[REBUTTAL] Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News

[This is a rebuttal to a misguided news article.]

> Cypher-Censored
> By Declan McCullagh (declan@well.com)

Thank you for leaving your email address. It makes this easier.

You people (read: the unaware and hypnotized masses, which includes
reporters who's desire for attention and political safety holds them
in line with the consensual illusion) keep missing the real issue, and
substituting issues which only hold themselves in place.

[Those of you who know, please excuse the mediaistic terms used in
this rebuttal. One must use the symbols one is given to communicate
at the level of understanding of those who use them.]

>        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."

"Cyberspace" is interacted with using tools under the control of the
interactor. 

In person-to-person interaction, one's only real defense against what
one decides to call "unwanted" is to remove oneself from the arena of
interaction. It may not be possible to ignore or run away from certain
sources of input. 

In cyberspace, however, it is not only possible but necessary and even
desirable. Cyberspace allows one to interact with many more people
then can fit in any given physical space. One simply -cannot- receive
input from 2000 people and not employ some sort of filtering
mechanism. Indeed, cyberspace has many buttons and switches (and even
programmatic filters) which allow one to -completely- control whom one
interacts with.

Logically, we must conclude that those who frequently and repeatedly
cry for the censorship or removal of any source of input from
cyberspace are either:

	-quite clueless about the tools at their disposal
	-ideologically or personally opposed to the source of input
or	-in need of large amounts of attention from others

Cluelessness can be overcome by appropriate teaching and interest in
learning (the latter issue we can safely assume users of popular but
ineffectual windowing OSes are not able to overcome). Such
cluelessness, however, is not and should never be a reason for 
censorship.

A need for attention can be overcome by refraining from the denial
that the need exists, followed by careful observation of that need. 
More can be said on this, but this is not the forum. Such a need
is not and should never be a reason for censorship. 

Idelological opposition is another matter entirely. To understand this
better, we'll need to observe this in action. Here is an example:

>        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. 

"Nasty" is, of course, by this reporter's standard of "nasty". Granted
this standard may in fact be shared by Mr. Gilmore, however a shared
standard is not necessarily an appropriate or correct standard. 

>    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.

Notice how, once the opposition is admitted to, the rationalization
begins. Suddenly this is not a matter of censorship, but of ownership.
Just as suddenly, the classic anti-free-speech arguments of "if you
don't like it, start yer own" begin to surface. (Anyone ever notice
how this resembles the "love it or leave it" mentality of certain
American patriotic organizations?)

What would ideological opposition be without the attempt at analogy? 
Here we witness another example:

>        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.

Notice that the net is compared to a home or private club. Actually
the net is neither, however that would not serve the purposes of this
analogy, so this fact is convienently forgotton. 

The net is a wonderful place. Any ideology, no matter who disagrees or
agrees with it, can be expressed and discussed here...assuming those
who oppose this ideology do not have their way with the source of
expression. There is a more refined and deeper truth to be found
in the very existence of the set of all human ideologies, which is
just beginning to show itself to some netizens. Unfortunately, this
truth can be ruined when people equate some notion of value to 
sources which ignore all but a tiny subset of the set of all ideologies:

>        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.

Value to whom and for what? If the editorial control produces one
small element of the set of all ideologies, then this is only of value
to the people who support this ideology. Given that the set of 
people who support an issue is smaller than the set of people
who support and oppose an issue, would the value not increase
by allowing both sides of an issue equal speaking time? 

>        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."

It is sad to note that this is the leader of one of America's
forerunning organizations of freedom who says these words. For all
*his* ideology of free speech, this statement reveals the hypocrasy he
lives with for all to see. The true litmus test of free speech is to
encounter speech that you *want* to censor.

Mr. Gilmore, and other like minded parties, might want to consider
what would happen if one parent company owned *all* communications
media. Would they they be so supportive of the ideology of ownership
and communciation they espouse?
------
Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org 
Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet

Truth (n.) - the most deadly weapon ever discovered by humanity. Capable 
of destroying entire perceptual sets, cultures, and realities. Outlawed 
by all governments everywhere. Possession is normally punishable by death.

Dave Hayes wrote:
> 
> > Cypher-Censored
> > By Declan McCullagh (declan@well.com)[...]
> A need for attention can be overcome by refraining from the denial
> that the need exists, followed by careful observation of that need.
> More can be said on this, but this is not the forum. Such a need
> is not and should never be a reason for censorship.

In other words, Dave Hayes wants his mommy.

-rich

> [This is a rebuttal to a misguided news article.]
> > Cypher-Censored
> > By Declan McCullagh (declan@well.com)
> Thank you for leaving your email address. It makes this easier.
> You people (read: the unaware and hypnotized masses, which includes
> reporters who's desire for attention and political safety holds them
> in line with the consensual illusion) keep missing the real issue, and
> substituting issues which only hold themselves in place.

     So you are explaining your problems in advance. Good, it tells 
thoughtful readers to take you with a grain of salt.  

> [Those of you who know, please excuse the mediaistic terms used in
> this rebuttal. One must use the symbols one is given to communicate
> at the level of understanding of those who use them.]

    Ok, I will try to keep from using too long words so you can understand
me. 

> In person-to-person interaction, one's only real defense against what
> one decides to call "unwanted" is to remove oneself from the arena of
> interaction. It may not be possible to ignore or run away from certain
> sources of input. 

     You forget "shutting down" the source of input. Turning off the 
radio, TV etc, or turning off the person speaking. 

> Logically, we must conclude that those who frequently and repeatedly
> cry for the censorship or removal of any source of input from
> cyberspace are either:
> 
> 	-quite clueless about the tools at their disposal
> 	-ideologically or personally opposed to the source of input
> or	-in need of large amounts of attention from others

    No problems with that. 

> >    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.
> 
> Notice how, once the opposition is admitted to, the rationalization
> begins. Suddenly this is not a matter of censorship, but of ownership.
> Just as suddenly, the classic anti-free-speech arguments of "if you
> don't like it, start yer own" begin to surface. (Anyone ever notice
> how this resembles the "love it or leave it" mentality of certain
> American patriotic organizations?)

