose
who they allow _in_ to their establishment, but both have the right to eject
patrons who start shit. 
 
> As I've said before, all forums on the net can be arranged at some point in the future
> to be "privately" owned, and the question is, can there be a free speech forum where
> you won't be arbitrarily banned?

     Yes. You start your own forum. When Perry was looking for a home for a 
new list, I offered a machine that I have up as a server, it is already running
a mailing list that offer to a certain group, on that list I have very 
few rules, but they are enforced. Outside of 2 areas, anything can be discussed.I put those 2 areas (Politics and Non-subject related Commercial posts) off 
limits to keep traffic down. When one of the users and I started to get into
politics, I noted the problem (It had been over a year since I had put the 
rules into place, and I even forgot--it never came up) and started another 
list (which promptly fell over and died) for that express purpose. 

     I and not a rocket scientist, but maintaining a low use unix server and 
majordomo are not that difficult (I wouldn't want to deal with a list the 
size of CP, but that is a different matter), and 
----------------Here is the big point--------------------------
as long as you have access to A PRESS of any kind, you are not being censored. 

     Vulis is probably much more intelligent than I, hell I couldn't get a 
masters in Math, much less a Piled Higher and Deeper. He probably makesa a 
good deal more money than I do, so he shouldn't have much difficulty setting
up his own server, with it's own web site, remailer, and Mailing list in 
competetion with this one. 

     Let him start his own bar as Mr. Metzger is doing. 


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