     It still isn't censorship. Censorship, at least in my dictionary, 
refers to censor, which uses the word "Official" several times. Mr. 
Gilmore is not an "Official" in a government sense, he maybe in the EFF
sense, but this is not an "Official" EFF organ, so that doesn't count. 

     He is the OWNER of this list, and the machine it runs on. If he chooses
(which he didn't) to keep someone from using the list, it is his right.

> What would ideological opposition be without the attempt at analogy? 
> Here we witness another example:
> 
> >        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.
> 
> Notice that the net is compared to a home or private club. Actually

     WRONG. the "net' wasn't compared to either a home or a private club,
THIS LIST WAS. No one has the right to kick anyone off public streets, the
police _do_, but I seriously doubt that they could arrest you for refusing.
Gilmore didn't "Ban" Vulis from "The Net" (in fact he didn't even ban him 
from the list, he just removed him from the distribution list), he didn't
even try.

     He also didn't prevent Vulis from posting, tho' he could have. 

> the net is neither, however that would not serve the purposes of this
> analogy, so this fact is convienently forgotton. 
> The net is a wonderful place. Any ideology, no matter who disagrees or
> agrees with it, can be expressed and discussed here...assuming those
> who oppose this ideology do not have their way with the source of
> expression. There is a more refined and deeper truth to be found
> in the very existence of the set of all human ideologies, which is
> just beginning to show itself to some netizens. Unfortunately, this
> truth can be ruined when people equate some notion of value to 
> sources which ignore all but a tiny subset of the set of all ideologies:

     Again I repeat myself:

    Vulis was not "removed" in any way, shape, or form from "the net", all
Gilmore did was "Turn his back" on Vulis, saying in effect "Your bullshit
isn't wanted here". 

    He didn't tell Vulis to keep his opnion to himself, no one on this list 
did. He, and others here were asking Vulis to stop his repeated personel 
attacks on other list members, some were asking him to stop his vitrolic 
rants on racial and ethnic groups as well, which were _way_ off topic.  

> >        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.

> Value to whom and for what? If the editorial control produces one
> small element of the set of all ideologies, then this is only of value
> to the people who support this ideology. Given that the set of 

     You know, from your position I'd say you have a very clear view of 
your colon. 

     "Editorial Control" means that someone decides who get's published and
who doesn't. From your opposition to it, I guess you think that a magazine
dedicated to poetry should print all poems submitted, or as many, selected
in some sort of non-judgemental order, as they can fit. Or that a magazine
should print any writings submitted to it. 

     I run 4 mailing lists, one is personal, one is in the process of coming
online, and 2 are up and running. One of these has a rule: No Politics allowed.
I guess I am a pathetic little censorous worm huh? Nope. That rule was put 
there for a very good reason, and I am that reason. I love to talk politics,
but that is the WRONG FORUM for it. 

    Just like this is the wrong forum for Vulis to spew his shit. 

> people who support an issue is smaller than the set of people
> who support and oppose an issue, would the value not increase
> by allowing both sides of an issue equal speaking time? 

    Yes, and the cypherpunks list DOES THAT. Vulis wasn't kicked off for 
opposing Crypto, or the spread of Crypto, he was kicked off for littering,
and for refusing to stop littering. Actually he was kicked off for daring 
Gilmore to make him stop littering.  

> >        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."
> 
> It is sad to note that this is the leader of one of America's
> forerunning organizations of freedom who says these words. For all
> *his* ideology of free speech, this statement reveals the hypocrasy he
> lives with for all to see. The true litmus test of free speech is to
> encounter speech that you *want* to censor.

     Not really, he was simply refusing to let Vulis share his (Gilmore's)
podium. 

> Mr. Gilmore, and other like minded parties, might want to consider
> what would happen if one parent company owned *all* communications
> media. Would they they be so supportive of the ideology of ownership
> and communciation they espouse?

     How would this happen? Setting up a press is fairly easy, at least 
a small hand operated press. Start your own magazine, start your own
mailing list. 

     That is what freedom is, the ability to _do it yourself_ not the 
requirement that others do it for you, or allow you to use what they 
have already built. 

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

On Fri, 15 Nov 1996, snow wrote:

> Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 00:19:46 -0600 (CST)
> From: snow <snow@smoke.suba.com>
> Reply-To: freedom-knights@jetcafe.org
> To: Dave Hayes <dave@kachina.jetcafe.org>
> Cc: freedom-knights@jetcafe.org, declan@well.com, cypherpunks@toad.com
> Subject: Re: [REBUTTAL] Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News
> 
> > [This is a rebuttal to a misguided news article.]
> > > Cypher-Censored
> > > By Declan McCullagh (declan@well.com)
> > Thank you for leaving your email address. It makes this easier.
> > You people (read: the unaware and hypnotized masses, which includes
> > reporters who's desire for attention and political safety holds them
> > in line with the consensual illusion) keep missing the real issue, and
> > substituting issues which only hold themselves in place.
> 
>      So you are explaining your problems in advance. Good, it tells 
> thoughtful readers to take you with a grain of salt.  
> 
> > [Those of you who know, please excuse the mediaistic terms used in
> > this rebuttal. One must use the symbols one is given to communicate
> > at the level of understanding of those who use them.]
> 
>     Ok, I will try to keep from using too long words so you can understand
> me. 
> 
> > In person-to-person interaction, one's only real defense against what
> > one decides to call "unwanted" is to remove oneself from the arena of
> > interaction. It may not be possible to ignore or run away from certain
> > sources of input. 
> 
>      You forget "shutting down" the source of input. Turning off the 
> radio, TV etc, or turning off the person speaking. 
> 

It ain't the person, but the language that Gilmore tried to censor.

> > Logically, we must conclude that those who frequently and repeatedly
> > cry for the censorship or removal of any source of input from
> > cyberspace are either:
> > 
> > 	-quite clueless about the tools at their disposal
> > 	-ideologically or personally opposed to the source of input
> > or	-in need of large amounts of attention from others
> 
>     No problems with that. 
> 
> > >    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.
> > 
> > Notice how, once the opposition is admitted to, the rationalization
> > begins. Suddenly this is not a matter of censorship, but of ownership.
> > Just as suddenly, the classic anti-free-speech arguments of "if you
> > don't like it, start yer own" begin to surface. (Anyone ever notice
> > how this resembles the "love it or leave it" mentality of certain
> > American patriotic organizations?)
> 
>      It still isn't censorship. Censorship, at least in my dictionary, 
> refers to censor, which uses the word "Official" several times. Mr. 
> Gilmore is not an "Official" in a government sense, he maybe in the EFF
> sense, but this is not an "Official" EFF organ, so that doesn't count. 
> 
>      He is the OWNER of this list, and the machine it runs on. If he chooses
> (which he didn't) to keep someone from using the list, it is his right.
> 

No it ain't; not after the list gets so big.  Public newsgroups
lose all rights of censorship by the owners, and that is law.

> > What would ideological opposition be without the attempt at analogy? 
> > Here we witness another example:
> > 
> > >        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.
> > 
> > Notice that the net is compared to a home or private club. Actually
> 
>      WRONG. the "net' wasn't compared to either a home or a private club,
> THIS LIST WAS. No one has the right to kick anyone off public streets, the
> police _do_, but I seriously doubt that they could arrest you for refusing.
> Gilmore didn't "Ban" Vulis from "The Net" (in fact he didn't even ban him 
> from the list, he just removed him from the distribution list), he didn't
> even try.
> 
>      He also didn't prevent Vulis from posting, tho' he could have. 
> 
> > the net is neither, however that would not serve the purposes of this
> > analogy, so this fact is convienently forgotton. 
> > The net is a wonderful place. Any ideology, no matter who disagrees or
> > agrees with it, can be expressed and discussed here...assuming those
> > who oppose this ideology do not have their way with the source of
> > expression. There is a more refined and deeper truth to be found
> > in the very existence of the set of all human ideologies, which is
> > just beginning to show itself to some netizens. Unfortunately, this
> > truth can be ruined when people equate some notion of value to 
> > sources which ignore all but a tiny subset of the set of all ideologies:
> 
>      Again I repeat myself:
> 
>     Vulis was not "removed" in any way, shape, or form from "the net", all
> Gilmore did was "Turn his back" on Vulis, saying in effect "Your bullshit
> isn't wanted here". 
> 
>     He didn't tell Vulis to keep his opnion to himself, no one on this list 
> did. He, and others here were asking Vulis to stop his repeated personel 
> attacks on other list members, some were asking him to stop his vitrolic 
> rants on racial and ethnic groups as well, which were _way_ off topic.  
> 

Now THAT is what makes John Gilmore an ASSHOLE!
"personel(sic) attacks on other list members" and "vitriolic rants on
racial and ethnic groups" are normal things for the InterNet, and they
should NEVER be suppressed. I reserve the right to call you a nigger
or a kike any time that I want to, asshole, and you has better get
used to it. What the fuck nationality is Gilmore anyway?  Is he a
wild-jew or crazy irishman or what?  

> > >        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.
> 
> > Value to whom and for what? If the editorial control produces one
> > small element of the set of all ideologies, then this is only of value
> > to the people who support this ideology. Given that the set of 
> 
>      You know, from your position I'd say you have a very clear view of 
> your colon. 
> 
>      "Editorial Control" means that someone decides who get's published and
> who doesn't. From your opposition to it, I guess you think that a magazine
> dedicated to poetry should print all poems submitted, or as many, selected
> in some sort of non-judgemental order, as they can fit. Or that a magazine
> should print any writings submitted to it. 
> 
>      I run 4 mailing lists, one is personal, one is in the process of coming
> online, and 2 are up and running. One of these has a rule: No Politics allowed.
> I guess I am a pathetic little censorous worm huh? Nope. That rule was put 
> there for a very good reason, and I am that reason. I love to talk politics,
> but that is the WRONG FORUM for it. 
> 
>     Just like this is the wrong forum for Vulis to spew his shit. 
> 

No it ain't, asshole.

> > people who support an issue is smaller than the set of people
> > who support and oppose an issue, would the value not increase
> > by allowing both sides of an issue equal speaking time? 
> 
>     Yes, and the cypherpunks list DOES THAT. Vulis wasn't kicked off for 
> opposing Crypto, or the spread of Crypto, he was kicked off for littering,
> and for refusing to stop littering. Actually he was kicked off for daring 
> Gilmore to make him stop littering.  
> 

Get used to the shit, asshole.

> > >        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."
> > 
> > It is sad to note that this is the leader of one of America's
> > forerunning organizations of freedom who says these words. For all
> > *his* ideology of free speech, this statement reveals the hypocrasy he
> > lives with for all to see. The true litmus test of free speech is to
> > encounter speech that you *want* to censor.
> 
>      Not really, he was simply refusing to let Vulis share his (Gilmore's)
> podium. 
> 

No, he was just trying to control Dr. Vulis's language, and that
sucks.  John Gilmore must be added to the net.scum web-page.

> > Mr. Gilmore, and other like minded parties, might want to consider
> > what would happen if one parent company owned *all* communications
> > media. Would they they be so supportive of the ideology of ownership
> > and communciation they espouse?
> 
>      How would this happen? Setting up a press is fairly easy, at least 
> a small hand operated press. Start your own magazine, start your own
> mailing list. 
> 

Right, but don't ever preclude me calling you a nigger or a kike,
or a chink or a spic or a wap, etc., motherfucker.

>      That is what freedom is, the ability to _do it yourself_ not the 
> requirement that others do it for you, or allow you to use what they 
> have already built. 
> 
> Petro, Christopher C.
> petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff>
> snow@smoke.suba.com
> 

This whole thing boils down to John Gilmore not liking
"rants" or "personal attacks."  What does that chicken-shit
punk hide behind in real life?  When his terminal is not
protecting him?  John Gilmore is connected with the corrupt
cabal boys anyway, so he should be dismissed as anybody having
any credibility any more.

"Once you pull the first plug, you are forever more a whore,"
as the greeks would say.

-aga

aga wrote:
> 
> No it ain't; not after the list gets so big.  Public newsgroups
> lose all rights of censorship by the owners, and that is law.

Guffaw, guffaw.

(So what if John decided simply to pull the plug on toad in order to
plug in a new hot tub?)

______c_________________________________________________________________
Mike M Nally * IBM % Tivoli * Austin TX  * How quickly we forget that
mailto:m5@tivoli.com mailto:m101@io.com  * "deer processing" and "data
http://www.io.com/~m101/                 * processing" are different!

On Fri, 15 Nov 1996, Mike McNally wrote:

> Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 09:03:48 -0600
> From: Mike McNally <m5@tivoli.com>
> Reply-To: freedom-knights@jetcafe.org
> To: aga <aga@dhp.com>
> Cc: freedom-knights@jetcafe.org, Dave Hayes <dave@kachina.jetcafe.org>,
>     declan@well.com, InterNet Freedom Council <ifc@pgh.org>,
>     cypherpunks@toad.com
> Subject: Re: THAT is what makes John Gilmore an ASSHOLE!
> 
> aga wrote:
> > 
> > No it ain't; not after the list gets so big.  Public newsgroups
> > lose all rights of censorship by the owners, and that is law.
> 
> Guffaw, guffaw.
> 
PUKE , PUKE !!!  You are a stupid bastard to laugh.

> (So what if John decided simply to pull the plug on toad in order to
> plug in a new hot tub?)
> 

So what the fuck?  That matters not.  The point is that the 
cypherpunks is an "all or nothing" proposition.  There is no
"in between" allowed any more.  After a certain level, EVERYTHING
reaches the "public doamin," and that is the *common-law of
cyberspace.*

Like, why is the fatso John Gilmore out here talking about this?
Steve Boursy says all of this should go to UseNet, so it goes.

> ______c_________________________________________________________________
> Mike M Nally * IBM % Tivoli * Austin TX  * How quickly we forget that
> mailto:m5@tivoli.com mailto:m101@io.com  * "deer processing" and "data
> http://www.io.com/~m101/                 * processing" are different!
> 

We want John Gilmore to respond to this censorous matter on the net.

-aga

aga <aga@dhp.com> writes:

> Subject: ``Fat Cocksucker John Gilmore-ASSHOLE!''
 . . . [[ drivel removed ]] . . .
>Steve Boursy says all of this should go to UseNet, so it goes.
 . . . [[ drivel removed ]] . . .

Since the previous Subject: in this chain was different, I presume that
aga installed the one quoted above.

Normally I just killfile these sorts of things without reading, but that
subject line caught my interest.  Clearly the author is using all three
as insult.

Let's thing about this for a second.  The author makes value judgements
based on body weight and sexual orientation.  What does this tell us about
the authors reasoning ability?

Congratulations, aja, you've developed a firm reputation based on your
public actions.

plonk
-- 
  ``I tell you, we are here on earth to fart around, and don't let anybody
tell you any different.''
	Kurt Vonnegut, quoted in Harpers (11-95)

scs@lokkur.dexter.mi.us (Steve Simmons) writes:

> Let's thing about this for a second.  The author makes value judgements
> based on body weight and sexual orientation.  What does this tell us about
> the authors reasoning ability?

Well - I don't care about John Gilmore's sexual orientation (hint: it ain't
straight :-), but I don't think he's fat. In fact, last time I saw him, I
noticed that he's gotten very thin, and wondered if he's sick or something.

---

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

Mike McNally wrote:
> 
> aga wrote:
> >
> > No it ain't; not after the list gets so big.  Public newsgroups
> > lose all rights of censorship by the owners, and that is law.
> 
> Guffaw, guffaw.
> 
> (So what if John decided simply to pull the plug on toad in order to
> plug in a new hot tub?)

Cool. I've always wanted a hot tub.

-rich

Mike McNally wrote:
> aga wrote:
> > No it ain't; not after the list gets so big.  Public newsgroups
> > lose all rights of censorship by the owners, and that is law.

> Guffaw, guffaw.
> (So what if John decided simply to pull the plug on toad in order to
> plug in a new hot tub?)

Well, what if he did?  Are you sure that would make aga look like a fool,
or would it make you look like a fool, since it would tend to confirm
what people like aga have been saying?

Dale Thorn wrote:
> 
> Mike McNally wrote:
> 
> > (So what if John decided simply to pull the plug on toad in order to
> > plug in a new hot tub?)
> 
> Well, what if he did?  Are you sure that would make aga look like a 
> fool,

No, and it's not clear to me why you think my question had anything to
do with my wanting "aga" to look like a fool.  That was not my intent.
I simply question the claim by "aga" that somehow Mr. Gilmore is 
obligated to provide his services and capital to support the "public
property" that the cypherpunks list has allegedly become, as opposed
to treating it like the ephemeral by-product of software running on a
computer he owns.


> or would it make you look like a fool, since it would tend to confirm
> what people like aga have been saying?

I presume that you and aga already think I'm a fool, or worse, but
I don't trouble myself with understanding the fancies of inscrutable 
intellects.

______c_________________________________________________________________
Mike M Nally * IBM % Tivoli * Austin TX  * How quickly we forget that
mailto:m5@tivoli.com mailto:m101@io.com  * "deer processing" and "data
http://www.io.com/~m101/                 * processing" are different!

Mike McNally <m5@tivoli.com> writes:

> Dale Thorn wrote:
> >
> > Mike McNally wrote:
> >
> > > (So what if John decided simply to pull the plug on toad in order to
> > > plug in a new hot tub?)
> >
> > Well, what if he did?  Are you sure that would make aga look like a
> > fool,
>
> No, and it's not clear to me why you think my question had anything to
> do with my wanting "aga" to look like a fool.  That was not my intent.
> I simply question the claim by "aga" that somehow Mr. Gilmore is
> obligated to provide his services and capital to support the "public
> property" that the cypherpunks list has allegedly become, as opposed
> to treating it like the ephemeral by-product of software running on a
> computer he owns.

You're still trying to cover up John Gilmore's dishonorable censorship,
which he described as "act of leadership". Hitler-like leadership indeed!

You may recall that when I first reported that I've apparently been forcibly
kicked off this mailing list, Timmy May posted a denial. Now Timmy May doesn't
want journalists to write about this incident, because it exposes John Gilmore
and a hypocrite.

Of course John Gilmore has the right to censor his private mailing list
- why are you denying that he did?

> > or would it make you look like a fool, since it would tend to confirm
> > what people like aga have been saying?
>
> I presume that you and aga already think I'm a fool, or worse, but
> I don't trouble myself with understanding the fancies of inscrutable
> intellects.

Count me in: I too think that Mike's a fool and an EFF/Cabal stooge.

---

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

Mike McNally wrote:
> Dale Thorn wrote:
> > Mike McNally wrote:
> > > (So what if John decided simply to pull the plug on toad in order to
> > > plug in a new hot tub?)

> > Well, what if he did?  Are you sure that would make aga look like a
> > fool, or would it make you look like a fool, since it would tend to
> > confirm what people like aga have been saying?

> No, and it's not clear to me why you think my question had anything to
> do with my wanting "aga" to look like a fool.  That was not my intent.

You mean you really respected what "aga" was saying?

> I simply question the claim by "aga" that somehow Mr. Gilmore is
> obligated to provide his services and capital to support the "public
> property" that the cypherpunks list has allegedly become, as opposed
> to treating it like the ephemeral by-product of software running on a
> computer he owns.

Neither "aga", nor myself, nor anyone else I know has suggested what you
claim, anymore than we would obligate ourselves to do it. This is merely
a classic denial technique you and others are using.

The fact is, the list does run, and you'd have a hard time convincing me
or anyone else that (according to your claim) John would somehow be spending
*more* capital and doing *more* support if he hadn't cut the "Doctor" off
of the list.

What myself and others would like to see (and we're willing to argue for
such a thing as much as is humanly possible) is a non-hypocritical list,
where a person is not banned for the content of their speech as Vulis was.

People who agree with you drone on ad nauseam about Vulis' "actions",
another denial technique IMO. What Vulis *did* was speech, not "actions".

Frankly, I would much rather read his postings than the anti-speech drivel
that's been posted so much here lately.

I'm guessing John must be thinking one of a couple things:

1. Like a home property in Beverly Hills, where all the lawns are neatly
   trimmed, and everyone behaves so properly, John looks at "his" list one
   day and freaks out, saying to himself something like "gadzooks, Vulis
   is trashing my list, as though he moved in next door and lowered the
   value of "my property".

   And don't get me wrong, I understand the feeling, it's just that when
   you've decided you have a "right" to control something like cypherpunks,
   all you're really going to accomplish is to lessen your own reputation,
   because you can't control cypherpunks like you can property in B.Hills.

   If you like the Beverly Hills analogy, try to come up with a scenario
   where (as in Beverly Hills) you can get the cooperation and approval of
   85% - 95% of the residents (subscribers) to boot out the undesirables.

2. John may have become concerned about his possible liability for some
   of the postings (accusations of child molesting, etc.), and panicked
   and did the knee-jerk damage control he thought best.

   Now, under ordinary circumstances, a list "owner" or operator may not
   be responsible for any of the traffic content, as long as it can be
   demonstrated that they "weren't aware" of any libelous content. In the
   case of cypherpunks, though, Gilmore could scarcely deny knowing about
   some of this stuff.  **This is mere conjecture on my part**.

snow wrote:
> > [This is a rebuttal to a misguided news article.]
> > > Cypher-Censored
> > > By Declan McCullagh (declan@well.com)

[snip, snip]

> > Notice how, once the opposition is admitted to, the rationalization
> > begins. Suddenly this is not a matter of censorship, but of ownership.
> > Just as suddenly, the classic anti-free-speech arguments of "if you
> > don't like it, start yer own" begin to surface. (Anyone ever notice
> > how this resembles the "love it or leave it" mentality of certain
> > American patriotic organizations?)

> It still isn't censorship. Censorship, at least in my dictionary,
> refers to censor, which uses the word "Official" several times. Mr.
> Gilmore is not an "Official" in a government sense, he maybe in the EFF
> sense, but this is not an "Official" EFF organ, so that doesn't count.

We *are* talking about the cypherpunks list, yes?  Then, in terms of the
list, John Gilmore *is* the official, hence a censor, plying his skills.

Why all the denial and repeated (redundant) blathering about John's
*right* to something he allegedly owns?  Simple.  The folks who put this
stuff out want desperately to believe that this list they spend so much
time on is "really OK", and not a censored medium.  Denial is the key.

Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net> writes:
>
> > It still isn't censorship. Censorship, at least in my dictionary,
> > refers to censor, which uses the word "Official" several times. Mr.
> > Gilmore is not an "Official" in a government sense, he maybe in the EFF
> > sense, but this is not an "Official" EFF organ, so that doesn't count.
>
> We *are* talking about the cypherpunks list, yes?  Then, in terms of the
> list, John Gilmore *is* the official, hence a censor, plying his skills.

I suspect that some of the people saying this have a serious drug/alcohol
problem and are very adept at denying tthat they have one. Denial is a
transferrable skill.

> Why all the denial and repeated (redundant) blathering about John's
> *right* to something he allegedly owns?  Simple.  The folks who put this
> stuff out want desperately to believe that this list they spend so much
> time on is "really OK", and not a censored medium.  Denial is the key.

Kind of reminds you of "1984", doesn't it? War is peace. Love is hate. Timmy
May (fart) is a crypto expert. John Gilmore is neither official nor a censor.

---

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

I am amused. I gave Dave Hayes about an 8.5 out of 10 on the scale of
meaningless political rants.

I'll address some of his points.

* "Political safety?" I stand by my record as a writer. Check out
http://www.eff.org/pub/Publications/Declan_McCullagh/ for some of my
recent articles. Political safety? Hardly.

* Dave says "Notice that the net is compared to a home or private club." 
Wrong. I never compared the Net to such. However, a mailing list run on a
computer in someone's home with his own cash is very similar to a private
club.  There are private speech restrictions on the Net. Gated communities
exist.  Try to join the "lawprofs" mailing list. You can't; you're not
(and quite obviously anything but) a law professor. Censorship? Not quite. 

* Contrary to what you seem to be asserting, Gilmore hasn't blocked Vulis
from posting. 

* Dave warns us to consider "what would happen if one parent company owned
*all* communications media." Then we have problems. I've written about
this in an Internet Underground magazine column. However, this is not the
case now. Or are you arguing the government should get involved and force
Gilmore to allow Vulis on his list?

By the way, if you haven't figured it out yet, Mr. "Freedom Knight of
Usenet,"  a private mailing list is NOT Usenet. Get a clue. 

-Declan






On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Dave Hayes wrote:

> [This is a rebuttal to a misguided news article.]
> 
> > Cypher-Censored
> > By Declan McCullagh (declan@well.com)
> 
> Thank you for leaving your email address. It makes this easier.
> 
> You people (read: the unaware and hypnotized masses, which includes
> reporters who's desire for attention and political safety holds them
> in line with the consensual illusion) keep missing the real issue, and
> substituting issues which only hold themselves in place.
> 
> [Those of you who know, please excuse the mediaistic terms used in
> this rebuttal. One must use the symbols one is given to communicate
> at the level of understanding of those who use them.]
> 
> >        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."
> 
> "Cyberspace" is interacted with using tools under the control of the
> interactor. 
> 
> In person-to-person interaction, one's only real defense against what
> one decides to call "unwanted" is to remove oneself from the arena of
> interaction. It may not be possible to ignore or run away from certain
> sources of input. 
> 
> In cyberspace, however, it is not only possible but necessary and even
> desirable. Cyberspace allows one to interact with many more people
> then can fit in any given physical space. One simply -cannot- receive
> input from 2000 people and not employ some sort of filtering
> mechanism. Indeed, cyberspace has many buttons and switches (and even
> programmatic filters) which allow one to -completely- control whom one
> interacts with.
> 
> Logically, we must conclude that those who frequently and repeatedly
> cry for the censorship or removal of any source of input from
> cyberspace are either:
> 
> 	-quite clueless about the tools at their disposal
> 	-ideologically or personally opposed to the source of input
> or	-in need of large amounts of attention from others
> 
> Cluelessness can be overcome by appropriate teaching and interest in
> learning (the latter issue we can safely assume users of popular but
> ineffectual windowing OSes are not able to overcome). Such
> cluelessness, however, is not and should never be a reason for 
> censorship.
> 
> A need for attention can be overcome by refraining from the denial
> that the need exists, followed by careful observation of that need. 
> More can be said on this, but this is not the forum. Such a need
> is not and should never be a reason for censorship. 
> 
> Idelological opposition is another matter entirely. To understand this
> better, we'll need to observe this in action. Here is an example:
> 
> >        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. 
> 
> "Nasty" is, of course, by this reporter's standard of "nasty". Granted
> this standard may in fact be shared by Mr. Gilmore, however a shared
> standard is not necessarily an appropriate or correct standard. 
> 
> >    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.
> 
> Notice how, once the opposition is admitted to, the rationalization
> begins. Suddenly this is not a matter of censorship, but of ownership.
> Just as suddenly, the classic anti-free-speech arguments of "if you
> don't like it, start yer own" begin to surface. (Anyone ever notice
> how this resembles the "love it or leave it" mentality of certain
> American patriotic organizations?)
> 
> What would ideological opposition be without the attempt at analogy? 
> Here we witness another example:
> 
> >        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.
> 
> Notice that the net is compared to a home or private club. Actually
> the net is neither, however that would not serve the purposes of this
> analogy, so this fact is convienently forgotton. 
> 
> The net is a wonderful place. Any ideology, no matter who disagrees or
> agrees with it, can be expressed and discussed here...assuming those
> who oppose this ideology do not have their way with the source of
> expression. There is a more refined and deeper truth to be found
> in the very existence of the set of all human ideologies, which is
> just beginning to show itself to some netizens. Unfortunately, this
> truth can be ruined when people equate some notion of value to 
> sources which ignore all but a tiny subset of the set of all ideologies:
> 
> >        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.
> 
> Value to whom and for what? If the editorial control produces one
> small element of the set of all ideologies, then this is only of value
> to the people who support this ideology. Given that the set of 
> people who support an issue is smaller than the set of people
> who support and oppose an issue, would the value not increase
> by allowing both sides of an issue equal speaking time? 
> 
> >        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."
> 
> It is sad to note that this is the leader of one of America's
> forerunning organizations of freedom who says these words. For all
> *his* ideology of free speech, this statement reveals the hypocrasy he
> lives with for all to see. The true litmus test of free speech is to
> encounter speech that you *want* to censor.
> 
> Mr. Gilmore, and other like minded parties, might want to consider
> what would happen if one parent company owned *all* communications
> media. Would they they be so supportive of the ideology of ownership
> and communciation they espouse?
> ------
> Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org 
> Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet
> 
> Truth (n.) - the most deadly weapon ever discovered by humanity. Capable 
> of destroying entire perceptual sets, cultures, and realities. Outlawed 
> by all governments everywhere. Possession is normally punishable by death.
> 
>

On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Declan McCullagh wrote:

> Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 13:12:50 -0800 (PST)
> From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
> Reply-To: freedom-knights@jetcafe.org
> To: Dave Hayes <dave@kachina.jetcafe.org>
> Cc: freedom-knights@jetcafe.org, cypherpunks@toad.com
> Subject: Re: [REBUTTAL] Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News 
> 
> I am amused. I gave Dave Hayes about an 8.5 out of 10 on the scale of
> meaningless political rants.
> 

Jealousy rears it's ugly head.  You just wish you had the credibility
that Dave Hayes has.

> I'll address some of his points.
> 

Do it within his text as you are supposed to.

> * "Political safety?" I stand by my record as a writer. Check out
> http://www.eff.org/pub/Publications/Declan_McCullagh/ for some of my
> recent articles. Political safety? Hardly.
> 

This Declan_McCullagh is a long-time cabal.member, so his critique
of a Freedom-Knight like Dave Hayes is to be given short shrift.

> * Dave says "Notice that the net is compared to a home or private club." 
> Wrong. I never compared the Net to such. However, a mailing list run on a
> computer in someone's home with his own cash is very similar to a private
> club.  There are private speech restrictions on the Net. Gated communities
> exist.  Try to join the "lawprofs" mailing list. You can't; you're not
> (and quite obviously anything but) a law professor. Censorship? Not quite. 
> 

None of that analogy is applicable to the cyberpunks list.
When a list gets as big as that, it it no longer to be considered
a "mailing-list" but it is a _public_ forum.  The whole problem
here is the abuse of power by both the EFF and John Gilmore.

> * Contrary to what you seem to be asserting, Gilmore hasn't blocked Vulis
> from posting. 
> 
> * Dave warns us to consider "what would happen if one parent company owned
> *all* communications media." Then we have problems. I've written about
> this in an Internet Underground magazine column. However, this is not the
> case now. Or are you arguing the government should get involved and force
> Gilmore to allow Vulis on his list?
> 

No, he is saying that people can use an e-mail filter and not listen
to Vulis if they want to.  It was a very simple thing; are you too
uneducated to know how to use an e-mail filter?

> By the way, if you haven't figured it out yet, Mr. "Freedom Knight of
> Usenet,"  a private mailing list is NOT Usenet. Get a clue. 
> 

Wrong!  The cyberpunks mailing list is PUBLIC property and should
NOT be controlled by John Gilmore!  This just goes to show the real
facist censorship motives that the EFF has behind it.

Time to kill the EFF, and let it rot in hell.  They are disgrace
to the entire InterNet community.  I run 6 different mailing lists,
and have NEVER puled the plug on anyone, even when they criticize me.

The first time is the time when you lose all credibility, and there
is never any forgiveness for a plug-puller.


> -Declan
> 

-aga.admin
InterNet Freedom Council
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Dave Hayes wrote:
> 
> > [This is a rebuttal to a misguided news article.]
> > 
> > > Cypher-Censored
> > > By Declan McCullagh (declan@well.com)
> > 
> > Thank you for leaving your email address. It makes this easier.
> > 
> > You people (read: the unaware and hypnotized masses, which includes
> > reporters who's desire for attention and political safety holds them
> > in line with the consensual illusion) keep missing the real issue, and
> > substituting issues which only hold themselves in place.
> > 
> > [Those of you who know, please excuse the mediaistic terms used in
> > this rebuttal. One must use the symbols one is given to communicate
> > at the level of understanding of those who use them.]
> > 
> > >        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."
> > 
> > "Cyberspace" is interacted with using tools under the control of the
> > interactor. 
> > 

yes, and all you need is a simple mail filter.

> > In person-to-person interaction, one's only real defense against what
> > one decides to call "unwanted" is to remove oneself from the arena of
> > interaction. It may not be possible to ignore or run away from certain
> > sources of input. 
> > 
> > In cyberspace, however, it is not only possible but necessary and even
> > desirable. Cyberspace allows one to interact with many more people
> > then can fit in any given physical space. One simply -cannot- receive
> > input from 2000 people and not employ some sort of filtering
> > mechanism. Indeed, cyberspace has many buttons and switches (and even
> > programmatic filters) which allow one to -completely- control whom one
> > interacts with.
> > 
> > Logically, we must conclude that those who frequently and repeatedly
> > cry for the censorship or removal of any source of input from
> > cyberspace are either:
> > 
> > 	-quite clueless about the tools at their disposal
> > 	-ideologically or personally opposed to the source of input
> > or	-in need of large amounts of attention from others
> > 
> > Cluelessness can be overcome by appropriate teaching and interest in
> > learning (the latter issue we can safely assume users of popular but
> > ineffectual windowing OSes are not able to overcome). Such
> > cluelessness, however, is not and should never be a reason for 
> > censorship.
> > 
> > A need for attention can be overcome by refraining from the denial
> > that the need exists, followed by careful observation of that need. 
> > More can be said on this, but this is not the forum. Such a need
> > is not and should never be a reason for censorship. 
> > 
> > Idelological opposition is another matter entirely. To understand this
> > better, we'll need to observe this in action. Here is an example:
> > 
> > >        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. 
> > 
> > "Nasty" is, of course, by this reporter's standard of "nasty". Granted
> > this standard may in fact be shared by Mr. Gilmore, however a shared
> > standard is not necessarily an appropriate or correct standard. 
> > 
> > >    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.
> > 
> > Notice how, once the opposition is admitted to, the rationalization
> > begins. Suddenly this is not a matter of censorship, but of ownership.
> > Just as suddenly, the classic anti-free-speech arguments of "if you
> > don't like it, start yer own" begin to surface. (Anyone ever notice
> > how this resembles the "love it or leave it" mentality of certain
> > American patriotic organizations?)
> > 
> > What would ideological opposition be without the attempt at analogy? 
> > Here we witness another example:
> > 
> > >        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.
> > 
> > Notice that the net is compared to a home or private club. Actually
> > the net is neither, however that would not serve the purposes of this
> > analogy, so this fact is convienently forgotton. 
> > 
> > The net is a wonderful place. Any ideology, no matter who disagrees or
> > agrees with it, can be expressed and discussed here...assuming those
> > who oppose this ideology do not have their way with the source of
> > expression. There is a more refined and deeper truth to be found
> > in the very existence of the set of all human ideologies, which is
> > just beginning to show itself to some netizens. Unfortunately, this
> > truth can be ruined when people equate some notion of value to 
> > sources which ignore all but a tiny subset of the set of all ideologies:
> > 
> > >        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.
> > 
> > Value to whom and for what? If the editorial control produces one
> > small element of the set of all ideologies, then this is only of value
> > to the people who support this ideology. Given that the set of 
> > people who support an issue is smaller than the set of people
> > who support and oppose an issue, would the value not increase
> > by allowing both sides of an issue equal speaking time? 
> > 
> > >        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."
> > 
> > It is sad to note that this is the leader of one of America's
> > forerunning organizations of freedom who says these words. For all
> > *his* ideology of free speech, this statement reveals the hypocrasy he
> > lives with for all to see. The true litmus test of free speech is to
> > encounter speech that you *want* to censor.
> > 
> > Mr. Gilmore, and other like minded parties, might want to consider
> > what would happen if one parent company owned *all* communications
> > media. Would they they be so supportive of the ideology of ownership
> > and communciation they espouse?

Indeed.  The EFF is a disgrace to the entire InterNet.
The EFF is definitely a censorship organization, and
it should never be trusted again.

> > ------
> > Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org 
> > Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet
> > 
> > Truth (n.) - the most deadly weapon ever discovered by humanity. Capable 
> > of destroying entire perceptual sets, cultures, and realities. Outlawed 
> > by all governments everywhere. Possession is normally punishable by death.
> > 
> > 
>

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

On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Dave Hayes wrote:

> Logically, we must conclude that those who frequently and repeatedly
> cry for the censorship or removal of any source of input from
> cyberspace are either:
> 
> 	-quite clueless about the tools at their disposal
> 	-ideologically or personally opposed to the source of input
> or	-in need of large amounts of attention from others

You are misinformed.  Vulis was _not_ prevented from posting to cpunks, thus
no source of input was removed.  He was simply removed from the distribution
list.  He can still read and post to the list.

> Idelological opposition is another matter entirely. To understand this
> better, we'll need to observe this in action. Here is an example:
> 
> >        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. 
> 
> "Nasty" is, of course, by this reporter's standard of "nasty". Granted
> this standard may in fact be shared by Mr. Gilmore, however a shared
> standard is not necessarily an appropriate or correct standard. 

The messages were, in addition to being "nasty", extremely off-topic.
"Off-topic" is much less subjective than "nasty".

> Notice how, once the opposition is admitted to, the rationalization
> begins. Suddenly this is not a matter of censorship, but of ownership.

That's because it is an issue of ownership and not of censorship for reasons
stated above.

> Just as suddenly, the classic anti-free-speech arguments of "if you
> don't like it, start yer own" begin to surface. (Anyone ever notice
> how this resembles the "love it or leave it" mentality of certain
> American patriotic organizations?)

Governments maintain a monopoly on land, so the "love it or leave it" mentality
is flawed.  Virtual space does not have the same limitations as physical
space.  Starting your own mailing list is relatively easy.

> Notice that the net is compared to a home or private club. Actually
> the net is neither, however that would not serve the purposes of this
> analogy, so this fact is convienently forgotton. 

Is the net analogous to a country?  If not, then why did you compare starting
a mailing list to moving to a different country?

> Value to whom and for what? If the editorial control produces one
> small element of the set of all ideologies, then this is only of value
> to the people who support this ideology. Given that the set of 
> people who support an issue is smaller than the set of people
> who support and oppose an issue, would the value not increase
> by allowing both sides of an issue equal speaking time? 

Even if this was an issue of preventing someone from posting, which it isn't,
this argument still doesn't hold up.  There is plenty of dispute about what
is on-topic on cypherpunks, but I doubt many people believe character
assassinations are very on-topic.  If someone wants to speak in favor of
Clipper or ITAR, then it would be wrong to censor this person.  However, if
a charter, whether formal or informal, is to even exist, then it should be
enforced.

> It is sad to note that this is the leader of one of America's
> forerunning organizations of freedom who says these words. For all
> *his* ideology of free speech, this statement reveals the hypocrasy he
> lives with for all to see. The true litmus test of free speech is to
> encounter speech that you *want* to censor.

The EFF protects against government censorship, not against "editorial
control", "censorship", or whatever else you want to call it.  I don't
see this as hypocritical at all.

> Mr. Gilmore, and other like minded parties, might want to consider
> what would happen if one parent company owned *all* communications
> media. Would they they be so supportive of the ideology of ownership
> and communciation they espouse?

And just how plausible do you think this is?  I believe it is next to
impossible, unless it is the result of government regulation.

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

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

iQEVAwUBMopa3SzIPc7jvyFpAQFzIggAr9nx5gd8J35wq5+UUUC9lHJD9hX7wcM+
DNRaZqRUlB/Dq4Xc0rbP7O4zSIob0QVbbQlZXylQcNwdCcb0wzMD2hkw8Xg31mHQ
s8jZwONGM8ljmg8aDSB1WuTsVnmrbcXGM/Jhmc+TPLjQxFQldONl6SGXIAQ58Vt8
DgunHoAZuR6AYWd64ssIFHSVzCR6bk4kL/QJ/0kGSr2x4FHJf62GhOrG/NguF3dd
85dXgUmoI2/f2B6SkfwbHPgZZhOGPgDt2rIPLo3S2JlhTYANSLhtA2souXQAz1bX
lfnEbxt4JNmy4zwT6m244VuuNtpFbF1OL1YAaZaU/WmUXTxeIohQYw==
=FbgX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Mark M. wrote:
> 
> The EFF protects against government censorship, not against "editorial
> control", "censorship", or whatever else you want to call it.  I don't
> see this as hypocritical at all.
> 

The EFF does not protect shit, and it is just a tangent takeoff
from the Greatfull Dead drugheads.  We would also be greatfull if the
EFF was dead, too.  

> > Mr. Gilmore, and other like minded parties, might want to consider
> > what would happen if one parent company owned *all* communications
> > media. Would they they be so supportive of the ideology of ownership
> > and communciation they espouse?
> 
> And just how plausible do you think this is?  I believe it is next to
> impossible, unless it is the result of government regulation.
> 

Yeah, and those EFF facists think they can be the government?

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

Why?  Are you a criminal?
What are you hiding behind your PGP?

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: 2.6.3
> Charset: noconv
> 
> iQEVAwUBMopa3SzIPc7jvyFpAQFzIggAr9nx5gd8J35wq5+UUUC9lHJD9hX7wcM+
> DNRaZqRUlB/Dq4Xc0rbP7O4zSIob0QVbbQlZXylQcNwdCcb0wzMD2hkw8Xg31mHQ
> s8jZwONGM8ljmg8aDSB1WuTsVnmrbcXGM/Jhmc+TPLjQxFQldONl6SGXIAQ58Vt8
> DgunHoAZuR6AYWd64ssIFHSVzCR6bk4kL/QJ/0kGSr2x4FHJf62GhOrG/NguF3dd
> 85dXgUmoI2/f2B6SkfwbHPgZZhOGPgDt2rIPLo3S2JlhTYANSLhtA2souXQAz1bX
> lfnEbxt4JNmy4zwT6m244VuuNtpFbF1OL1YAaZaU/WmUXTxeIohQYw==
> =FbgX
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>